[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 37 (Friday, March 27, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CONFIDENCE IN THE FAMILY ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. ZOE LOFGREN

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, March 27, 1998

  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, there now exists a serious defect in our 
Federal criminal and civil law and procedures that has unfortunately 
been brought into focus by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr's 
investigation of the President. Under Federal law and the law of most 
States, children can be compelled to testify against their parents, and 
parents against their children. Although most prosecutors refrain from 
subjecting a family to this terrible situation, it can and does occur. 
I have long believed that parents and their children should be shielded 
from this trauma, and that doing so would not do significant damage to 
the administration of justice.
  Therefore, today I am introducing a bill, the Confidence in the 
Family Act, to ensure that parents and children cannot be compelled to 
testify against one another, and that confidential communications 
between parents and children will be protected. These privileges would 
be similar to the privileges provided to spouses under current Federal 
law, and would be developed by the Federal courts in light of the 
common law, reason, and experience.
  Under current law a mother can be given the choice of providing 
testimony that reveals her daughter's most personal confidences, or go 
to jail herself. A child can be put on the witness stand and forced to 
reveal personal discussions with his Dad. It does not matter if this 
testimony relates to the most private confidences that parents and 
children often share in the course of seeking comfort, support, or 
advice.
  The damage that such an experience can cause parents, children, and 
familial relationships is readily apparent, and worthy of our concern.
  It is not at all clear that forcing parents and children to testify 
against each other provides great access to truth and justice. When a 
potential witness is put into such a predicament, they face what legal 
scholars refer to as the cruel ``trilemma.'' The witness has three 
choices: they may testify truthfully, they may testify and lie, or they 
may refuse to testify and risk contempt charges and imprisonment. Among 
these options, testifying falsely may often be the most appealing. The 
other choices certainly have serious societal repercussions.
  Most jurisdictions recognize privileges for individuals in certain 
relationships (e.g., husband-wife, lawyer-client, psychiatrist-patient) 
to refrain from testifying. Surely, the confidences shared between a 
mother and daughter deserve at least as much respect as those between 
psychiatrists and patients. I believe that the law should recognize the 
special nature of the relationship between a parent and child, and that 
is the basis for this legislation.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in support of this important 
decision.

                          ____________________