John Ensign

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, we all agree that teenage pregnancy is a problem in the United States. And there are various views on the best way to deal with teenage pregnancy and how to prevent it and lower the rate of teenage pregnancies. The Lautenberg-Menendez amendment is an attempt to do that. I think it is a misguided attempt. Let me point out some of the problems that I think are present in this amendment. Let's talk a little bit about what the amendment does. First, sex education decisions have long been left to parents and local communities. When communities offer sex education programs in public schools, parents are typically heavily involved in deciding the scope of that education. Parental and local control of this issue is appropriate because the issues involved are uniquely related to parents' cultural, religious and moral values, and attitudes, as well as those of the community. The Menendez-Lautenberg amendment would send $100 million into localities in an effort to override the parents' and local community's decisions about how to raise their children. It is a prescriptive amendment about how these programs are to be set up. These grants would require recipients to conduct sex education programs and would prohibit the recipients from providing abstinence- only education. All recipients of grant moneys would be required to teach children about all contraceptives, including condoms, the pill, and plan B emergency contraceptives. The amendment also reauthorizes and increases appropriations for a variety of other programs. I will talk about that in a moment. Under this amendment, none of the authorized moneys would be available for programs focusing on abstinence only or for programs that refuse to discuss controversial contraceptives such as plan B, which many Americans view as an abortion pill. There is a program out there called Best Friends. Under this program, teenagers are 6\1/2\ times less likely to have sex than their counterparts, about two times less likely to drink alcohol than their peers, eight times less likely to use drugs, more than two times less likely to smoke. Under this amendment, Best Friends would not qualify for grant monies available through this amendment. While the authors of this amendment have offered it in good faith it is misguided. Dr. Coburn and I got to know each other very well, when we served in the House together. He has been out there on the front lines, actually delivering babies. He talks to a lot of young girls and boys about their involvement or lack of involvement in sexual activities when they are young. I yield Senator Coburn 10 minutes to speak on the bill and this amendment.

Mr. ENSIGN. That we have 1 minute for Senator Boxer, 1 minute for Senator Ensign, and following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to the Boxer amendment. I further ask that following that vote, the bill be read a third time and the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of the bill with no further intervening action or debate.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Lautenberg amendment No. 4689 be at 4:05 p.m., with the remaining time between now and then equally divided between the proponents and opponents of this bill.

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, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, incest is a terrible act, a terrible crime. We should not be protecting the people who perpetrate these crimes. But at the same time, if there is incest involved we, as a society, must take steps to protect the young victims. Imagine a young girl who has had this terrible act committed against her and now somebody else with good intentions wants to take her across State lines to get an abortion. There are several problems raised by this scenario. If the judiciary can be involved, at least some of these crimes can be addressed. But if the crime remains secret from the parents and there is no judiciary involved, this girl will be forced to just goes back home, with the abortion hidden, to face continued victimization. The second concern that I have relates to the potential medical consequences that a young girl might face following an abortion. She might encounter a postsurgical infection, or complications if the abortion is performed with inaccurate or an incomplete medical history of the young girl, like administering some kind of medication or anesthesia to which the girl has an allergy. The young girls parents may not know to watch for postsurgical complications. Each of these medical concerns become life threatening when friends or a member of the clergy are involved rather than the young girl's parents or the authorities. That is why I think some of the amendments coming up are ill- conceived and why this bill is so important to enact. I hope that as this debate goes forward we can bring out more of these points. I know the leaders are trying to work out differences right now. I yield whatever time is remaining on this amendment to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. DeMint.

