Floor Statements

Mr. President, I just want to make a couple points and keep it fairly brief.

The nuclear power industry has been around for a long time. We hear about other new sources of energy that this country is trying to develop, and it seems to make sense we would subsidize some of that new research. It is basic research that the Government is involved in. Whether it is health care, whether it is energy, that seems to be an appropriate role for the Federal Government.

But nuclear energy has been around for a long time, and it is commercially viable in many other countries in the

world. To this Senator, it does not seem to be the right thing to do to be subsidizing nuclear power because it should have already proven its merit in the marketplace and been able to stand on its own.

Unfortunately, we have a situation where we had a vote last year on the Yucca Mountain project, which is the Nation's nuclear waste repository, and this Senate decided to continue to build Yucca Mountain. What that indicates is that the Senate is already subsidizing nuclear power. People say, no, Yucca Mountain is being built by the ratepayers, the people who receive the benefits of nuclear energy. They pay a tax on that or a rate on that and, therefore, they pay into the nuclear fund that will build on Yucca Mountain.

According to the General Accounting Office, that is not going to be enough. So we are going to be subsidizing nuclear power as it is. To add another subsidy would be wrong at this time. Whether you look at Japan or Germany, these other countries, they are building them commercially; they are operating them viably.

If nuclear power is so good commercially, then it should stand on its own. We have several other provisions in the bill that Senators Sununu and Wyden have not touched on nuclear power. But to actually have Federal loan guarantees that will leave the taxpayer holding the bill would be wrong at this time. If nuclear power is going to stand, let it stand on its own.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I object.

Probably 7 or 8 minutes. I will try to cut it off by 2:45.

Madam President, as chairman of the subcommittee which reviewed this proposal and included this proposal on the Endangered Species Act, I want to spend a couple minutes to educate our colleagues on why it is important to defeat this amendment that has been proposed.

First of all, we held two hearings--Senator Akaka and I did--and we worked beautifully together. Senator Akaka is a wonderful person to work with. Our staffs worked really well together. On several of the proposals the administration had put up on the environment, we held hearings. We brought in experts from both sides. Everybody was represented. We had very fair hearings. I think everybody who was in attendance would agree the hearings were fair and balanced.

Out of those hearings came a couple of findings: One is that over the last 20 years the military has done a fabulous job with its ranges in protecting habitat as well as endangered or threatened species. I think there is no disputing that.

In the past, I think there certainly were some mistakes that were made by the military. But in the last 20 years or so we have done a really good job with our armed services protecting the habitat and the species on these various ranges.

What has happened now is we are in a situation where the courts, instead of allowing what has happened with some of these what are called Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans, which are in place and have done a great job protecting the species and the habitat--what the courts are threatening to do, and it looks as if it is going to happen, is those will no longer be able to be used. We will have to go with much stricter definitions, much more costly ways of doing business, and a lot of the ranges will be shut down.

I am the chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee. We are in charge to make sure our armed services are ready when they are called upon to defend the United States of America.

I have a letter I would like to have printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that be the order.

This letter pretty much sums up what we try do in this bill. We

are balancing environmental protections with military readiness. Sometimes these are competing concerns.

We did not overreach in this bill. We struck a balance. We struck a very delicate balance, but we think we have struck a balance.

If anybody has any questions, they just have to go visit our military ranges in Southern California, in the Carolinas. Wherever you go across the country, visit our ranges and you will see some of the most pristine areas you can find, some of the best protected habitat you can find, and these endangered and threatened species are flourishing.

It is not a question of this bill rolling back environmental protections. We do not want the courts putting such limits on the military that they cannot go forward in this balance in the future, where we protect species and habitat and we ensure military readiness for our armed services.

A couple of specific problems with this amendment: The INRMP sites and the Endangered Species Act are complementary statutory frameworks that together ensure protection of endangered and threatened species. The Lautenberg amendment introduces an unnecessary and complicated requirement, and we believe--the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior believe--it will lead to more lawsuits, not less. We are trying to get away from the lawsuits and make sure we are spending the money instead of fighting legal battles in protecting the species and making sure we are ready for what our armed services are called to do.

