John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about an issue of great importance to the Armenian community, the nomination of Richard Hoagland to be the next U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Armenia. I respect the office of the President and the powers that are granted to appoint individuals that are in support of the administration's agenda; however, there is justifiable concern about the recall of our Ambassador to a regionally important country and the subsequent nomination of his replacement. The reported reason for the recall of Ambassador Evans revolves around the failure of our Government to officially recognize the Armenian genocide. That is unacceptable. Once again, I want to go on record as being opposed to the continued denial of the Armenian genocide. The bigger issue is not that of an appointment of this or any official who recognizes his duties and will be diligent in carrying them out but of acknowledging the genocide as part of an appropriate foreign policy. I have long sought to bring recognition to the crimes perpetuated against the Armenian people as genocide. In fact, I have introduced S. Res. 320, which affirms the Armenian genocide. The resolution calls on the President to state that the slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire was genocide and to recall the proud history of U.S. intervention in opposition to the Armenian genocide. It is important that the U.S. once and for all reaffirms the incontestable facts of history and allows our representatives to speak out about the crimes perpetuated against the Armenian people from 1915 to 1923. It is my sincere hope that this legislation comes before the full Senate soon. As we fight to ensure freedom around the globe, we must ensure that our future reflects the lessons of the past. In this case the facts are incontestable. Armenians were subjected to deportation, expropriation, abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation. Yes, the Armenian people were victims of genocide. Genocide at any time, at any place, is wrong and needs to be confronted and remembered.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to highlight an agreement reached by my colleagues, Senator Mike Enzi and Senator Richard Burr, in regard to Federal funding formulas. Over the past year and a half the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, has been working on the reauthorization of the Older Americans Act. Part of this work included changes to the funding formula for the programs contained within the act. I was actively involved in this work with Chairman Enzi and Senator Burr, as I believe that the formula is unfair and inequitable to states with a growing elderly population. While we were able to make some changes to the funding formula for the Older Americans Act, it is far from adequate. The formula continues to provide high-growth states with less than their fair share of funding. Chairman Enzi has agreed to hold hearings during the 110th Congress to review federal funding formulas. Senator Burr and I agree that Federal money should follow people. Current Federal funding formulas often ignore this and penalize those living in fast-growing States. According to USA Today, the state of Nevada is projected to see a one hundred and fourteen percent increase in our population--the highest rate of growth in the country. Nevada welcomes our new-comers with open arms, as they have recognized the quality of life the state of Nevada has to offer. I am proud that so many Americans have chosen to call Nevada home. I was sent to Washington, DC, promising that I would do more to bring Nevadans hard earned dollars back to the State. Nevadans are happy to pay their fair share of taxes to the Federal Government, but also expect a fair share to return to the State. Despite my success in changing several funding formulas, Nevada continues to rank at the bottom of the list in terms of Federal dollars returning to the State. Much of this is because current Federal funding formulas contain provisions that require outdated population data, and others mandate the use of hold harmless provisions. Both of these provisions work against those who need the assistance these funds provide. These provisions punish those who have chosen to move to a different State particularly fast-growing States. I have worked to bring some equity and fairness to the title I education funding formula, which has brought an additional $43 million to the State of Nevada. I have also worked to bring some fairness to the Perkins Career and Technical Education program and other important programs, but much work remains to be done. I am anxious for these hearings to begin so we can truly shed some light on these formulas and the unfair provisions used to allocate Federal dollars. Federal money ought to follow those individuals it is designed to assist. It should not be held hostage to politics. It is my hope that these hearings will lay the groundwork for work on other federal funding formulas, particularly those used to allocate funding for education and health care programs. I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on this extraordinarily important issue in the very near future.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I join Senators Alexander, Bingaman, and others in talking about a topic that I personally have spent a great deal of time on over the past two years: how to improve the ability of the United States to compete in an increasingly global marketplace. We have held many hearings in the Commerce Committee and in the Commerce Subcommittee that I chair on technology, innovation, and competitiveness issues. I know that both the HELP Committee and the Energy Committee have also examined related issues of competitiveness and innovation within the scope of their jurisdiction. A major focus of these hearings has been to consider how we keep America on the cutting edge. We have learned some startling statistics. First of all, we find out that America will graduate somewhere around 60,000 to 70,000 engineers this year. China and India together will graduate a much larger number of engineers in that same time period. In the 21st century, we need to encourage more people to go into the technology fields, into science, math, and engineering. We need more students to pursue advanced degrees in these fields. We need to inspire more of our young people to go into these fields. One interesting fact that came out is that if our kids become disinterested in science and math in elementary school, the chances of them ever becoming interested in these fields later on in life are virtually nil. So we have to focus on inspiring our young kids to go into science, technology, engineering, and math from a very young age. We had a fascinating hearing with the Director of the Museum of Science in Boston--Dr. Ioannis Miaoulis--who put it very simply. He said: When we started our curriculum in the United States for elementary school, we started it back in the late 1800s. Engineering was not a big field back then, so it didn't get a lot of attention then and that has carried over into our current curriculum. Now when we teach about science, we learn a lot about nature. Those are good things to learn. As a matter of fact, I have kids in school now, and one of the things we all learn about is how a volcano functions. Dr. Miaoulis talked about this when he testified before my Subcommittee. We all build our model volcanos with our kids and see how a volcano works. Dr. Miaoulis posed this question. He said: Have you ever noticed how everybody in America learns how a volcano functions, but nobody really learns how a car functions? Then he asked this question: Where do you spend more time, in a car or in a volcano? As the story suggests, our children are not learning enough about engineering