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. ENSIGN. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

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, the Senator from California said twice today that this bill protects a father who commits incest with his daughter. In other words, he can commit a crime and still take her across State lines to get an abortion. That argument is illogical. Obviously, a father is a parent. In a State with a parental consent law, he is a parent with rights under State law. If he wants his daughter to have an abortion, to cover up his own crime, he can freely give his consent to allow his daughter to have the abortion in their State of residence. That father doesn't have to take his daughter across State lines. As a result, this bill does not affect such an outcome one way or the other. His abuse of his daughter in that situation is not only morally wrong, it is illegal. This bill doesn't affect that situation one way or another. So to say we are protecting a father's right to go across State lines--it is an argument, frankly, that just doesn't hold water. It just doesn't. This bill doesn't have anything to do with what the Senator was saying. Let's just talk about what the bill does. This bill says that if a State has enacted a parental consent or a parental notification law and if a teenage girl in that State gets pregnant and somebody besides her parents wants to take that child across State lines to avoid those parental consent or parental notification laws in direct violation of what the people of that State want, in direct violation of what the parents would want, that act, transporting a child across state lines, is a Federal offense. And that crime is punishable with time in prison. Look at the consequences of not having this bill. I would point out, in order to put this in its proper context for my colleagues, that over two-thirds of the girls who have been taken across State lines for an abortion have boyfriends who are over 20 years of age. So typically, you would have a teenage girl with a boyfriend who is significantly older than her. And in the context of that relationship, the young girl becomes pregnant. Sometimes that pregnancy is the result of a forcible rape, where the girls does not consent; in most cases, it is at least statutory rape. This legislation will help law enforcement stop adult men from preying upon underage girls and violating the law with respect to the crime of rape--statutory or otherwise. Which is the right thing to do. This bill makes it a further crime if that male takes this young girl across State lines to get an abortion to cover up his tracks, basically to try to eliminate the evidence of his crime. Without this bill, the man who has already taken advantage of a young girl can further endanger her, by forcing her to have an abortion, with potential emotional scarring beyond what she has already gone through and potential physical scarring. In an abortion, some women actually become sterile because of the procedure, because of complications from the procedure. The parents of most children in the United States are responsible. To take away their ability to be involved in something that is so important, so potentially life-altering with this teenager I believe is just wrong, and I think that is why 80 percent of the American people support this legislation. In polls I have seen, 60-plus percent of people who call themselves pro-choice support this legislation. We are in a society that is so deeply divided over moral issues, and none more divided than this issue--the issue of whether you call yourself pro-life, or pro-choice, or anti-choice, or pro-abortion, or whatever names that are tossed around. I believe reasonable people can at least come together on some restrictions on abortion. This is one of those reasonable restrictions. That is why over 80 percent of the American people support this legislation. It is only constitutional when--and this law only applies when--the States have judicial bypass. For those people who are concerned about whether in the case of incest the girl is going to be subjected to some kind of further abuse, it is reasonable that the judicial bypass is there and the reason the courts have recognized that for the parental consent cases. We are not forcing States to do anything as far as their laws are concerned. We are upholding the intent of the people of each State by saying don't circumvent the laws of our State by taking a minor outside of our State. The people of that State have spoken. I think we should at this point in time try to respect the laws the people of that State have enacted. Most importantly, we protect the parents' rights and the health and the lives of children across the United States. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Child Custody Protection Act which will protect the rights of our Nation's parents and their children's well-being. Speaking as a father of three young children, including a daughter, I understand how difficult the challenge of raising children can be. In most schools across the country, our children cannot go on a field trip, take part in school activities, or participate in sex education without a signed permission slip. An underage child cannot even receive mild medication such as aspirin unless the school nurse has a signed release form. Some States even require parental permission to use indoor tanning beds. Nothing, however, prevents this same child from being taken across State lines in direct disobedience of State laws for the purpose of undergoing a surgical, life-altering abortion. The bill before us, the Child Custody Protection Act, makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line for the purpose of an abortion in order to circumvent a State's parental consent or notification law. It specifies that neither the minor transported nor her parent may be prosecuted for a violation of this act. It is important to note that this legislation does not supersede, override, or in any way alter existing State parental involvement laws. It does not impose any Federal parental notice or consent requirement on any State that does not already have a parental involvement law in place. This bill merely addresses the interstate transportation of minors, sometimes by a predatory older male or his parents, in order to circumvent valid existing State laws that require parental notification or consent. This bill goes a long way in strengthening the effectiveness of State laws designed to protect parents and their young daughters from the health and safety risks associated with secret abortions. An overwhelming number of States have recognized that a young girl's parents are the best source of guidance and knowledge when making decisions