I ask our colleagues to seriously take a look at this. We just saw the results of great readiness in Iraq. The arguments were made: We are ready; there is not going to be a problem.

We were ready because our ranges were able to be used. If we roll back the ability to use our ranges, we will not be ready. We will not have the kind of military readiness we need in future conflicts. That is why it is so important that we do as the language in the bill suggests, protect the balance between environmental protection and military readiness.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

In response to the EPA administrator's quotes we have before us today, I spoke to the administrator. We had testimony from the EPA following this to try to clear up any kind of confusion. As I mentioned, we have not had problems with readiness up to this point because the Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans have been working well as a balance, making sure habitat and species are protected, but also where readiness could go forward and be maintained at a high level. What the military is concerned about is the court decisions that look like they are going to go against the military to where they will not be able to use the ranges in an effective manner. The statement that was made by Administrator Whitman, 5 years from now, whoever the EPA administrator would be at that time, would not be able to be made.

People are very concerned that readiness will be severely affected if the court decisions are allowed to go forward. This bill language says to the courts, balancing environmental concerns with military readiness is working. Let's keep with what is working instead of putting huge requirements on to the military where they will not be able to use the ranges.

I reserve the remainder of my time.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the amendment?

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I applaud the senior Senator from Arizona for offering this second-degree amendment in the nature of a substitute. To characterize this amendment and this whole debate, we are getting down to where this is truly a referendum on the people who supported us in the recent war. Our closest allies--people we are going to continue to go forward with in a very uncertain world--are they people we are going to continue to work closely with when it comes to times of conflict?

The waiver is only for those six countries that worked with us very closely in the recent Iraq conflict. We are probably limiting it down too far, but we are doing that to try to at least say to the people who want the underlying Dayton amendment that we are going to at least limit it to those six countries that worked with us most closely in the last conflict.

Right now, we sell to them and they sell to us. We sell to them in much greater numbers than they sell to us. Normally, when we are talking trade around this body, most countries are selling more to us than we are to them. Yet we are still trying to lower tariffs on a lot of those countries to try to increase more trade back and forth. But in this case, we dominate the defense industry in the world.

This amendment could threaten the domination we have of the defense industry in the world. This amendment would say to our allies we want to sell you our products, but we are not willing to buy your products. This, in effect, sets up a trade war with our closest allies. Do we want to do that? No one wins in a trade war. Everybody loses. This would send a very poor message at exactly the wrong time to set up a trade war.

Our closest allies worked with us, as we saw, in Iraq. They were working so well together in training, with our equipment, so that when we go into a conflict, our communications devices could talk to each other. If we set up this kind of a trade war, we can threaten that type of integration in our training.

I fully support this amendment the Senator from Arizona has proposed today. I think the underlying amendment is faulty, and we need to have this second-degree amendment in the nature of a substitute to make sure we do not go down the wrong path.

I want to inform the rest of the Senators what we are trying to do time-wise, as far as the schedule is concerned. We are trying to work out a unanimous consent agreement now to have a vote, hopefully somewhere around 6 o'clock, if that is possible tonight, on the underlying amendment, and then possibly on the second-degree amendment, and possibly after that have a side-by-side vote on the Dayton amendment. We don't know whether or not that is possible. We are trying to work that out and to alert people of the potential schedule for tonight. There is no agreement worked out yet.

With that, Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, the 1994 National Defense Authorization Act stipulated that:

It shall be the policy of the United States not to conduct

research and development which could lead to the production

by the United States of a new low-yield nuclear weapon,

including a precision low-yield warhead. The Secretary of

Energy may not conduct, or provide for the conduct of,

research and development which could lead to the production

by the United States of a low-yield nuclear weapon.

This legislation has been effective in preventing our nuclear weapon scientists from conducting any research into these low-yield nuclear weapons.

I believe that repeal of the low-yield research and development prohibition is in the national interest. The National Security Strategy outlined in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review included the long-term goal to maintain a strong nuclear deterrent with a smaller nuclear arsenal by utilizing missile defense and conventional strike capabilities. To accomplish this without putting U.S. safety or security at risk requires that the Department of Defense and the National Nuclear Security Administration be allowed to adapt and/or rebuild the existing nuclear stockpile to meet current and emerging threats.