concepts in our schools, and as a result they are not becoming interested in those engineering concepts. The National Competitiveness Investment Act that I am happy to join with my colleagues in introducing today focuses on three primary areas of importance to maintaining and improving the innovation of the United States in the 21st century: research investment, increasing science and technology talent, and developing an innovation infrastructure. A tremendous amount of bipartisan cooperation has gone into the development of the National Competitiveness Investment Act, going back well over a year to when Senator Lieberman and I first started drafting legislation to address key concerns, identified in ``Innovate America,'' a report from the Council on Competitiveness. Subsequent reports such as the National Academies' ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' have raised similar concerns and have led several Senate committees to look at programs related to basic research, education, and other areas of competitiveness within their respective areas of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, Senators Alexander, Bingaman, and Domenici introduced what they called their PACE bills that addressed a lot of the problems that were identified in the National Academies, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm'' report. During the past several weeks we have undertaken a bipartisan effort to combine the work products of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Senate Energy Committee, and the Senate HELP Committee. This effort has included the involvement of the chairmen and ranking members, both Republicans and Democrats, from all of these committees, as well as several other Members who have been involved. This has been under the direction of the two leaders' offices. This is the most bipartisan effort on any bill probably in the last several years in the Senate. This was no easy task, especially when we need to be ever vigilant about growing deficits. We were forced to take a hard look at how to best address pressing needs related to science, technology, engineering, and math education, basic research and barriers that U.S. companies are facing as they compete in this global economy. I believe the legislation before us today is a good compromise, and it reflects a good mix of spending on key priorities like basic research and education, while being sensitive to avoiding the duplication among various federal agencies. This legislation will ensure these programs are being evaluated and are being responsive to key needs, while at the same time being fiscally responsible. Specifically, the National Competitiveness Investment Act would increase authorization for the National Science Foundation, or the NSF, from approximately $6 billion in fiscal year 2007 to more than $11 billion in 2011. We doubled the funding for the National Institutes of Health, the life sciences, and it is now time to do the same for basic research in the physical sciences. This is an investment in our country. I am a fiscal conservative. I am one of the most fiscally conservative Members of the Senate. But every dollar we spend on basic research is a dollar that will come back to us in spades in terms of stimulating economic activity and helping to keep the United States at the forefront of global innovation. By the way, those who are concerned about tax revenues coming in, the better our economy does, the more tax revenues come into the Federal Government. The bill also expands existing NSF graduate research fellowship and traineeship programs. It requires NSF to work with institutions of higher education to develop professional science master's degree programs and strengthens the NSF's technology talent program. It also helps to prioritize activities in NSF's research and related activities account to meet critical national needs in the physical or natural sciences--technology, engineering, mathematics; or to enhance competitiveness or innovation in the United States. And there is language to authorize the National Institutes of Standards and Technology from approximately $640 million next year to $940 million 4 years later. It would require the same agency to set aside no less than 8 percent of its annual funding for high-risk, high-reward innovation acceleration research. This is very important because this is different than what people do today. We need to invest in high-risk, high-reward basic research and setting that 8 percent as a minimum is very important. This bill also requires the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to identify the forms of risk that create barriers to innovation 1 year after enactment and 4 years after enactment. It establishes the Innovation Acceleration Research Program to direct Federal agencies funding research in science and technology to set a goal, once again, of dedicating approximately 8 percent of the research and development budget toward high-risk frontier research. It also authorizes increased funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science over the next 5 years. We all know how important it is for the Department of Energy to be involved in basic research. There are other provisions to assist States in establishing specialty schools in math and science to benefit high-need districts. The bill also strengthens the skills of thousands of math and science teachers by establishing training and educational programs at summer institutes hosted at the National Laboratories. The bill also establishes partnerships between the National Laboratories and local, high-need high schools to create centers of excellence in math and science education. Finally, the bill authorizes competitive grants to States to promote better alignment of elementary and secondary education with the knowledge and skills that are needed to succeed at institutions of higher education and in our marketplaces in the 21st century. This is a comprehensive piece of legislation to address the key recommendations in the two reports, ``Innovate America'' and ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' While I am sure there are many other well-intentioned ideas of other provisions to add to this bill, I would plead with my colleagues to not overload this bill. We have worked diligently together in a bipartisan fashion over the last 2 years to remain absolutely disciplined and to confine this effort to enacting the key provisions that relate to innovation and competitiveness. We have worked hard to keep the cost of this bill within a responsible budgetary framework. I believe we have a solid work product that will help the United States be competitive as we enter an increasingly difficult global marketplace where our students and our U.S. companies need to be prepared to meet an unprecedented global challenge. I am pleased that Senators Frist and Reid have agreed to address an issue of this tremendous importance to the United States on a bipartisan basis. I thank my colleagues from the Commerce Committee, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye; from the HELP Committee, Senator Enzi, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Alexander; and, from the Energy Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman and their staff for great bipartisan work to pull this bill together. I also would like to specifically recognize Senator Hutchison for her great work, and all of the staff--my staff and all of the Senators' staff--who have contributed a great deal of personal time and effort on many of the key provisions of this legislation. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the work of my colleague, Senator Lieberman, who started in this endeavor with me many months ago. As Senator Alexander said a few moments ago, we encourage all of our colleagues to join us in cosponsoring this important piece of legislation. Now is the time to act. We have a rare opportunity to put aside our party labels and to put our country first. In many other areas, we should be not Republican, not Democrat, not Independent--we should be Americans. This is such a bill. This piece of legislation is critical for the future competitiveness of our country. I urge all of our colleagues to join us in this bipartisan effort I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I am pleased to introduce the Securing Effective and Necessary Individual Outpatient Rehabilitation Services Act, the SENIORS Act, to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries who rely on medically necessary therapy services continue to have access to the services they need. The bill would allow exceptions to therapy caps for certain medically necessary services in 2007. An exceptions process for Medicare patients who exceed the therapy cap was authorized in legislation last year. A Medicare patient may now obtain an exception if the service is deemed medically necessary and then receive covered therapy services above the cap. The exceptions process expires at the end of this year, so Congress must extend it for the 2007 calendar year. I started the fight to eliminate the annual cap on outpatient rehabilitation services in its entirety when I was in the House of Representatives. I brought this fight to the Senate where I introduced legislation to completely repeal the annual Medicare cap on rehabilitation therapy services. I recognize that a complete repeal is not politically or financially viable at this time. However, an extension of the exceptions process should be possible. Action is needed to address the therapy caps this year. This is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. At its heart, this issue is a patient issue. Forty-four of my Senate colleagues have joined me in legislation to repeal the therapy caps once and for all. In addition, almost 260 of members of the United States House of Representatives and more than 40 groups representing patients and providers support legislation efforts to repeal the caps or extend the current exceptions process. And, in May of this year, 47 Senators signed a letter to Senate leadership urging an extension of the exceptions process authorized in the Deficit Reduction Act beyond its current expiration of January 1, 2007. Ensuring access to needed outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech language pathology services for Medicare beneficiaries in a fiscally responsible manner is essential. Denying access by an arbitrary cap will only shift costs as patients will delay rehabilitation, seek more costly interventions, or be admitted inpatient settings. As a member of th1e Senate Budget Committee, I realize the serious budgetary constraints that are upon Congress. I also understand that we need to prioritize spending. I believe that extension of the exceptions process beyond 2006 should be a priority. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that senior citizens continue to have access to high-quality rehabilitation services.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. I am pleased to introduce the Securing Effective and Necessary Individual Outpatient Rehabilitation Services Act, the SENIORS Act, to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries who rely on medically necessary therapy services continue to have access to the services they need. The bill would allow exceptions to therapy caps for certain medically necessary services in 2007. An exceptions process for Medicare patients who exceed the therapy cap was authorized in legislation last year. A Medicare patient may now obtain an exception if the service is deemed medically necessary and then receive covered therapy services above the cap. The exceptions process expires at the end of this year, so Congress must extend it for the 2007 calendar year. I started the fight to eliminate the annual cap on outpatient rehabilitation services in its entirety when I was in the House of Representatives. I brought this fight to the Senate where I introduced legislation to completely repeal the annual Medicare cap on rehabilitation therapy services. I recognize that a complete repeal is not politically or financially viable at this time. However, an extension of the exceptions process should be possible. Action is needed to address the therapy caps this year. This is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue. At its heart, this issue is a patient issue. Forty-four of my Senate colleagues have joined me in legislation to repeal the therapy caps once and for all. In addition, almost 260 of members of the United States House of Representatives and more than 40 groups representing patients and providers support legislation efforts to repeal the caps or extend the current exceptions process. And, in May of this year, 47 Senators signed a letter to Senate leadership urging an extension of the exceptions process authorized in the Deficit Reduction Act beyond its current expiration of January 1, 2007. Ensuring access to needed outpatient physical therapy, occupational therapy and speech language pathology services for Medicare beneficiaries in a fiscally responsible manner is essential. Denying access by an arbitrary cap will only shift costs as patients will delay rehabilitation, seek more costly interventions, or be admitted inpatient settings. As a member of th1e Senate Budget Committee, I realize the serious budgetary constraints that are upon Congress. I also understand that we need to prioritize spending. I believe that extension of the exceptions process beyond 2006 should be a priority. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that senior citizens continue to have access to high-quality rehabilitation services.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes on each side for morning business.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise this morning to talk about our status in this fight against Islamic extremism around the world. When the terrorists struck the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, America was forced to realize that we were at war. We did not ask for this war. This conflict was brought to us by individuals who believe that America is evil. This is an enemy that hates us because we are a free nation, and our citizens are free to pursue their dreams and chart their own destiny. The day the World Trade Center towers fell, our world--or at least our comprehension of it--changed forever. Our enemy stepped onto our soil, destroyed our buildings, killed more than 3,000 of our citizens, and made clear their intentions. They want nothing less than to cause our demise. The world has changed much since that horrific day. Unfortunately, the will to fight extremists who planned and executed September 11, and many other attacks around the globe, has wavered since then. The united resolve of many nations has softened dramatically. As Americans, we have no choice but to lead the way with an unwavering commitment to this fight. Remember, they asked for this fight. They, long ago, declared war on America and the free world and long before September 11 began attacking and killing our citizens. They challenged us many times over the years and received little more than empty rhetoric and a slap on the wrist for such atrocities as striking the USS Cole, the first World Trade Center bombings, destruction of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and the Marine barracks in Lebanon; and, of course, they attacked our Embassies in Africa. We were at war, but we didn't even know it. For too long we ignored the words of these terrorists. We attributed their declarations of hate as mere rantings of lunatics. Time has shown us that the words of these Islamic extremists must be taken seriously, and we must continue to act decisively to stop them from achieving their aims. In an effort to steal our collective resolve, it is important to remind ourselves just who the enemy really is in this global war against Islamic fascism. For too long America has seen our enemies through a prism that casts them in the mold of conventional powers, but the Islamic fascists are a different breed. They fight for no flag, nor do they adhere to any international agreement. They fight outside the box; whereas, our sense of what is right and wrong constrains us to adhere to recognized rules of engagement. We all know the self-professed leader of al-Qaida is Osama bin Laden. His call to arms for his disciples is: Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers amongst us. We know Iraq is central to the war on terror because Osama bin Laden said it is. He said: The most serious issue today for the whole world is this third world war that is raging in Iraq. Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's deputy, described Iraq as ``the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era.'' Remember the blind sheikh? He was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. From his prison cell, he has called on Muslims everywhere to ``tear them apart, ruin their economy, instigate against their corporations, destroy their embassies, attack their interests, sink their ships, and shoot down their airplanes; kill them on land, at sea, in the air; kill them wherever you find them.'' Those were their words, Mr. President. We are at war with an enemy that wants to see America wiped off the map. This is an enemy bent on destruction and Islamic domination--or at least their vision of Islam. Their goal is to establish a violent political utopia across the Middle East--which they call a caliphate--where all would be ruled according to their hateful ideology. Osama bin Laden has called the 9/11 attacks, in his words, ``a great step toward the unity of Muslims and establishing the righteous caliphate.'' There are reports that some of Osama bin Laden's supporters believe that he is the Mahdi, the 12th Imam. The Mahdi will lead believers in Islam to victory over the infidels, ushering in an era of peace and justice. Even Iran's President is on record as instructing America, in his words: If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down. Those are the Iranian President's own words. It is not farfetched to believe that with nuclear weapons in his possession, he would use them to usher in this cataclysmic confrontation that he seeks. We must take these threats seriously and act accordingly. Remember, the terrorists are traitors to their own faith trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself. The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military leaders, ordinary troops, and civilians, including women and children. They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa. These terrorists kill not merely to end lives but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way. We cannot be deceived by their pretenses to piety. We have seen their kind before. They are the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except power, they follow the path of fascism and Nazism and totalitarianism. They will follow that path all the way to where it ends: In history's unmarked graves of discarded lies. This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight for all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance, and freedom. The war we fight today is more than a military conflict; it is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. Make no mistake: this is an enemy we cannot appease; this is an enemy we must defeat. On September 11, 2001, and the days immediately following, this country stood united. We stood ready to protect all Americans. We must continue to show a united front against this enemy. We must understand that what we say has great consequences. If our enemy sees the country divided, it will also see an opportunity and a path to victory. During our Civil War, General Lee often read northern papers to gauge the mood of the population in the North. As he saw the political discourse and the division among northern leaders prior to Gettysburg, he believed that it would take only one more victory to win the war. Lucky for us, the victory never came, but we can learn from Lee's lesson. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, al-Qaida reads our newspapers and watches our television stations. They see the lack of resolve in some of our leaders and they seek to exploit it. This is the time to lead, a time to unite, and a time to defeat an enemy that wants to bring an end to freedom around the world. We must lay down our party labels as Republicans, Democrats, or Independents and become Americans. We must not tire. We must not falter. We cannot fail. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Child Custody Protection Act is an important piece of legislation. During the debate, we heard from people from around the country that this is an important piece of legislation, and they want to see it move forward. We had heard the last couple of years that neither side of the aisle would cooperate with the other side. During the child custody debate, we cooperated. There was an agreement between the leaders. We had a certain number of amendments. The whole tenor of the debate, on a very emotional issue, was cooperative. Even though we disagreed on the issue, there was cooperation. I worked with Senator Boxer on the amendment. We had several amendments. We ended up getting it down to basically a Boxer- Ensign amendment that strongly improved the bill. I asked her if she wanted a voice vote on the bill. She said no, she wanted a recorded vote to make sure it stayed in conference. I told her, that is great, we will have a recorded vote. Saying she wanted that recorded vote to stay in conference indicated to me that there would be cooperation to go to conference. We had a recorded vote. It is an amendment I feel strongly about and want to see it stay in the bill in conference. To now block, via a parliamentary move, an important piece of legislation simply because we are at the end of a session and the other side knows we do not have the time to go through all the procedural maneuverings is outrageous, especially because this Senate operates with some kind of collegiality. When you are cooperating, you should cooperate. There were accusations made that we should not bring up this legislation because we don't have the time and we should be talking about more important issues. What the other side is doing, by some Senators blocking this, is saying you should spend more time on this issue. If they were truly genuine in what they were saying, that we shouldn't spend too much time on this issue, then let's go to it. It is a simple unanimous consent agreement that doesn't take any more floor time. It is boom, it is done, we are done with this bill, and we can go to conference and work out the differences. We will strongly support the Senate side the way the bill came out of the Senate. There may be some small changes we have to make in conference, but the bottom line is we should move forward with this legislation. The instructions being put out by the other side are wrong. I hope the American people can get involved and let their Senators know they are unhappy about it. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, yesterday my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, and I introduced the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006. This bill is the product of bipartisan cooperation and it represents a fair compromise on a number of issues relating to the protection of White Pine County's natural resources. While not perfect, this measure strikes an appropriate balance between economic development, privatizing Federal lands, and designating wilderness areas. On whole, the White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 is a good piece of legislation and it should be passed. White Pine County, NV, with fewer than 10,000 residents, is in rural eastern Nevada. The county has seen more prosperous times. The closure of mines has been hard on the local economy. Additionally, the Federal Government manages a high percentage of land which makes it difficult to foster growth. The bill seeks modest changes to the land ownership pattern to allow White Pine County to grow and increase its tax base, and gives residents some modest tools they need to prosper. We have also provided the same tools to the Ely Shoshone Tribe. We accomplish these goals through land disposal, natural resource and wildlife conservation, tourism development, additional protection for the wondrous Great Basin National Park, recreation opportunities, Nevada State Parks expansions, wilderness designation, and a study to determine if off highway vehicles should have a designated route through the county. The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 is modeled on an innovative law that I coauthored as a member of the House of Representatives with former Senator Richard Bryan. That measure, the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, SNPLMA, is widely regarded as a huge success. Two successor laws I wrote with Senator Reid and Congressman Gibbons, the Clark County Protection of Lands and Natural Resources Act of 2002 and the Lincoln County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2004 followed SNPLMA. These county bills for Nevada can and should be replicated in every county in Nevada. Many other Western States with large public land holdings may benefit from our Nevada model. The premise is simple: not all land is suitable for public ownership, and other public lands are suitable for increased protection. We settle longstanding wilderness issues by designating permanent wilderness areas and release wilderness study areas to multiple use. Years of disagreements between developers, multiple use advocates, governments, environmentalists, conservationists, and other stakeholders are settled by these land bills. Bringing together people from diverse interests has actually proved to be a very healthy exercise in Nevada; it has fostered a spirit of cooperation that will benefit generations of Nevadans to come. The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 also proposes significant amendments to the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998. In some instances, we revise provisions in current law that need improvement. We add new expenditure categories for projects that will be beneficial to the citizens of Nevada and our environment. For example, an improvement we make to current law relates to local governments in Clark and Lincoln Counties that use parks and trails funds in the SNPLMA special account. The localities are having difficulty building approved parks and trails projects. Local governments have to front their own funds and seek reimbursement from the Bureau of Land Management to build these projects. In some cases, this means millions of dollars that have to be borrowed or taken from other programs. To help local governments speed the development of parks and trails, we propose to pay local governments up front, eliminating a cumbersome reimbursement process. We can still maintain the financial integrity of all expenditures. Additionally, we have significantly streamlined the affordable housing provisions in current law. Our revisions will make Federal land available at a discount for workforce housing and improve the lives of hard working families across the state of Nevada. For new expenditure categories, we have taken great care to propose using the SNPLMA special account for critical needs, and in particular, for projects and initiatives that have broad support from the environmental and conservation community. We propose a clean water project for Lake Mead in southern Nevada and hazardous fuels reduction programs for two of the most heavily visited and fire prone areas in Nevada: Lake Tahoe and the Spring Mountains. We seek to conserve Colorado River water through the buyback of turf from public entities. Eighty five percent of the special account is now used for environmental and recreational purposes. We do not seek to break from the purposes for which SNPLMA was established in 1998; doing so would be controversial and harm the prospects of the passage of this bill. The White Pine County Conservation, Recreation, and Development Act is the culmination of 2 years of hard work and spirited debate. Our staffs have worked together closely and have made visits to and held meetings in White Pine County on numerous occasions. We have received thousands of comments and useful suggestions from people across Nevada. This bill touches every corner of our beautiful State, and I am proud to have been part of this endeavor. I look forward to working with my colleagues and interested parties to improve this bill as necessary. In summary, under title I, the bill authorizes the disposal of up to 45,000 acres of BLM land in White Pine County. Distributes proceeds through a White Pine special account. Under title II, the bill designates roughly 545,000 acres of wilderness in 13 new wilderness areas and adds wilderness to two areas established in 1989. The White Pine County Commission supported approximately 500,000 acres. Standard language is included stating primacy of Nevada water laws in wilderness areas. Wildlife water developments are protected in wilderness areas. Under title III, the bill transfers approximately 645 acres to the Fish and Wildlife Service to be managed as part of the Ruby Lake National Wildlife Refuge. In lieu of expanding the size of Great Basin National Park and in an effort to simplify land management and protect lands near Great Basin National Park, the bill transfers 117,000 acres from the Forest Service to the BLM. Of this amount, 54,400 acres are withdrawn from mineral entry and other form of entry. Motorized access is confined to existing routes. This withdrawal language does not intend for the withdrawal area to be managed as an NCA, but it will likely require an update of the Resource Management Plan after the transfer of administrative jurisdiction is completed. It is also intended through bill language that the BLM honor existing permits and cooperative agreements approved by the Forest Service. Under title IV, the bill conveys Federal lands to expand two existing Nevada State parks: Cave Lake State Park and the Ward Charcoal Ovens State Park. The bill also conveys land to expand the Steptoe Valley Wildlife Management Area. Finally, the bill conveys Federal lands for the expansion of the Ely Airport and industrial park, with certain restrictions. Under title V, the bill authorizes a 3-year study for a possible extension of the Silver State Highway Off-Highway Vehicle Trail from Lincoln County through White Pine County. The route may only be designated if the Secretary determines that there would not be significant impacts to natural, or cultural resources, and wildlife. While the bill provides the Secretary with discretion, it is my view that providing a designated route for motorized use can actually preserve resources and wildlife in areas that are not appropriate for motorized use. Under title VI, the bill expands the Ely Shoshone Tribal Reservation by 3,500 acres. Extensive negotiations concerning the ownership of land just south of Ely strived to equitably balance the future expansion needs of the city of Ely with the economic development needs of the tribe. Under title VII, the bill authorizes funding from