[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5511-H5520]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 499 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 
     3682) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit 
     taking minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the 
     involvement of parents in abortion decisions. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The amendment 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill shall be considered as adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) two hours of debate on the bill, as amended, equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. 
Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a closed rule for 
H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act. The rule provides for 
consideration of H.R. 3682 in the House with 2 hours of debate equally 
divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary. It also provides the Committee on the 
Judiciary amendment now printed in the bill will be considered as 
adopted. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Child Custody Protection Act is important to any 
parent who has a teenage daughter. As we know, people in several States 
have recently decided that a parent should know before their child has 
an abortion. We all hope that our teenage daughters have the wisdom to 
avoid pregnancy, but if they make a mistake, a parent is best able to 
provide advice and counseling. Also more than anyone else, a parent 
knows their child's medical history. For these reasons, my home State 
of North Carolina requires a parent to know before their child checks 
into an abortion clinic, as does the State of Pennsylvania.
  Last month, though, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary heard 
chilling testimony about how law-breaking citizens risk children's 
lives by taking them from their parents for out-of-State abortions. 
Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Joyce Farley, a mother 
from Pennsylvania, told the tragic story of her 13-year-old daughter.
  Three years ago this summer, a stranger took Mrs. Farley's child out 
of school, provided her with alcohol, transported her out of State to 
have an abortion, falsified medical records at the abortion clinic and 
abandoned her in a town 30 miles away, frightened and bleeding. Why? 
Because this stranger's adult son had raped Joyce Farley's teenage 
daughter, and she was desperate to cover up her son's tracks. Even 
worse, this all may have been legal. It is perfectly legal to avoid 
parental abortion consent and notification laws by driving children to 
another State. This is wrong, and it has to be stopped.
  According to the Reproductive Law and Policy Center, a pro-abortion 
group in New York, thousands of adults across the country carry 
children over State lines to get abortions in States without parental 
notification laws. These clinics advertise in the yellow pages that no 
parental consent is needed. So-called men in their 20s and 30s coerce 
teenage girls to have abortions out of State and without their parents' 
knowledge.
  The Child Custody Protection Act will put a stop to this child abuse. 
If passed, the law would make it a crime to transport a minor across 
State lines to avoid laws that require parental consent or notification 
before an abortion.
  Right now a parent in Charlotte, North Carolina, must grant 
permission before the school nurse gives their child an aspirin, but a 
parent cannot prevent a stranger from taking their child out of school 
and up to New York City for an abortion. This is plain nonsense. It has 
to be stopped.
  Let us do something to help thousands of children in this country. 
Let us pass the Child Custody Protection Act and put an end to the 
absurd notion that there is some sort of constitutional right for an 
adult stranger to secretly take someone's teenage daughter into a 
different State for an abortion.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me 
the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule. The majority claims to favor 
full and free debate on important issues but, however, on this 
controversial bill the majority has chosen to prohibit any amendments 
from being offered. Although no amendments will be allowed, the rule 
allows two hours of debate instead of the usual one. This proposed rule 
for floor consideration might lead a cynic to believe that the majority 
does not want to actually perfect legislation on a health and privacy 
issue. But, no, this process and this rule do not foster deliberation, 
but are more conducive to a 2-hour campaign sound bite designed to 
label opponents of this bill as antiparent and antifamily.
  I must also voice my strong concerns with the bill made in order by 
this rule. The so-called Child Custody Protection Act has the potential 
to increase the number of unsafe, back-alley abortions in this country 
and to place the lives and health of young women at risk.
  This bill would criminalize the act of bringing a minor across State 
lines to obtain an abortion without parental consent. Make no mistake, 
I have very serious concerns about unwanted pregnancies and abortions 
among young women, but my colleagues who support this bill fail to 
understand that those young women who have healthy family relationships 
will seek parental involvement and consent. But we know

