Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent to speak in morning business.

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.

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.

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. President, how much time remains on our side?

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

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. 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. 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. 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

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. 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. 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. President, I ask that the Senate now proceed to S. 403 under conditions of the consent agreement from last week.

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. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds and 5 minutes for my colleague.

In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that it is the State's right to declare that an abortion should not be performed on a minor unless a parent is consulted.

This is not an argument on the merits of abortion. Rather, this is a debate about preserving the fundamental rights of parents to have knowledge about health decisions of their minor daughters.

Let me conclude with this. This is one of the biggest moral issues of the day, the right to have an abortion or not. It splits America. The emotions are high. There are good people on both sides of the debate. We need to look for common ground, where we can come together and at least have some reasonable restrictions on abortion. I believe this bill is one of those reasonable restrictions on abortion that I think all of us should come together on.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

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.

I object.

I object.

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. President, I would like to make a few very brief remarks in relation to this particular amendment. There is one term used in this amendment that is of particular concern. The proponents say that they want a ``teen-driven'' approach to sex education. This is one of the things they want to encourage. I don't know about what kind of teenagers the rest of my colleagues were when they were teenagers, but when I was a teenager and if such a program was driven by me, that type of sex education program would look a lot different than one that would be driven by me as an adult and as a parent. I think focusing such a program in a manner that is ``teen-driven'' is just asking for problems, as far as what kind of mindset we want our sex education programs to contain. It is a minor example of a problem that is in this particular amendment.

Mr. President, because we don't know how much debate we are going to have on the underlying bill, I will talk for a couple minutes about the bill itself. First, I want to respond to something Senator Clinton said when she spoke of the two sisters who were both raped by their father. That is a horrible, unimaginable situation. I applaud Senator Clinton for her efforts in that family situation. The Senator talked about the older sister who wanted to help the younger sister because the older sister, had herself, been impregnated. Senator Clinton had said the older sister would have gotten in trouble if she would have gone across State lines to help her younger sister obtain an abortion.

What Senator Clinton pointed out is the exact purpose of this bill. The older sister had to get the judiciary involved to remove her sister from the abusive situation. Guess what. If the older sister would have taken her sister across State lines for an abortion, the legal authorities never would have been involved to take the child out of the abusive situation, and the younger sister would have been returned to an unsafe home where she would have been subjected to continued sexual abuse.

That is the whole point of this legislation, Mr. President. The judicial bypass for parental consent or notification that is required in most States is the only instances in which this bill actually applies. So the bill, I believe, would be consistent with what I understand that Senator Clinton wanted for this girl: to get her out of an abusive situation.

Mr. President, will the Chair remind me when I have 5 minutes remaining?

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. 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. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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. President, to answer the Senator from Illinois, we are going to fix that. We realized we needed to fix that problem, and we have an amendment. The Senator addressed this, and that will be one of the amendments that is coming up.

I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from South Dakota.

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. 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----

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. 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.

I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

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

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. President, I move to reconsider the vote.