the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act to be used for the Eastern Nevada Landscape Project. The project will improve landscape restoration projects that reduce the risk of fire, prevent the endangerment of species, and improve watersheds. Under title VIII, this title significantly amends the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act of 1998, SNPLMA, to improve the effectiveness of the act, while proposing new conservation-oriented expenditure categories from the special account. Specifically, for SNPLMA special account expenditure categories, the bill provides new authority for (1) the expansion of the Southern Nevada Water Authority's water saving ``Cash for Grass'' program to public entities for permanent turf removal; (2) the implementation of the Clark County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Program, as was intended by the authors of SNPLMA; (3) the Clean Water Coalition's Lake Mead and Las Vegas Wash water quality pipeline project; (4) two comprehensive, 10-year hazardous fuels and fire prevention plans for the Spring Mountains and the Lake Tahoe Basin--including adjacent areas in Nevada along the Carson Range; (5) Nevada State Parks in Clark County to access parks and trails funding from the special account; (6) the Bureau of Land Management to clear and protect lands designated for sale in the Las Vegas Valley, alleviating the dumping problem; and (7) a one-time park/trails/natural area nomination in Washoe County-- remainder of Ballardini Ranch lands offered by a willing seller. For SNPLMA improvements, the bill streamlines the current law's affordable housing provisions that make Federal land available in Nevada at a discount. SNPLMA's current ceiling of serving persons not more than 80 percent of median income has been lifted to 120 percent, and future BLM land auctions of more than 200 acres in the Las Vegas Valley will require housing builders to set aside at least 5 percent of the units for affordable housing as defined by SNPLMA. The bill also speeds the progress of local governments' parks and trails projects by replacing a cumbersome reimbursement system, which constrains the financial ability of local governments to finance projects, with a requirement that local governments be paid up front. Under title IX, this title establishes the Great Basin National Heritage Route. The House and Senate have each approved legislation designating this National Heritage Route; however, the bill has not reached the President for final approval. Designation of the Route will ensure the protection of key educational and recreational opportunities in White Pine County and neighboring Millard County, UT.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, at long last, Fidel Castro's reign of terror over the Cuban people may be coming to an end. Fidel Castro is incapacitated. He has handed over control of the government to his brother, Raul. The Cuban Government wants us to believe that it is a temporary measure--that Castro just needs to recuperate from surgery. But we don't know the truth--we can't know the truth, because lies are the byproduct of tyranny. And tyrannies are notoriously opaque. For all we know, it may be that Fidel already has already spent his last day as Cuba's leader. I believe that now is the time for the U.S. Government to push for a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. It is a travesty that more than a decade after the cold war ended, a brutal communist dictatorship is still oppressing people 90 miles from our border. It would be an even greater travesty if the United States did not do everything in our power to ensure that after Fidel leaves power--one way or another--Cuba becomes free. Let's join together in support of the Cuban people and in support of freedom, and let's adopt this bill. We need to send a signal to all the dissidents and political prisoners in Cuba that we have no illusions about the nature of Fidel Castro's regime--that we know of their plight and stand ready to help them. When Ronald Reagan called Russia the ``evil empire,'' it brought hope to the dissidents and political prisoners in the Soviet gulags. They knew that the people and leaders of the United States were united with them. They were not alone. That is why I am introducing a bill today that authorizes assistance to the OAS for Cuba human rights activities and election reform. It also authorizes a fund to support independent civil society-building efforts. That includes assistance to political prisoners and their families, other dissidents, independent libraries, youth organizations, workers' rights activists, agricultural cooperatives, associations of the self-employed, journalists, economists, and medical doctors. And it creates the ``Fund for a Free Cuba'' to provide assistance to a transition government in Cuba. This bill is consistent with the recommendations in the July 2006 Commission for Assistance for a Free Cuba report. We need to move this legislation now, when it can have the biggest impact. The people of Cuba are watching and listening. We need to show them that the leaders of the United States are willing to join them in their quest to be free. They need to know that they are not alone.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, at long last, Fidel Castro's reign of terror over the Cuban people may be coming to an end. Fidel Castro is incapacitated. He has handed over control of the government to his brother, Raul. The Cuban Government wants us to believe that it is a temporary measure--that Castro just needs to recuperate from surgery. But we don't know the truth--we can't know the truth, because lies are the byproduct of tyranny. And tyrannies are notoriously opaque. For all we know, it may be that Fidel already has already spent his last day as Cuba's leader. I believe that now is the time for the U.S. Government to push for a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba. It is a travesty that more than a decade after the cold war ended, a brutal communist dictatorship is still oppressing people 90 miles from our border. It would be an even greater travesty if the United States did not do everything in our power to ensure that after Fidel leaves power--one way or another--Cuba becomes free. Let's join together in support of the Cuban people and in support of freedom, and let's adopt this bill. We need to send a signal to all the dissidents and political prisoners in Cuba that we have no illusions about the nature of Fidel Castro's regime--that we know of their plight and stand ready to help them. When Ronald Reagan called Russia the ``evil empire,'' it brought hope to the dissidents and political prisoners in the Soviet gulags. They knew that the people and leaders of the United States were united with them. They were not alone. That is why I am introducing a bill today that authorizes assistance to the OAS for Cuba human rights activities and election reform. It also authorizes a fund to support independent civil society-building efforts. That includes assistance to political prisoners and their families, other dissidents, independent libraries, youth organizations, workers' rights activists, agricultural cooperatives, associations of the self-employed, journalists, economists, and medical doctors. And it creates the ``Fund for a Free Cuba'' to provide assistance to a transition government in Cuba. This bill is consistent with the recommendations in the July 2006 Commission for Assistance for a Free Cuba report. We need to move this legislation now, when it can have the biggest impact. The people of Cuba are watching and listening. We need to show them that the leaders of the United States are willing to join them in their quest to be free. They need to know that they are not alone.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to support final passage of S. 