[[Page H5512]]

that far too many young people do not live in either intact or 
supportive families. Indeed, a family member may have been responsible 
for the pregnancy.
  Congress cannot legislate healthy, open family relationships. This 
bill will force some young women to seek unsafe abortions placing their 
health and even their lives at risk.
  We would all hope that a pregnant minor would have the support and 
the proper medical care that she needs. However, if the medical well-
being of the minor is our concern, Members should vote against the 
bill.
  Does anyone believe that a minor driven by this bill to seek an 
abortion alone by herself, because the bill does allow her to go alone, 
will fare better than a minor who has a relative or friend to go with 
her to make sure that she is all right?
  This bill could result in the death or permanent disability of young 
women forced to seek abortions without the support of the adults that 
she may trust because they will be afraid of imprisonment if they help 
her, even if they talk with her.
  Now, some claim that this bill is about States rights to enforce 
States laws, but if that is the rationale of this bill, this bill is 
far too narrow. Why not put a prohibition on selling any guns to out-
of-State buyers who are evading their own State's guns regulation? My 
State of New York would be far safer if that prohibition were law.
  Perhaps we should consider passing a law to prevent people from 
shopping in other States where the sales taxes are lower than in their 
State. Maybe Americans should be prevented from going to casinos if 
they are from a State where gambling is illegal.
  Of course, such laws would be both ridiculous and unconstitutional. 
Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe has stated that H.R. 3682 violates the 
Constitution in the three following ways:
  One, it breaches the constitutional principles of federalism; two, it 
imposes an undue burden upon the constitutional right to choose an 
abortion; three, it lacks the constitutionally required emergency 
exception for circumstances where the health of the pregnant minor 
would require travel across State lines for an abortion.
  When a distinguished scholar raises constitutional objections about a 
bill, it is folly to prohibit Members from amending the bill to meet 
those objections. But, unfortunately, the supporters of this law have 
decided once again to flout the Constitution and the principles of 
health care and confidentiality in their unending quest to make 
abortion inaccessible, if not illegal.
  They do not expect this bill to become law. In fact, they know that 
it will not. They do expect, however, to score political points with 
particular special interest groups. President Clinton's advisors have 
recommended he veto the bill in its current form.
  If the bill's proponents are serious about enacting this bill into 
law, they will join me in voting to defeat the previous question. And 
if the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to make in order all of the amendments submitted to the Committee 
on Rules. That would allow the House to perfect the bill so that it 
might really have a chance of enactment into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule because it circumvents 
thoughtful consideration of an important public health issue. I urge my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question, defeat the closed rule, 
and, most importantly, defeat the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that State parental 
notification laws already have all medical exceptions and judicial 
bypass procedures to provide for a child's health in them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
to H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act.
  This much-needed legislation will assure that the rights of parents 
across the Nation are not trampled by strangers who, without the 
knowledge of the parents, take the minor girls to obtain an abortion. 
This bill, H.R. 3682, would assure that the State's parental consent or 
notification laws are not evaded by these unscrupulous persons who seek 
to play and pretend to be mother and father to our children.
  Right now 16 States have parental consent laws on abortion, and 10 
others have parental notification laws. Yet these are for naught 
because the abortion clinics are able to bypass these laws. This 
common-sense legislation that is before us today is what is needed to 
make sure that our State laws are respected.
  This bill will assure that what will not happen is what happened to 
Joyce Farley who was with us this morning. She described a terrible 
situation in her family where her daughter, without Mrs. Farley even 
knowing about it, was transferred to another State in order to have an 
abortion. And then what happened was, because abortion is a serious 
medical procedure that could have life-threatening ramifications, Mrs. 
Farley had her young daughter in a very difficult physical state, and 
this is not legislation that we should really worry so much about.
  Some Members are saying, this is a constitutionally sacred, protected 
right of abortion. Yet nowhere in these Supreme Court decisions does it 
say that the abortion mills should have the right to transfer and 
transport girls across State lines to have an abortion without the 
girl's parents even knowing about it.
  This bill will assure that this does not happen, again, by making it 
a Federal offense for an adult to transport a minor across State lines 
from a State which has consent or notification laws to a State without 
them in order to obtain an abortion.
  Across the Nation, Mr. Speaker, our children are required to obtain 
parental permission slips for field trips, for medication in schools 
and other things. I know in my community of Miami, Florida, we have one 
of the largest public school systems, and we have forms that the 
parents need to fill out if your child is going to be given an aspirin 
or given any kind of medication in school. We have forms that parents 
have to fill out if your child is going to be taken with the school on 
an organized and supervised field trip.