regarding serious surgical procedures such as abortion. Forty-five States have adopted some form of parental notification or consent, proving the widespread support for protecting the rights of parents across America. The people who care the most for a child should be involved in these kinds of health care decisions. If there is aftercare needed, the parents should be fully informed in order to care for their young daughter. An overwhelming majority of Americans support parental consent laws. In fact, most polls show that consent is favored by almost 80 percent of the American people. These numbers do not lie. By the way, these are people who call themselves pro-choice and pro-life. Well over a majority of even pro-choice people support parental notification or parental consent laws. The American people agree that parents deserve the right to be involved in their minor children's decisions. In many cases, only a girl's parents know her prior medical and psychological history, including allergies to medications and anesthesia. The harsh reality is our current law allows for parents to be left uninformed about their underage daughter's abortion which can be devastating to the physical and mental health of their child. Take the case of Marcia Carroll from Pennsylvania. On Christmas Eve 2004, her daughter informed her she was pregnant. After listening to her daughter's story, Ms. Carroll assured her that they would handle this as a family and would support any decisions she decided to make. They scheduled appointments with both doctors and counselors and discussed all options available. Ms. Carroll purposely allowed her daughter to speak alone with the professionals so that her daughter felt comfortable to speak her mind. After all the advice and counsel, her daughter decided to have the baby and to raise it, a decision which the family fully supported. Following her decision, despite their knowledge of her family's love and support, her boyfriend's family began to harass her and threaten that she could not see her boyfriend unless she had an abortion. Ms. Carroll was so concerned about their behavior, she called the police and even went so far as to contact a nearby abortion clinic to ensure that parental consent would be required before an abortion would be allowed. Pennsylvania's law requires that anyone under the age of 18 have consent of a parent before an abortion can be performed. Unfortunately, other States nearby do not have the same protections. Shortly after, Ms. Carroll sent her daughter off to school, thinking she would be safe. Imagine yourself in the same position. Instead, her boyfriend and his family met her at the bus stop, bought them a train ticket, and sent the children to New Jersey, where other family members picked them up and took them to an abortion clinic. Despite her tears and desires to keep the baby, her boyfriend's family coerced her by telling her they would leave her in New Jersey with no way to get home. They planned, paid for, and threatened her into agreeing to an abortion. After the abortion, they dropped her off blocks from her house with no regard to her mental or physical well-being. Ms. Carroll called the local police department only to be told that there was nothing that could be done. This poor young girl, whose family was committed to loving her and respecting her decision, had her life forever altered by adults who never considered her wishes or the consequences such a decision would have on her life. Parental notification serves another vital purpose: ensuring increased protection against sexual exploitation of minors by adult men. All too often, our young girls are the victims of predatory practices of men who are older, more experienced, and in a unique position to influence the minor's decisions. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, almost two-thirds of adolescent mothers have partners older than 20 years of age. Rather than face a statutory rape charge, these men or their families use the vulnerability of the young girl against her, exerting pressure on the girl to agree to an abortion without talking to her parents. We all know how easy it is to influence teenagers, boys or girls. In fact, in a survey of 1,500 unmarried minors having abortions without their parent's knowledge, 89 percent said that a boyfriend was involved in the decision, and the number goes even higher the younger the age of the minor. Allowing secret abortions does nothing to expose these men and their heinous conduct. Such is the case with Crystal, the 12-year-old daughter of a Pennsylvania woman, who was intoxicated and raped by a local teenager 6 years her senior. Crystal's mother did not even know she was pregnant until Crystal went missing from school and it was discovered that her rapist's mother had taken her across State lines into New York where, scared and confused, she received an abortion. When Crystal developed complications from the incomplete abortion, the clinic physician refused to supply the medical records to her mother. Crystal's mother, a loving and responsible parent, was not even given the option to care for her daughter. Rather, the decision was made for her by an unknown adult. There is overwhelming agreement that parents and parental notification laws and consent laws are important tools that enable parents to help protect their daughters from this kind of abuse. In 1998, Dr. Bruce Lucero, an abortionist who performed some 45,000 abortions, wrote of his support for the Child Custody Protection Act to the New York Times. In the article, Dr. Lucero pointed out that ``dangerous complications are more likely to result when parents are not involved in these out-of-state abortions.'' He goes on to say that parental involvement is the best guarantee that a minor will make the best and most safe decision. This is an abortionist doctor talking. In the unfortunate instance of abuse or where there is rape or incest involved within a family, minors may be afraid to go to one of the parents--and rightfully so. In response, judicial bypass laws have been written across the country to protect the minor. This legislation is a commonsense solution to defeat the legal loophole that currently results from parents being denied the right to know about the health decisions of their minor daughters. The Child Custody Protection Act in no way imposes a parental involvement law on a State that does not already have a functioning law in place. It does not invalidate any State law, nor does this act contradict Supreme Court precedent dealing with minors and abortion. In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that it is the State's right to declare that abortion should not be performed on a minor unless a parent is consulted. Mr. President, is it time for the adjournment?