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act. This legislation represents a bipartisan effort to enhance and strengthen career and technical education programs across the United States. In my home State of Nevada, career and technical education programs enjoy strong support. Recently, career and technical educators from across the State came together to come up with common course standards for students that focus on certain career and technical education programs. Nevada also has a Career and Technical Education Plan that links these course standards with the academic requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act. I have always supported the Perkins Career and Technical Education Program because I believe that these programs often catch students that slip through the cracks in traditional education programs. Career and technical education programs provide students with real world applications for what they are learning in the classroom. Students in Nevada have the opportunity to work with state-of-the-art technology in their classrooms to learn the skills they need in the workforce. Too often these are students that would have dropped out of school had career and technical education courses not been available. During the conference committee on this important legislation, I was honored to work with my colleagues to strengthen this legislation. We worked to ensure that career and technical education programs have strong performance indicators that are linked to meet industry standards as well as academic achievement. The tech-prep grant program was maintained as a separate program to encourage continued innovation in career and technical education programs. This legislation also encourages states to develop articulation agreements and sequences of courses, something Nevada has already worked hard to develop. Finally, this legislation recognizes the importance of strong partnerships between high schools and institutions of higher education that support these programs. During the conference I worked hard to ensure that funding for the Perkins programs continued to flow to fast-growing States. It is vitally important that funding follow students to their new homes. To that end, we maintained the current hold harmless level at the 1998 level. This allows millions of dollars to move from State to State according to student population counts. As a Senator for one of the fastest growing States in the country, it is my duty to ensure that each of the children in Nevada, whether they were born in Nevada or just recently moved there, are accounted for when Federal funds are allocated to States. I am pleased that all of my colleagues supported final passage, and look forward to working with career and technical educators in Nevada to implement this important law.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, one last point related to instances where a father has raped his daughter and whether his rights are protected under this bill. We have an amendment that will address the concerns raised with respect to that issue. The Senator from California mentioned that the grandfather could be sued under this bill, could be prosecuted under this bill if he took his granddaughter across State lines to get the abortion. In that circumstance, the grandparent should be calling the local authorities. If it is a clergy, a friend, whoever it is that has knowledge of a crime against a child, that person should be calling the local authorities so that young child can be removed from that awful situation that she is forced to live in. The authorities should be involved, and in those cases where pregnancy results, the young girl, with the help of her grandparent, clergy member or other adult can seek a judicial bypass. I am confident that a judge hearing that case would allow an abortion under judicial bypass. But if the grandparents or the clergy truly care about, or the friend truly cares about that young girl who has been a victim of incest, then that adult should contact the local authorities. That is how an adult would be acting in the best interests of the child. Otherwise, all the adult is doing is taking her across State lines for an abortion, bringing her back to her home state, and returning her into the same very harmful situation that she was in before. I yield the remainder of time. I call for the vote.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that for the next 20 minutes, the first 10 minutes be taken by the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and then the 10 minutes following that would be allotted to Senator Santorum from Pennsylvania.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be recognized in order to offer an amendment; provided further that there be 5 minutes for Senator Boxer and----

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to wrap up, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the Boxer-Ensign amendment. I thank my staff and Senator Boxer's staff and particularly name Pam Thiessen and Alexis Bayer on my staff for the great work they have done on this bill and Chris Jaarda for some of the number crunching he did on the bill as well. I hope we get a strong bipartisan vote on final passage. To alert our Members, these will be two votes, and then we will be completely done with this bill. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, to update our colleagues on what has been going on, we had three amendments still pending on this bill. Senator Boxer and I, and our staffs, with the leadership on both sides, have been working together. We think we have come up with a compromise amendment. It will be the Boxer-Ensign amendment. We will be making a unanimous consent request in a few moments. I thank Senator Boxer and her staff for the way they have worked together with us, coming to an agreement. This is a good example of how people who fundamentally disagree--passionately--on an issue can actually find some common ground and work together at least on an amendment. That is what we have done today. I am very pleased with what the staffs have done and the compromise we have reached. It is very satisfying. Let me spend a few minutes talking on the bill as the final details are being worked out. This is an important piece of legislation, not because of the huge numbers it will affect--I have had that question from reporters: How many girls actually get taken across State lines to get an abortion? Sadly, no one knows the answer to that because it is not reported. As a matter of fact, right now when it happens, the parents have no rights to the information, so they cannot find out even after the fact. They find out by rumor or maybe their child ends up telling them later where they had it done. We had cases where they tried to get the information, but, frankly, the clinic would not release the information. We have no idea how many victims are out there--the records are not kept anywhere--or how often this happens. I have tried to put myself in a situation that I would want my Senator representing me. I try to say, okay, I am an average person, how would I want my Senator representing me? I happen to be the father of a little girl. We have three kids. Our middle child is a little girl. She happens to be with me this weekend in Washington. In the coming years, as she matures as a young woman, I think about if some 20-year-old preyed on her when she was in her teenage years and got her pregnant and then somehow, because we had a parental consent law, which I hope we do someday in Nevada, and the 20-year old said: I won't date you anymore unless you get a secret abortion. He thinks: I will convince her somehow, manipulate a very vulnerable young woman. I will convince her that I won't see her anymore if she doesn't get the abortion--or whatever means needed to persuade her to get an abortion. If