                              {time}  1215

  We have forms that the parents have to fill out if they want to take 
their child early from the school grounds. Yet for an abortion, no such 
consent or notification is required and, in fact, a child can be 
transported across State lines for this sensitive and serious 
operation.
  These requirements in the schools are in place to ensure that parents 
are aware of their minor children's activities and to ensure their 
safety. Is it too much to ask that our children, who require parental 
consent to take aspirins in schools, that they receive these forms, yet 
for a possibly life-threatening medical procedure, with serious 
physical and mental ramifications, no such consent should be given? I 
do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
  I would like to show my colleagues some of the ads that have been 
placed in publications in Pennsylvania. These are ads in the 
Pennsylvania telephone directory saying, ``Come to Pennsylvania?'' No. 
``Come to Maryland.'' This is an ad in Pennsylvania saying come to 
Maryland for this abortion procedure because, children, there is no 
parental consent in our State of Maryland.
  Here is another ad, again in Pennsylvania, where it says, ``Come to a 
clinic in Pennsylvania?'' No. ``Come to a clinic in New Jersey.'' An ad 
in Pennsylvania for an abortion clinic in New Jersey, and they are 
trying to lure children from their parents, lure children away at this 
very sensitive time, where they could be discussing this difficult 
decision with their parent.
  Now, is this a common sense bill? Of course, it is, Mr. Speaker. In 
fact, there was a poll recently done, and I know the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) alluded to it, showing 85 percent of the 
people say yes to the Ros-Lehtinen and Abraham Child Custody Protection 
Act. When they were asked should a person be able to take a minor girl 
across State lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' 
knowledge, they say no, of course not. No, strongly agreed, 78 percent; 
no, somewhat disagree, 7 percent. So 85 percent say, of course, parents 
should have the right to be informed about this decision. Parents 
should be there

[[Page H5513]]

to help their minor girls. And I urge my colleagues to support the rule 
for 3682.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time and for her leadership.
  Frankly, I think that most Americans would opt to answer a question 
when asked if some person should be able to take our children across 
State lines to encourage or to create the opportunity for an abortion, 
all parents and people who care would be in great opposition to 
something posed in that manner.
  This is a debate among friends. Frankly, there is a great deal of 
respect for those who support this legislation, and I hope for those 
who oppose it. But what we need to discuss now is the reality of what 
this very good sounding legislation will do.
  First of all, it will be intrusive, because 33 States do have these 
laws and the remainder do not. In fact, the law that we are trying to 
pass does not answer the concern of what is going on in American 
families. All of us would hope and advocate that every family in 
America be an Ozzie and Harriet family. Two parents discussing issues 
with their children, sitting at the dinner table, having the family 
picnic, and the regular vacation.
  But my friends we must open our eyes. Most young women have to 
entertain in their lives abuse and/or incest. One-third of those who 
seek abortions, young women, have been the victim of violence in the 
home. They have been the victim of incest. And that is the reason that 
this particular legislation, although it sounds pretty, does not answer 
the question of reality.
  And frankly, I am disappointed in the Committee on Rules, because I 
thought that they would welcome a more open and a more deliberative 
dialogue and debate. But yet they have offered to have a closed rule so 
that those of us who have opposition to the limitations of this law 
could not readily come to the floor and debate it in an open manner. It 
is a shame to say that a fix is in in the Committee on Rules. And it 
happens time after time after time when Democrats have reasonably 
thought out amendments, amendments that make sense, and yet the 
Committee on Rules sees fit to have a closed rule.
  What am I talking about? The grandmother rule. Do my colleagues 
realize that this legislation will hold a grandmother criminally 
liable, with a sentence of 1 year in jail, if because of her caring, 
loving attitude the young woman has come to her and asked her for 
advice. What about the male partner; does he not have any 
responsibility? Are our minds so limited that we cannot recall the 
tragedy of the two New Jersey teenagers? What did they do? Alleged and 
convicted of killing their baby because they had no one to talk to. But 
yet they both came from prominent families.
  This does not make sense. Or maybe we are not familiar with Alisha.