The United States has deployed low-yield nuclear weapons throughout the history of the stockpile and has them today. These weapons have enhanced nuclear deterrence by providing the President with credible options for attacking targets of national importance. The existence of low-yield weapons over the last 50 years has not blurred the nuclear threshold and it is unlikely that future conceptual studies will either. Maintaining a strong research and development capability will, more likely, assure our allies and dissuade and deter our adversaries.

The Department of Defense has important and emerging missions that low-yield weapons can uniquely address. For example, low-yield weapons have the potential to significantly reduce collateral effects and yet still provide the high temperatures needed to destroy chemical and biological agents stored in bunkers. The 1994 legislation has been a significant barrier to the advanced development program needed to study this capability and other innovative technologies.

Maintaining a viable nuclear weapons enterprise is vital to both the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Defense. The low-yield research and development prohibition has had a chilling effect on the ability of National Nuclear Security Administration scientists to respond to Department of Defense requirements and in fulfilling the goal of developing the responsive infrastructure needed to respond decisively to changes in the international security environment or to stockpile surprises.

The low-yield research and development prohibition has been called ``a pillar of arms control'' by its supporters and its repeal a possible cause of increased global nuclear proliferation. However, nuclear proliferation occurred steadily throughout the 1990s. India, Pakistan, North Korea and others have pursued active nuclear weapon development programs despite the United States self-imposed refrain from low-yield studies.

Repeal will not commit the United States to producing new or modified warheads. Congressional approval is required prior to any full-scale development.

The Feinstein-Kennedy amendment would strike the repeal of the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons in the defense authorization bill.

It should not be illegal to think of, or research, ways to defend America. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Feinstein-Kennedy amendment.

Mr. President, I have a technical modification to my amendment at the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be so modified.

Mr. President, the modification says the offset included in the amendment repeals the tax credit for refurbishing of nonhistoric structures only, not historic structures, with which people had concerns.

If you believe the American economy needs a shot in the arm right now, then you should vote for this amendment. Our amendment allows companies that have made money overseas to bring it back right now. They are taxed at 35 percent. When faced with a choice of whether they keep it overseas or bring it back, they keep it overseas. We are going to allow a 1-year exemption. The tax will be lowered from 35 percent to 5.25 percent. They have 1 year to invest the money to create jobs in this country. As with Senator Boxer's very fine amendment in our bill, it cannot go for executive pay. The money has to be invested in America to create jobs.

I believe this will be a tremendous stimulus to our economy, and I urge its adoption.

I yield 10 seconds to my friend from California.

Mr. President, the Senator from California is absolutely correct. These funds are meant to stimulate the economy. I pledge to work with Senator Boxer and our colleagues in conference to ensure that these funds may not be used for executive pay.

The Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. President, I move to waive that section of the Congressional Budget Act. Also, I note that many of the people who voted against this amendment in the Finance Committee will be voting for it today.

Pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of that act for the consideration of this amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Iowa, the Chairman of the Finance Committee.

First of all, I want to commend my distinguished colleague for his strong leadership in crafting the tax cut package before us today that is so critical to creating new jobs and building economic growth for the citizens of my State of Nevada and across the country.

I would say to my distinguished colleague that I am very concerned about recent efforts by the IRS to carve up integrated hotels, restaurants, and casino businesses into different pieces subject to different depreciation treatment.

Equipment, furniture, and similar personal property used in the hospitality business, and in the retail industry more generally, have long been depreciable over a 5-year period. However, the IRS is now asserting on audit that the tables, chairs, carpeting, and other furniture and equipment used in the gaming portion of such hospitality facilities must be depreciated over a longer 7-year period used for miniature golf courses and bowling alleys, while the same table, chair, and carpeting 10 feet away in the hotel portion of the facility continue to be depreciated over 5 years.

The IRS has promulgated no regulation on this point and is unable to cite any applicable statutory or judicial authority for its assertion on audit.