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise to speak today about the Child Custody Protection Act. A bill the Senate will debate shortly. I believe, as a father of three children, including one daughter, it is a very important piece of legislation. Good people can disagree on issues even of profound moral consequence. Most Americans, even those who consider themselves pro- choice, believe there should be at least some restrictions on abortion. I believe this is one of those situations where we should be able to come together and find some common ground. The Child Custody Protection Act simply states that if an adult willfully takes a minor child across State lines to get an abortion, for the purpose of avoiding a State's parental consent or notification law that would be a Federal crime for that adult. Judicial bypass is an integral part of all effective parental consent laws. So for those concerned about the cases of parental rape or incest and what a child does in that case?--there is a judicial review, a judicial bypass available. The Child Custody Protection Act would only apply in those States parental consent or notification laws in place. This is an important piece of legislation, especially for parents as many of these cases involve a 20-something-year-old male who has impregnated a young teenager, often a 13, 14, 15-year-old girl, which has ended in a secret abortion. Now because your little girl had become pregnant and this 20- something-year-old realized that is a crime of statutory rape, they want to dispose of the evidence. So they decide to talk your little girl into going across State lines for an abortion because your State law requires parental notification or parental consent for such a procedure. They go to the State next door, take care of the abortion, and you, the parent, know nothing about it. How would you feel as a parent in a situation such as that? Even further, abortion is a surgical procedure. Our kids are not even allowed to get an aspirin in school without parental consent. They are not allowed to take a field trip without parental consent. They are not allowed to take sex education classes without parental consent. Yet, remarkably, it is not against the law evade parental consent or notice requirements to take a child across State lines to get a surgical procedure, a surgical abortion. It is time for legislation such as the Child Custody Protection Act. I realize that emotions run high on both sides of the abortion issue. They run deeply and have divided our country for some time. We need to look for a place of common ground. A place where reasonable people should be able to come together and agree to at least have this one restriction on abortion, agree that parents should be involved in the decisions, especially the medical decisions, involving their children. The Child Custody Protection Act does just that. This is legislation where we preserve parent rights, we preserve State rights, and we do something that approximately 80 percent of the American people support. As we debate this bill over the next several days, I hope people will take an honest look at the intent of this legislation. I hope people will not automatically, because the word ``abortion'' is contained in this legislation, say: I can't vote for such a measure because it contains abortion language. I hope people will say: Let's find the common ground. Let's look for things that are reasonable and come together on an issue that should be agreed on to protect our children, our daughters. I yield the floor.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 5 minutes.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Alexander, in introducing legislation that would create the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids. First proposed by President Bush, this legislation will provide children who are in schools designated for restructuring with scholarships either for the cost of tuition at a private school or for sustained, supplemental educational services. The No Child Left Behind Act set up a structure for schools to get evaluated annually to determine whether they are meeting adequate yearly progress. Schools are designated for restructuring after 6 years of poor student academic achievement. Children are often trapped in these circumstances, and this legislation will help provide them with either a way out or additional services to increase their academic achievement levels. I believe that the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids will provide true school choice across the country. Competitiveness and innovation are two of the latest buzz words that surround education. I believe that school choice will breed both competitiveness and innovation. A few years ago I read an article by Maurice McTigue, now a professor at George Mason University. Mr. McTigue was the equivalent of the Secretary of Transportation in New Zealand when their government underwent a radical transformation. During that time New Zealand's government was decentralized, with most control and money going to local areas. This included the education system. Rather than having money go directly to the schools, the money followed the children. The government set specific dollar amounts for each child, depending on whether the child had special needs, and that money was given to the school of the child's parents' choice. This truly radical change caused great uproar at the time, as everyone believed that it would lead to the destruction of the public school system. During the first few years of this new system, enrollment in public schools did decline slightly. However, because each public school was allowed to change and meet the needs of its local students, parents eventually moved back to their home schools. Now, public school enrollment is at an all-time high in New Zealand. Why? Because schools were forced to compete among themselves without artificial governmental barriers. Parents were allowed to choose the school that best fit their child's needs. I believe the same thing would happen in the United States if school choice were made available across the country. In fact, two studies by Harvard researchers have shown that, as the voucher program in Milwaukee was expanded, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program. Students in