       My mom is a single parent and is in a treatment facility 
     for drugs and alcohol. I got pregnant while my mom was still 
     in treatment. I am not ready to raise a child at this point 
     in my life. The father of my child doesn't want the child. My 
     mother is not financially able. I am also a patient through 
     MHMRA, which is a mental health and retardation system.
  Do we not realize that Americans are made up of all shapes and sizes? 
Yes, this bill has a good purpose to it, but it is misdirected because 
it penalizes grandmothers, it penalizes a single parent, a mother who 
comes from a two-parent notification state. If that mother took that 
child across State lines, she would be criminally prosecuted because 
the father was not notified.
  We need to think back to our own teenagehood. I simply wish the 
Committee on Rules had been fair with us Democrats who come time and 
time again, expressing the views of many of those who find these kinds 
of one-sided pieces of legislation misdirected and unfair. But yet 
there they were again. I would ask my colleagues to oppose this rule 
primarily because it is patently unfair. It does not take into 
consideration incest and violence against teenagers. It does not take 
into consideration that we, unfortunately, are not a Land of Oz full of 
Ozzie and Harriet families.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important 
issue. I am strongly opposing the closed rule imposed upon us by the 
Rules Committee. This bill will impose restrictions upon our young 
women which will have devastating consequences.
  I hope that my colleagues will consider the importance of this 
legislation. During markup, and in front of Rules Committee, I offered 
amendments which would have allowed grandparents, aunts and uncles, and 
clergy or religious leaders to transport a young woman in crisis across 
State lines to obtain a safe abortion.
  Unfortunately, due to the closed rule we face today, family members, 
including a minor's grandparents can be criminally prosecuted for 
assisting their granddaughter in obtaining an abortion. A pregnant 
minor needs someone to speak with, and someone to trust. If we force 
our daughters, our granddaughters, our sisters, and our nieces and 
cousins to act without the guidance of someone they can trust, where 
will they turn? Perhaps this bill should be called the teen 
endangerment act!
  In fact, yesterday, the House passed legislation which recognized the 
importance of grandparents in the lives of their grandchildren. 
Republicans and Democrats alike spoke about how grandparents could 
offer guidance and love and encouragement to their grandchildren. Yet, 
the legislation before us today would criminalize grandparents' 
involvement in their granddaughters' lives.
  I am very concerned about children and teenagers in America and I 
want teenage women to have the right to reproductive health care.
  Currently parental involvement laws are in effect in 30 States. 
Although my home State of Texas does not require parental consent or 
notification, Louisiana, which borders my home State requires parental 
consent before a minor can receive an abortion. If H.R. 3682 is passed, 
the bill would have the effect of federally criminalizing these laws, 
extending their effect to States that have chosen not to enact such an 
obstructive and potentially dangerous statute.
  I received a letter from a constituent in Houston, Texas, a fifteen 
year old girl whose mother, a single parent was in a treatment facility 
for drugs and alcohol. This young woman found herself pregnant while 
her mother was still in treatment, and without any offer of help from 
her boyfriend, she made the decision to have an abortion. As a child 
herself, she did not feel ready to care for a child.
  The true victims of this act will be young girls and young women. The 
enactment of this law would undoubtedly isolate these young women at a 
time of crisis. If a minor feels she is unable to tell her parents 
about her pregnancy, she would have no recourse to receive the medical 
treatment she needs at a time early enough in the pregnancy to perform 
a safe abortion.
  I agree that adolescents should be encouraged to speak with their 
parents about issues such as family planning and abortion. However, the 
Government cannot mandate healthy family relations where they do not 
already exist. We need to protect our young women from being forced to 
seek unsafe options to terminate their pregnancies, and we need to 
encourage them to speak with other family members, including their 
grandparents and religious leaders to guide them through this time of 
crisis.
  I am hopeful that my colleagues will also oppose this restrictive 
rule and this bill in order to allow young women to access adult 
guidance and safe, legal abortions.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to respond to my colleague that, yes, this is a closed rule. I will say 
that the majority of the rules on this House floor since we have been 
in the majority have been open.
  This is just a clean and simple bill that is designed to help States 
enforce their parental notification laws. We decided that Congress 
should not override the wishes of voters in 20 States by allowing 
amendments that would weaken parental notification laws, and that is 
the reason for the closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Lincoln Diaz-Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, and I am proud to be 
a cosponsor of it today, the Ros-Lehtinen Abraham legislation, is 
extraordinarily important and I think it is fitting and just that we 
adopt it today and, hopefully, with a very, very large bipartisan 
margin.
  Poll after poll after poll shows that the overwhelming majority of 
the American people support the right of the parents to be notified if 
their children are going to have abortions. And as the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has stated, 20 States have adopted laws to 
require parents to be notified.