In the face of this uncertainty, I would ask the chairman of the Finance Committee to clarify whether these efforts by the IRS are consistent with the congressional intent of the depreciation provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, I withdraw the second-degree amendment.

I want to speak on the first amendment I sent to the desk. The amendment I have sent to the desk is a fairly simple amendment. It was one of those ideas you find when you go around and listen to real people. When you do that, you can come up with ideas that will lead to good policy that will actually help real Americans get back to work.

It has been said that we are in a sluggish economy right now. I agree with that. Certainly, the American economy is the strongest economy in the world. It has been incredibly resilient, but it is not nearly as strong as what we would like to see. So when you talk to various people, there are all kinds of ideas of how to get the economy started.

While I support what the President is trying to do, I have talked to a lot of people in small businesses and large businesses who support the elimination of the double taxation on dividends. They support the acceleration of the cuts in the marginal tax rates and several of the other small business expensing items and the like in the bill that the President had sent up here, parts of which are in the Finance Committee's mark. Those provisions will stimulate the economy.

I have a provision we sent to the desk that, for a very little cost, as far as the people who score these budgets ascertained, for very little cost will put a tremendous amount of money into the U.S. economy.

Right now, we encourage businesses to go overseas. We encourage that through our Tax Code, and actually it is beneficial a lot of times for companies to relocate overseas. But if they do that and make money and pay taxes in those other countries, when they try to bring the money back here to invest in this country, they pay a 35 percent tax rate on that money. So if a company is faced with bringing the money they have made overseas back here or investing that money overseas, they say to themselves: Do I want to invest $100 out of every $100 overseas or do I want to invest $65 out of every $100 back here in the United States? The obvious answer is they keep that money overseas, and they invest that overseas.

I appreciate the support of both the ranking member and the chairman of the Finance Committee. This amendment was brought up in the Finance Committee. They both voted for it. I appreciate their vote on it. It narrowly lost, by one vote. That is why we are taking another run at this.

Our amendment says we will give companies that have invested overseas and have made money overseas 1 year's time to bring that money back to the United States and, instead of paying a 35-percent tax rate, they will only pay a 5.25-percent tax rate.

J.P. Morgan and Associates just did a study to find out how much money would actually come back into the United States if this amendment is adopted within 12 months, the next 12 months. It is estimated $300 billion will come back into the United States--$300 billion.

Compare that with all the other plans that have been talked about around here. For a cost of only $4 billion over 10 years, as far as what the budget people score it, as far as loss of tax revenues, to get a $300 billion boost in the economy--there is nothing else in the stimulus package that gives you as much bang for the buck.

While I support the rest of it, and I am voting for the rest of it, this is something that needs to be included in a stimulus package because this will truly bring the money back into the United States.

This is money that is not going to be here any other way. This is not taking money away from Government and putting it in the private sector, or taking it away from the private sector and putting it in the Government. This is money outside the United States that will come back here and create U.S. jobs.

This is a bipartisan amendment. We have done a couple of things to make sure it not just comes back here. It cannot go for executive pay, for one thing. It has to come back here and be invested in the United States, in their companies in the United States.

We have gone around and talked to people in business, instead of relying on a study. I went around talking to a lot of businesses. I was talking to some people the other day. They said they have $2 billion in cash sitting overseas that they would bring back here in a heartbeat if this passed. That is $2 billion in high-tech industry. A big part of the sluggish part of our economy has been in the high-tech industry--$2 billion in just one company that will come back here to the United States in the next 12 months. You can clearly see this would have a very strong stimulative effect on our economy.

I thank the cosponsors of the original bill that we introduced-- Senator Boxer, Senator Gordon Smith, and Senator Allen--for joining as original cosponsors of this bill. It is bipartisan in nature. Several other Members from the other side of the aisle have approached us.

We think this amendment will be a significant part of this stimulus package. Most people aren't aware of this amendment. Most people aren't aware of the impact it will have on the economy. But I encourage all of our colleagues to learn about this before we vote on it tomorrow. It is very obvious that there are upsides to this. I just do not see any downside. The upsides are tremendous. A huge amount of money

will come back into the United States to create American jobs.