these public schools have benefited from competition. In Milwaukee, the choice program caused the public school system to shift power from a centralized administration to each individual school. This shift allowed parents and teachers to make decisions, including who could teach at the school. Elementary and secondary education is one of the few sectors in this country that does not have open competition. By contrast, our higher education system has flourished because of competition. The purpose of this legislation is to provide low-income children who are in schools that have consistently not met adequate yearly progress benchmarks, and have not improved student academic achievement, with other options. This legislation would provide low-income students and their parents with two options. First, these students would have the option of a $4,000 scholarship that would be applied to the cost of tuition at the private school of their parent's choice. If parents decide not to take the scholarship, their child would be eligible for up to $3,000 of intensive, sustained supplemental educational services. Supplemental educational services are services that are provided outside of the regular school day, such as after or before school, that are designed to improve academic achievement. I believe that this legislation is the next step toward bringing true competition to elementary and secondary education. I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Alexander and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Alexander, in introducing legislation that would create the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids. First proposed by President Bush, this legislation will provide children who are in schools designated for restructuring with scholarships either for the cost of tuition at a private school or for sustained, supplemental educational services. The No Child Left Behind Act set up a structure for schools to get evaluated annually to determine whether they are meeting adequate yearly progress. Schools are designated for restructuring after 6 years of poor student academic achievement. Children are often trapped in these circumstances, and this legislation will help provide them with either a way out or additional services to increase their academic achievement levels. I believe that the America's Opportunity Scholarships for Kids will provide true school choice across the country. Competitiveness and innovation are two of the latest buzz words that surround education. I believe that school choice will breed both competitiveness and innovation. A few years ago I read an article by Maurice McTigue, now a professor at George Mason University. Mr. McTigue was the equivalent of the Secretary of Transportation in New Zealand when their government underwent a radical transformation. During that time New Zealand's government was decentralized, with most control and money going to local areas. This included the education system. Rather than having money go directly to the schools, the money followed the children. The government set specific dollar amounts for each child, depending on whether the child had special needs, and that money was given to the school of the child's parents' choice. This truly radical change caused great uproar at the time, as everyone believed that it would lead to the destruction of the public school system. During the first few years of this new system, enrollment in public schools did decline slightly. However, because each public school was allowed to change and meet the needs of its local students, parents eventually moved back to their home schools. Now, public school enrollment is at an all-time high in New Zealand. Why? Because schools were forced to compete among themselves without artificial governmental barriers. Parents were allowed to choose the school that best fit their child's needs. I believe the same thing would happen in the United States if school choice were made available across the country. In fact, two studies by Harvard researchers have shown that, as the voucher program in Milwaukee was expanded, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program. Students in these public schools have benefited from competition. In Milwaukee, the choice program caused the public school system to shift power from a centralized administration to each individual school. This shift allowed parents and teachers to make decisions, including who could teach at the school. Elementary and secondary education is one of the few sectors in this country that does not have open competition. By contrast, our higher education system has flourished because of competition. The purpose of this legislation is to provide low-income children who are in schools that have consistently not met adequate yearly progress benchmarks, and have not improved student academic achievement, with other options. This legislation would provide low-income students and their parents with two options. First, these students would have the option of a $4,000 scholarship that would be applied to the cost of tuition at the private school of their parent's choice. If parents decide not to take the scholarship, their child would be eligible for up to $3,000 of intensive, sustained supplemental educational services. Supplemental educational services are services that are provided outside of the regular school day, such as after or before school, that are designed to improve academic achievement. I believe that this legislation is the next step toward bringing true competition to elementary and secondary education. I hope that my colleagues will join Senator Alexander and me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I just got word that the 2,500th soldier was killed in Iraq. It is a milestone, obviously, that we all mourn deeply in this country. And that is what I rise to talk about, as a few of those who have died in the line of duty were from my State. Mr. President, May was an especially difficult month for our home State of Nevada. We mourn the loss of four soldiers and marines who were killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan. One soldier was killed during training. And just last week, another soldier from Winnemucca, NV, was killed. While there is incomparable grief following these deaths, there is also strength and