[[Page H5514]]

  But an industry has developed, in effect, to void, to evade, to dodge 
those laws passed by the sovereign will of the people of 20 States who 
have said we want there to be parental notification. So what we are 
saying is, no, no, they should not be able to, by subterfuge, by plan, 
evade and dodge those laws. We are saying no, no, they cannot create an 
industry that, in effect, even in writing, in publications such as the 
phone books, the yellow pages, an industry that says evade the law, 
dodge the law in one State, come across the border, and the law will 
not apply. That is something that is very serious.
  Obviously, the underlying topic that is dealt with here is very 
serious as well. If there is a child with a problem, the parent should 
know about that child's problem, to work with that child in finding the 
most just, the most humane solution precisely for that child. That is 
why 20 States have taken the step of requiring that the parents of the 
child be notified.
  So what we are saying is, no, they cannot avoid, they cannot evade, 
they cannot dodge the laws by creating what has happened, which is this 
industry that has risen precisely to make the laws, the State laws, 
worthless. And that is why this legislation is so very important and so 
timely, and I commend the leadership for bringing it forward, for 
supporting the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and, of 
course, my colleagues on the Committee on Rules for having brought it 
forth as expeditiously as it has been brought forth.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time and for her leadership on this issue and many 
others. I rise in opposition to this rule and to this bill, as I have 
risen in opposition to every other piece of legislation that has moved 
through this Congress which attacks abortion rights.
  This Congress is working to dismantle a woman's most hard fought 
rights, the right of a safe, legal abortion. Procedure by procedure, 
obstruction after obstruction this antiwoman Congress is succeeding. 
This time the targets are on our Nation's young people.
  This bill will criminalize the act of taking a noncustodial minor out 
of State, which requires parental consent, to have an abortion. All of 
us would hope that our children would be able to confide in us. I am 
sure that the parents of Amy Grossberg felt that she could confide in 
them. However, family loyalty kept her from doing that and the 
situation turned tragic. Sometimes a teenager simply cannot confide in 
her own family. And if she has no other alternative, no other adult who 
will help her, she will inevitably resort to an unsafe, unclean, 
underground clinic, or worse.
  Family values simply cannot be legislated. This Congress has no 
business making laws which force one family member to confide in 
another. There may be very good reasons a pregnant teen does not want 
to deal with a parent. He or she could be abusive. There could be a 
history of incest. Alcohol or drug use could be a factor, or she simply 
does not feel comfortable telling a parent.
  This legislation is not about protecting young women from undue 
influence, it is about stripping our young people of essential support. 
It is not about helping our children, it is about abortion politics, 
and it puts our kids at risk.
  I urge a ``no'' vote against this so-called child custody bill and 
against this rule which did not allow one single Democratic amendment. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  I am struck, as I listen to the debate here today, by the fact that 
the opponents of this bill really are here expressing opposition to the 
acts of State legislatures. They are here, in effect, expressing 
opposition to the decisions of the Supreme Court. Because it is the 
State legislatures that have passed the parental involvement laws that 
we are seeking to help them enforce, and it is the Supreme Court of the 
United States which has upheld, under the Constitution, the validity of 
these parental involvement laws.
  So the arguments that we are hearing time and time again that are 
being urged on us as reasons for not supporting this bill are really 
arguments that are aimed at the Supreme Court of the United States and 
of the State legislatures which have seen fit to adopt constitutional 
valid parental involvement laws.
  Now, I think it is also somewhat ironic that we keep hearing about 
the health of young girls. And I would ask that the Members read 
something that appeared on the op-ed page of The New York Times on 
Sunday, July the 12th. The heading for the column: ``Is Parental 
Guidance Needed?'' It is very interesting because it is by Bruce 
Luccio, a prominent abortion doctor, and a prominent advocate of 
abortion rights.