If you ask yourself whether to vote for this amendment, you just have to ask yourself whether you want to create jobs overseas or do you want to create jobs in the United States? We are talking about $300 billion coming back into the United States in the next 12 months to create jobs. That is a lot of capital. We have heard about the lack of capital and business investment being part of the recession. This would be a significant addition to our economy.

I encourage our colleagues to vote for this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The only comment I would make is that a couple of years ago when this was introduced, the Joint Tax Committee scored this as bringing about $150 billion back into the economy. J. P. Morgan's--a private institution--latest study estimated it would be $300 billion. They have the latest figures. That is where we would come up conservatively. Even if you do not go with the new study, the old study said $150 billion. It puts a lot of money back into the economy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to share with the Members of this esteemed body the story of Lance Corporal Donald John Cline. John's wife Tina wants to make sure that their young sons know that their dad was ``a proud father, a proud husband, and a proud Marine.'' Dakota, two and a half, and Dillon, 7 months, won't be able to know him as they grow up because their father gave his life in Iraq to protect this nation and defend our freedom. As part of the legacy he left to his boys, I honor him today.

John and Tina met and became friends in 1997 when their families lived in the same apartment complex and both attended Reed High School in

Sparks, NV. According to Tina, John always wanted to be a Marine, and he was already signed up and ready to join during his senior year of high school.

John graduated from Marine boot camp on October 20, 2000. The next day, he and Tina were married at the American Legion Hall. John was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade based at Camp Lejeune, NC. Just after last Christmas, John received his orders to ship out to the Middle East.

On March 23, John was killed in an amphibious vehicle hit by enemy fire during an ambush in the southern Iraq town of An Nasiriyah. Lance Corporal Cline was 21 years old when he died. Tina says that she ``saw a teenager grow up to be a man.''

Unfortunately, I did not know John, but I can assure you that the dedication of this brave, proud Marine has touched my life. John's service to this Nation, on behalf of all of us, is truly inspiring. I want Tina and her boys to know that we are a grateful Nation for the man John became and for his courageous contributions to the United States of America and freedom-loving nations around the world.

I know my colleagues join me in praying for strength for John's wife and children as they deal with the loss of this American hero. As his young sons grow, I hope they will realize how grateful this Nation is for their sacrifice and the ultimate sacrifice that their father made.

God bless the Cline family.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend, the junior Senator from California, to introduce legislation on an issue that could have a significant impact on the economy.

The financial scandals which occurred last year at Enron, WorldCom, and other corporations rocked our financial markets and greatly diminished investor confidence in this country. In response to abuses by a few high-profile corporate executives, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Responsibility Act, which closed loopholes that led to those scandals and sought to restore investor confidence in our markets.

However, in the wake of those scandals, I believe that stock options have been incorrectly equated with abuse.

Stock option plans reflect America's best business values--the willingness to take risks, the vision to develop new entrepreneurial companies and technologies, and a way to broaden ownership and participation among all employees.

Last week, the Financial Accounting Standards Board made a tentative decision to mandate the expensing of stock options. This would effectively kill broad-based stock option plans which are used by many high-growth, entrepreneurial companies. Such board-based plans distribute options to rank-and-file employees, not just to senior executives. This is a very different approach than that used by companies associated with the scandals of last year.

This issue was brought to my attention by a couple hundred chief executive officers and leaders in the high-tech world. This is their No. 1 issue because, when they are properly structured, stock options are valuable incentives for productivity and growth. They also help startup companies recruit and retain workers--an essential tool in a struggling economy.

I think it is absolutely ludicrous that we would risk destroying growth when there isn't even a workable model available to accurately expense stock options. Not only is the plan wrong, it is not doable.

The legislation that we are introducing today would provide shareholders with accurate information

about a company's use of stock options, while also preserving this critical tool for all company employees. It would enhance the availability of financial reporting by requiring the SEC to take very specific steps to give shareholders and investors the important financial information they need.