pride that never ceases to amaze me. I had the opportunity to attend two of the recent funerals: the funeral of 1SG Carlos Saenz at Arlington National Cemetery and the funeral of SGT John Griffith at the Southern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Boulder City. Each funeral I have attended and each family who grieves finds a very special place in my heart, and they will always stay with me. 1SG Sergeant Carlos Saenz was born in Mexico. He became a naturalized citizen and considered himself extremely lucky and proud to have been an American, as we all should. And for more than 25 years, he dedicated himself to serving this country. His wife Nanette is a woman of great strength who understood her husband's determination and commitment to our country. They actually met during the first Persian Gulf war. She is proud of him, and we are all blessed that he came to the United States and was willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for his new Nation. SGT John Griffith lived in Las Vegas most of his life. He told his wife Christa that he was fighting this war so their son would not have to. I will never forget the image of his two young daughters, just as the funeral had ended and they were taking the coffin out. As they were putting it into the hearse, I heard his two young daughters crying, and I heard one of them say: Don't let them take daddy. That is the real pain of war coming home to a family, and we should all remember the sacrifices that not only the men and women in uniform who have died have made but also the sacrifices and the pain their families go through. I also had the opportunity to speak with Victoria Legaspi, the mother of SSG Emmanuel Legaspi. Manny was born in the Philippines and signed up in the Army at the age of 32, after living in the United States for only 1 year. He wanted to give back to this country, and he wanted to show his appreciation. Manny should make all of us a little more proud to be Americans. We live in the greatest country in the world--where brave Americans such as Carlos, John, and Manny, and so many others believe so deeply in our freedom that they are willing to sacrifice their lives so that we can all live safe and free. These men follow a distinguished line of courageous men and women who have paid that ultimate price for this Nation. They are not the only ones who have made this sacrifice. As I mentioned before, the families, and one woman in particular, Helena Lukac, have touched my heart. Helena Lukac moved to the United States in 1983 from the former Communist Czechoslovakia. Her son John was killed by a roadside bomb attack in Iraq. He was just 19 years old. Helena knows what it means to be free better than most of us. On Memorial Day, just a few weeks ago, Helena said: I'm really grateful that we are here, even with this loss. I miss him so much, I feel it on my own skin. This freedom is not free. Mr. President, freedom is not free. The brave men and women in our military and their families sacrifice greatly for us, and we can never thank them enough, but we can express our gratitude to them. So today I again say thank you to the men and women who stand tall in defense of this Nation and in support of our freedom. You make us proud. And with a very heavy heart, I thank the families across America and across my State whose pain I cannot even begin to imagine. Your loss is our Nation's loss. God bless you all, and God bless this country. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. ENSIGN

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I call up amendment 4136.

Mr. ENSIGN. I yield back my time.

Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I yield myself the remaining time. The Senator from South Carolina just talked about how coming across the border illegally is a misdemeanor. What he didn't address was that stealing somebody's Social Security number is a felony. In this bill, we forgive that felony. We forgive it. What we are saying is, if somebody who has operated under false pretenses--the 1996 welfare reform bill signed by President Clinton said that they would not qualify for earned-income tax credits or any other tax credits that we have for the low-income folks in this country--this bill will reward them and reverse the welfare act. They will be able to go back and say, Well, here is where I worked, and present some W-2 forms, maybe falsified, but they can go back and try to claim that, and then qualify for the earned-income tax credit. I fundamentally think that is wrong. We are already forgiving a felony; I think that is enough. All of the things that the Senator from South Carolina said about people coming here and working--and I am a big supporter of immigration--I think it is the strength of our country: The diversity that it brings, the hard-working people who make us appreciate America. I am as pro-immigration as anybody in this Chamber. What I want, though, is folks who, when they are coming here, are coming here for the right reasons. They are coming here to work hard. They are coming here to do the things that make America great. I think that is wonderful. They are saying in this bill that people will pay restitution, to earn legal status by paying back taxes. I don't know how many times I have heard those words from the people who are supporting this bill. In fact, under this bill, when immigrants go back to pay back taxes, to pay restitution, many actually get money from the federal government solely because of the earned-income tax credit. America is a compassionate country. We want to embrace people who are coming--we always have--from around the world. But I don't think it is right to ask the American people, OK, forgive them for the felony of stealing Social Security numbers, we are going to give you amnesty as far as citizenship and things like that, and on top of that, we are going to write you a check. We are going to write you a check courtesy of the American taxpayers. Yes, some may pay a fine and back taxes, but the EITC and other tax credits will actually operate so that the American people are going to write the illegal immigrant a check. Without my amendment, that is exactly what can happen to financially reward millions of the folks who are going to be legalized under this bill. Mr. President, is there any time remaining?