                              {time}  1230

  Now, I do not agree with Dr. Luccio's position on abortion, and I 
would be quick to point that out, but I do agree with his conclusion 
about this bill, because Dr. Luccio recognizes, and I quote, that the 
passage of this bill is important to the health of teenage girls.
  Dr. Luccio recognizes that it is the parents who are in the best 
position to help ensure that the health concerns that are relevant when 
an abortion is being contemplated are fully considered, and if there 
are complications in an abortion, it is the parents who are in the best 
position to ensure that effective and speedy treatment is provided.
  I would ask that every Member of this House, regardless of their 
position on the overall issue of abortion, read this article in the New 
York Times by Dr. Luccio; and I think it will be very enlightening to 
them on the issue of the health of the young girls who are involved in 
this.
  Now, I am also struck by the constitutional argument that has been 
made here. If we listen, in essence, what the opponents of this bill 
are arguing is that minors have a constitutional right that ensures 
their right of interstate travel to evade parental supervision.
  Well, that is absurd. There is no such right of minors to interstate 
travel to evade parental supervision. The Supreme Court has never found 
that there is any such right. And, on the contrary, the Supreme Court 
has found that parental involvement laws, whether they be consent laws 
or notification laws, that they meet certain standards that have been 
articulated by the Supreme Court are valid and constitutional; and 
those are the kinds of laws that we are seeking to enforce through the 
bill that we have here today.
  All we are saying is that someone should not be able to move a minor 
across State lines in an effort to evade and thwart the legitimate 
purposes of those valid constitutional State laws.
  Now, let me say this: The Supreme Court has recognized the right of 
parents. The Supreme Court in this context has not recognized the right 
of cousins, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, pastors, teachers, 
or anybody else to be involved in a minor's decision to have an 
abortion. It is the parents who have that right to be involved.
  The courts have recognized that, and the legislatures have recognized 
it. And I think it is an entirely appropriate use of our power in the 
Congress to help the States carry out their policy in this area.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, first I think we ought to remind ourselves 
what this bill does. It does not require parental notification or 
consent when a minor goes across State lines. What it does is prohibit 
someone from accompanying them.
  In this bill, the child can still evade the parental consent laws of 
the State and go across State lines alone, but this bill would 
criminalize anybody accompanying them.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to speak against the closed rule. It prohibits 
the ability, our ability, to consider some very important amendments. 
The administration, in a statement of administration policy, has 
indicated that the senior advisors of the President will recommend a 
veto unless these amendments are in the bill.

[[Page H5515]]