Additionally, this bill places a 3-year moratorium on the mandatory expensing of stock options. This will allow the Department of Commerce to take a very detailed look at the negative impact that mandating expensing of stock options could have on our economy.

It is important that we do not react to the corporate scandals of last year by stifling this vital tool for economic growth. It would be bad for the economy, bad for workers in this country, and bad for potential investors.

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would like to thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for her hard work on this issue. I would also like to recognize and thank my colleagues who have signed on in support of this bill, Senators George Allen, Mike Crapo, Larry Craig, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Wayne Allard, Conrad Burns, Gordon Smith, Robert Bennett and John Warner.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record in the appropriate place.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with my good friend, the junior Senator from California, to introduce legislation on an issue that could have a significant impact on the economy.

The financial scandals which occurred last year at Enron, WorldCom, and other corporations rocked our financial markets and greatly diminished investor confidence in this country. In response to abuses by a few high-profile corporate executives, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Responsibility Act, which closed loopholes that led to those scandals and sought to restore investor confidence in our markets.

However, in the wake of those scandals, I believe that stock options have been incorrectly equated with abuse.

Stock option plans reflect America's best business values--the willingness to take risks, the vision to develop new entrepreneurial companies and technologies, and a way to broaden ownership and participation among all employees.

Last week, the Financial Accounting Standards Board made a tentative decision to mandate the expensing of stock options. This would effectively kill broad-based stock option plans which are used by many high-growth, entrepreneurial companies. Such board-based plans distribute options to rank-and-file employees, not just to senior executives. This is a very different approach than that used by companies associated with the scandals of last year.

This issue was brought to my attention by a couple hundred chief executive officers and leaders in the high-tech world. This is their No. 1 issue because, when they are properly structured, stock options are valuable incentives for productivity and growth. They also help startup companies recruit and retain workers--an essential tool in a struggling economy.

I think it is absolutely ludicrous that we would risk destroying growth when there isn't even a workable model available to accurately expense stock options. Not only is the plan wrong, it is not doable.

The legislation that we are introducing today would provide shareholders with accurate information

about a company's use of stock options, while also preserving this critical tool for all company employees. It would enhance the availability of financial reporting by requiring the SEC to take very specific steps to give shareholders and investors the important financial information they need.

Additionally, this bill places a 3-year moratorium on the mandatory expensing of stock options. This will allow the Department of Commerce to take a very detailed look at the negative impact that mandating expensing of stock options could have on our economy.

It is important that we do not react to the corporate scandals of last year by stifling this vital tool for economic growth. It would be bad for the economy, bad for workers in this country, and bad for potential investors.

Mr. President, before I yield the floor, I would like to thank the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for her hard work on this issue. I would also like to recognize and thank my colleagues who have signed on in support of this bill, Senators George Allen, Mike Crapo, Larry Craig, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Wayne Allard, Conrad Burns, Gordon Smith, Robert Bennett and John Warner.

I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record in the appropriate place.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line, with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in circumvention of a State's parental consent or parental notification law.

I have three young children in school, including a daughter, so I know something about parental consent. My wife and I, like most parents, have to give our written consent for school activities all the time.

In most schools, an underage child can't go on a school field trip without a signed permission slip. An underage child also can't receive mild medication at school, such as aspirin, for the alleviation of pain or discomfort unless a parent signs a release form permitting the school nurse to administer it. In some schools, a child may not take sex education class without parental consent. Nothing, however, prevents this same child from being taken across State lines, in direct disobedience of State laws, for the purpose of undergoing a life- altering abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act simply attempts to strengthen the effectiveness of State laws designed to protect children from the health and safety risks associated with abortion. In many cases, only a girl's parents know of her prior psychological and medical history, including allergies to medication and anesthesia. Also, parents are usually the only people who can provide authorization for post-abortion medical procedures or the release of pertinent data from family physicians. When a pregnant girl is taken to have an abortion without her parents' knowledge, none of these precautions can be taken. The harsh reality is that leaving parents uniformed about their underage daughter's abortion may not only be detrimental to the physical and mental health of the child but may, in some instances, be fatal.