there is a parental consent law in my State, I will decide to go someplace else where they don't require it. In other words, he gets around the will of the people of the State of Nevada or any state that requires parental involvement. In a case such as that, I would be totally devastated as a parent because I would not be able to help my daughter through this time because I would not even know about it. I would not know if she had a complication from the surgical procedure of abortion. I would not know--if she had a complication in the middle of the night and she started bleeding--that I should be watching for something that could be going wrong. If she had a fever, I would probably say: Honey, we will get you some Advil or Tylenol. And maybe I would hold her for a little while. And she would be afraid to tell me what was going on and, without me knowing, that could develop into very serious complications overnight. Complications that could even be life threatening. Well, I try to put myself in those kinds of situations as a Senator and say: How would I want to be represented? And this is how I would want it. I would want somebody to stand up and say: The rights of parents should be respected. That is what we are doing in this bill. But more than that, for the well-being of these teenage girls, the vast majority of them would be better off if the parents were involved. Now, we realize there are cases where that is not the case, where there is an abusive parent. There are exceptions. That is part of the amendment compromise we are working to reach. I think it is a good compromise. In a situation--that has been brought up here on the floor many times where there has been a girl impregnated who is in her teenage years, we do not want to make unreasonable exceptions that make these laws ineffective. There was an amendment that would have said: We will make an exception to allow the clergy to take a girl across State lines. They wanted an amendment that said the grandparents should have an exception. Well, let me address those two exceptions because they sound, on their face, reasonable. We have case after case after case of documentation where the clergy was actually the person who was impregnating the teenager. We have all read about the scandals with some of our clergy. Clergy are human beings and, just like any other, they can be flawed human beings. We know that. Just because they have a white collar on does not mean they are perfect human beings. Some of those imperfections can be seen in cases of sexual abuse by members of the clergy with teenagers. For instance, there have been members of the clergy who have taken minor children across State lines to avoid parental consent laws. And because they are clergy--they are supposed to be this authority figure--the girl does not want to question them and she goes across State lines and has a secret abortion. The exception that was going to be offered in one of the amendments would have allowed that member of the clergy, which was not defined, to be exempt from prosecution under this bill. I cannot support such an exemption. Not only that, any one can become a member of the clergy. In fact, last night I asked my staff, because I had heard you could become a member on the internet fairly easily, and within 3 minutes she became an ordained minister. So, anybody could go on the Internet and officially be recognized as an ordained minister, officially by our courts. Leaving it open that a 20-something-year-old who has impregnated a teenager could become a minister and could still fall under the clergy exception. Let me address the grandparent case. In the case of the grandparents, you have a situation where maybe there was incest in the family, and the grandparent feels they care about the child, and they want to help them. Most grandparents are loving, and they will want to help the child in that case. The Senator from California and others have made the case that they should not be prosecuted under this law because they took the child across State lines to get an abortion because they only thought they were trying to help. Well, I would make the argument that if those grandparents cared about that child who was in a situation where they were in an abusive home--they were raped by their father--the grandparents should contact the authorities, get the authorities involved to stop the cycle of abuse. You would use the judicial bypass for such case. Judicial bypass would mean that you would not have to go across State lines if that was what the outcome would be, to have an abortion. You would have the judiciary, the authorities involved. If the authorities were involved, you take that girl out of that abusive situation and protect her. If you allow for the grandparent exception and allow secret abortions, that is not going to happen. In too many cases, it is easier to get the abortion, and hide the problem, saving the family from embarrassment. If you go to the authorities, it may become public. That is why I think we need to not have the grandparent exception and the clergy exception. So, Mr. President, we are still waiting for the amendment to come down in its final form. As soon as it does, we will be entering into a unanimous consent agreement. But let me wrap up because it has been a very good debate, with strong emotions on each side. I think this is a bill Americans can come together on and find common ground. I have mentioned before there are good people on both sides of the abortion debate with deeply held beliefs. I believe life begins at conception and that child is a child and has a soul from the time they are conceived. That is why I believe that same child deserves protection throughout their life. I also know that people look at it differently on the other side, and they too have deeply held beliefs. So Americans have been saying: Can't we at least find some middle ground? Can't we find some ground to at least make some reasonable restrictions on abortion and support parents rights? I believe we have brought forth a bill today that finds that common ground. Eighty percent of the American people support this legislation, and they do that because it is reasonable. From a protection of parents' rights perspective; from a protection of the girl's perspective; from going after some of these, literally, sexual predators, these 20-something- year-olds, who are taking these teenagers across State lines; from a law enforcement perspective; from a lot of different ways this is a reasonable piece of legislation. That is why I introduced it, why I support it so strongly, and why I am happy we are finally having this debate on the Senate floor. I want to thank my colleagues, especially Senator Boxer, on the other side of the aisle for allowing the debate to happen, for bringing this thing to a final vote, where we can get passage on this bill and then go to a conference with the House and, hopefully, work out the differences between the House and the Senate. My hope and prayer is we can get this bill actually signed into law by the President this year. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN. I object.

Mr. ENSIGN. I object.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, the Democratic leader and the Republican leader had a unanimous consent agreement on this bill, and during that time--the way the Senate operates--amendments were exchanged and language was handed to each side. We were prepared to debate amendments based on text we were given, and in a highly unusual move, the Senator from New Jersey has brought forward language that is different than what was provided to us in the unanimous consent agreement. At this time, having to go through the amendment to see what all the consequences of those differences are, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Will the Senator yield?