  In recent letters from the White House Chief of Staff to the House 
and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, the administration in fact said 
it would support legislation of this nature if it had these few 
amendments, specifically an amendment to exclude close family members 
from criminal and civil liability. Under the legislation, grandmothers, 
aunts, uncles, minor and adult siblings could face criminal prosecution 
for coming to the aid of a relative; also, to ensure that persons who 
only provide information, counseling, medical services to the minor 
would not be subject to liability; and address several constitutional 
and legal infirmities that the Department of Justice has identified in 
the legislation. Those concerns were transmitted to the House Committee 
on the Judiciary on June 24, 1998.
  The administration also has serious concerns about the federalism 
issues. However, as indicated, if the amendments that they have 
suggested are adopted, they could support the legislation. This closed 
rule prohibits our ability to consider that legislation. And, 
therefore, the senior advisors, even if this bill were to pass, will 
recommend a veto.
  We should oppose the closed rule, oppose the motion on the previous 
question. We should vote no on the previous question so that the rule 
could be amended to consider these various amendments. If the previous 
question is ordered, we should just vote no on the rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I have the division of the time, 
please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) has 13\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have the deepest personal respect for 
those whose religion or other personal conviction causes them to take a 
different view than I have on the question of abortion. But my respect 
does not go so far as to suggest that I believe they ought to be able 
to impose their religious views on this issue on someone who does not 
share those views.
  Further, I think personally of my own experience as a father. With my 
wife of 29 years, we have raised two wonderful daughters. And it is 
troubling to think that there would be a time in a crisis, including a 
crisis involving an unwanted pregnancy, when they would not want to 
come to one of us and discuss this matter.
  And yet, I know that this piece of legislation is not about 
strengthening family ties, because the whole difference of opinion that 
I have with those who feel so strongly on this abortion question is 
that the Federal Government and the Members of this House cannot 
replace broken family ties or the inability of families to communicate.
  This piece of legislation does not concern strengthening families, it 
concerns advancing an agenda of the most fanatical people with 
reference to this question of invading personal choice.
  If we read what they have written, the fanatics on this issue, we 
will find that they believe that in this country their ultimate goal is 
to make it a criminal offence, they view it as murder, for anyone at 
any time after conception to have an abortion. They want to put women 
who exercise this choice in jail. And they also want to place in jail 
every health care provider who provides for an abortion at any time 
after conception.
  And recognizing that that fanatic agenda which they have written 
about cannot be implemented because it is opposed by the vast majority 
of the American people, they have decided to approach this issue one 
group at a time and one procedure at a time. So they have done their 
polls.
  And next week I think we have a chance to consider this question of 
one very rare procedure that President Clinton had the courage to veto 
when they passed legislation last year. And so they are going to 
criminalize it one procedure at a time, and today they propose to 
criminalize it one group at a time. And this particular group includes 
people like big sisters, grandmothers, stepparents, best friends, even 
members of the clergy, that might be consulted by a young woman in a 
very troubled situation and advise or help her to cross a State line to 
receive these kind of services. That person could be put in jail.
  I maintain that what is at stake here today is this fanatic movement 
to ultimately criminalize the choice being exercised on this very 
private decision by a woman--to put women in jail and to put every 
health care provider involved in jail. And I see my colleague from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey). She knows, well, we face this same issue later today 
on other legislation.
  This same group of fanatics also wants to limit access to 
contraceptives because they seem to believe that the right of 
motherhood is more than that. It will be imposed without any choice on 
the part of women in our society.
  So it is essential that we vote down this agenda and stop the path 
toward criminalizing choice for women in this country.
  The surveys show that 30 percent of the young women who choose not to 
notify their parents, when you look at those who do not seek parental 
consent, are people that have been victims of family violence.
  I thought it was all summed up by a colleague of mine in the Texas 
Senate from west Texas, who said, when asked about these parental 
consent laws, ``well, you know, I have not met very many young girls 
who ask parental consent for conception. Why do we think they are going 
to ask it with reference to the choice of abortion?''
  The idea of putting a grandmother in jail, putting a big sister in 
jail, putting a clergy member in jail because they were willing to help 
a desperate young woman make a tough choice is wrong, and we ought to 
vote down this bill.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Pappas).
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Child 
Custody Protection Act. Ending human life through abortion is harmful 
to all involved no matter what age they are. It is further worsened 
when an adult nonparent violates the law by taking a child across State 
lines to obtain an abortion.
  Our world is often an uncertain place for young people. Abortion 
providers and other strangers cannot offer the permanent support that 
only parents can give. What they want to do is promote their abortion 
agenda with complete disregard for family input in such an important 
decision.
  Contrary to what seems to be the emphasis of the opposition to this 
bill, parents are not generally evil. They are and should be encouraged 
to be part of the healing process, and their rights must be respected, 
too. This bill does just that.
  This is why I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of life and in 
favor of protecting our daughters and families. Vote for the Child 
Custody Protection Act.
  Mrs. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a constitutional scholar.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding time.
  I have very strong feelings about the bill itself. It is an 
unprecedented piece of legislation. It is an unconstitutional piece of 
legislation, and it has some severe unintended consequences.
  I do not want to talk about the bill in this rules debate. I want to 
talk about democracy and how democracy works.
  We had a bunch of amendments to try to address some of the concerns 
that we had about this bill. We took those amendments and we presented 
them up on the third floor to the Rules Committee, and the Rules 
Committee said, no, we will not allow you to have a debate on those 
amendments. They might improve the bill. They might allow the President 
to sign a bill into law if some of them were passed. They might 
enlighten the general public. They might foster democracy, but you are 
not going to be allowed to have a debate on those amendments.
  That is what this rule is about. It is about democracy and how 
democracy works in this House.
  We have amendments where in the minority not one single amendment of 
a Democratic Member, or any Member

[[Page H5516]]

of this House, was allowed to be considered under the rule under which 
we will be debating this issue.
  It was not because I did not show up. I showed up at the Rules 
Committee, even though they scheduled the Rules Committee hearing on 
this bill at a time when we were not even back in session. They 
announced it while we were out of session so that we would not know 
that it was going on. I came back in here and got straight off the 
plane, picked up my papers, went to the Rules Committee and I said, I 
have two amendments that I think would help make this bill 
constitutional.