This legislation does not supercede, override, or in any way alter existing State parental involvement laws. It does not impose any parental notice or consent requirement on any State. The Child Custody Protection Act addresses the interstate transportation of minors in order to circumvent valid, existing state laws and uses the authority of Congress to regulate interstate activity to protect those laws from evasion.

Currently, forty-three States have laws requiring a minor to get the consent of or notify one or both parents prior to an abortion, but only thirty-three are enforcing those measures. Most of the statutes apply to a child under the age of 18 and provide for a court bypass procedure should she be unable to involve her parents.

This legislation is a common sense solution to a dire problem. A minor who is forbidden to drink alcohol, to stay out past a certain hour, or to drive a car in some states is certainly not prepared to make a life-altering, hazardous decision, such as an abortion, without the consultation or consent of at least one parent.

In fact, a poll found that 85 percent of voters, including 75 percent of ``pro-choice'' voters, said ``No'' when asked, ``Should a person be able to take a minor girl across State lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge?''

I would like to thank the original cosponsors of this bill for their support, Senators Brownback, Inhofe, Talent, Santorum, Grassley, Enzi, Sessions, Allen, Bunning, Fitzgerald, Chambliss, DeWine, McConnell, Coleman, Kyl, Nickles, Lindsey Graham, Bond, Hagel, Craig, McCain and Hatch. I look forward to working with them, and other members of the Senate, to ensure that underage girls are protected from unscrupulous individuals who want them to make a life-altering decision without parental involvement.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line, with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in circumvention of a State's parental consent or parental notification law.

I have three young children in school, including a daughter, so I know something about parental consent. My wife and I, like most parents, have to give our written consent for school activities all the time.

In most schools, an underage child can't go on a school field trip without a signed permission slip. An underage child also can't receive mild medication at school, such as aspirin, for the alleviation of pain or discomfort unless a parent signs a release form permitting the school nurse to administer it. In some schools, a child may not take sex education class without parental consent. Nothing, however, prevents this same child from being taken across State lines, in direct disobedience of State laws, for the purpose of undergoing a life- altering abortion.

The Child Custody Protection Act simply attempts to strengthen the effectiveness of State laws designed to protect children from the health and safety risks associated with abortion. In many cases, only a girl's parents know of her prior psychological and medical history, including allergies to medication and anesthesia. Also, parents are usually the only people who can provide authorization for post-abortion medical procedures or the release of pertinent data from family physicians. When a pregnant girl is taken to have an abortion without her parents' knowledge, none of these precautions can be taken. The harsh reality is that leaving parents uniformed about their underage daughter's abortion may not only be detrimental to the physical and mental health of the child but may, in some instances, be fatal.

This legislation does not supercede, override, or in any way alter existing State parental involvement laws. It does not impose any parental notice or consent requirement on any State. The Child Custody Protection Act addresses the interstate transportation of minors in order to circumvent valid, existing state laws and uses the authority of Congress to regulate interstate activity to protect those laws from evasion.

Currently, forty-three States have laws requiring a minor to get the consent of or notify one or both parents prior to an abortion, but only thirty-three are enforcing those measures. Most of the statutes apply to a child under the age of 18 and provide for a court bypass procedure should she be unable to involve her parents.

This legislation is a common sense solution to a dire problem. A minor who is forbidden to drink alcohol, to stay out past a certain hour, or to drive a car in some states is certainly not prepared to make a life-altering, hazardous decision, such as an abortion, without the consultation or consent of at least one parent.

In fact, a poll found that 85 percent of voters, including 75 percent of ``pro-choice'' voters, said ``No'' when asked, ``Should a person be able to take a minor girl across State lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge?''

I would like to thank the original cosponsors of this bill for their support, Senators Brownback, Inhofe, Talent, Santorum, Grassley, Enzi, Sessions, Allen, Bunning, Fitzgerald, Chambliss, DeWine, McConnell, Coleman, Kyl, Nickles, Lindsey Graham, Bond, Hagel, Craig, McCain and Hatch. I look forward to working with them, and other members of the Senate, to ensure that underage girls are protected from unscrupulous individuals who want them to make a life-altering decision without parental involvement.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.