                              {time}  1245

  So I am not here as one that did not do what I was supposed to do in 
the democratic process. I respect the rights of the Committee on Rules, 
I respect the rules of this House, but when the Committee on Rules 
looks at me and says, ``Notwithstanding the fact that you came here and 
asked us to make your amendment in order, and you told us that you 
would like to help make this bill a constitutional bill rather than an 
unconstitutional bill,'' and when the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules looks at me saying, ``I'm the arbiter of what is constitutional 
in this country; I'm the only person that gets to make that decision,'' 
then that is a violation of democracy.
  And that is what this rule is all about. And that is why, my 
colleagues, without regard to how they feel about abortion, without 
regard to how they feel about choice, without regard to whether this is 
a good or a bad bill or not, this rule ought to be defeated. Because if 
my colleagues support democracy and debate and an informed electorate, 
there ought to be a debate on these amendments, there ought to be 
consideration of these amendments on the floor of the United States 
House of Representatives.
  That is what this is about.
  Vote no on this rule so that we can send it back just to have the 
opportunity to debate some amendments that we think are important.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification:
  The Committee on Rules did give more than the normal required 48 
hours notice, and, yes, we were out of town, most of the Members for 2 
weeks, but our staffs were here. And, as my colleagues know, usually 
that is what they do, is notify us that this is going to happen.
  Also, the reason the rule is closed is because Congress felt; I mean 
that we felt that Congress should not override the wishes of the voters 
in 20 States while allowing amendments that would weaken their parental 
notification laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Custody 
Protection Act.
  I served in the Pennsylvania legislature when we established the 
parental consent law for the specific purpose of keeping our young 
girls safe and under the authority of their parents especially for such 
a decision as an abortion. That law was specifically designed to 
prevent situations like the one that occurred in 1995 where a 12-year-
old Pennsylvania girl became pregnant after sexual involvement with an 
18-year-old man. As many of my colleagues have heard by now, this 
frightened 12-year-old was taken by the man's mother from Pennsylvania 
to New York, and in New York she underwent a painful and serious 
medical procedure and abortion. She had this abortion without her 
parents even knowing that she was pregnant. Yet abortion clinics in 
Pennsylvania's neighboring States, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, seek 
still to pedal their services through Pennsylvania newspapers and even 
to anyone who opens up a Pennsylvania phone book.
  Mr. Speaker, I brought a copy of an ad from the yellow pages in the 
capitol where I served in Harrisburg titled ``Abortion.'' Here it says: 
Hillcrest Women's Medical Center, and it gives a 1-800 number that can 
be called in Rockville, Maryland, and it specifically says: No parental 
consent.
  I have here a letter with me today from the Attorney General of 
Pennsylvania, Mike Fisher. I would not call him a fanatic. He defended 
the judgment of the woman who interfered with the mother's custody of 
her child. Here is what he says.
  Quote: We must do what we can to ensure that a parent's right to be 
involved in their daughter's decision regarding abortion is protected. 
I will continue to protect the rights of parents throughout 
Pennsylvania by defending our parental consent laws. I respectfully 
urge you to protect the rights of parents across the Nation by 
supporting H.R. 3682. The legislation will help those of us in law 
enforcement protect vulnerable children by insuring that parents have a 
say in their child's decision. End quote.
  By passing the Child Custody Protection Act this body will take a 
clear stand against the bizarre notion that the U.S. Constitution 
confers a right upon strangers to take one's minor daughter across 
State lines for a secret abortion even when a State law specifically 
requires the involvement of a parent or a judge in the daughter's 
abortion decision. As moms and dads, it is our job to protect our young 
women, our daughters. The government should not allow our daughter's 
lives to be endangered by turning them over to strangers for serious 
medical procedures. Let us protect our States' rights, our parental 
authority, but, most importantly, let us protect our Nation's young 
women. Let us pass the Child Custody Protection Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, 
and I ask my colleagues to join me in defeating it.
  This bill is dangerous; and, as we have heard from so many of our 
colleagues, the Committee on Rules has refused to allow us to propose 
even the most reasonable changes to it. This bill will put our 
daughters at risk. Under this legislation young women, who feel they 
cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy, will 
be forced to fend for themselves without any help from a responsible 
adult. Some will seek dangerous back-alley abortions close to home. 
Others will travel alone to unfamiliar places for abortions. This 
measure will isolate young women, not protect them.
  And, unfortunately, despite a veto threat from the White House, the 
Committee on Rules has prohibited us from offering even one amendment 
to make the bill better. The President has said he will sign the bill 
if it is altered, but, once again, the GOP leadership has demonstrated 
that it would rather have an election-year issue than a bill.
  One of our principal objections to the legislation is that it will 
subject grandmothers and siblings and other close relatives to criminal 
prosecution for coming to the aid of a relative in distress. The 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) went to the Committee on Rules 
to address this issue. Her amendment would have exempted grandparents 
and other close relatives from criminal prosecution under this bill. 
Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules; 
and so under this legislation grandmothers will be jailed for helping 
their granddaughters, aunts imprisoned for assisting their nieces, 
brothers for aiding their sisters, all in the name of so-called family 
values.
  What will the police do? Set up granny checkpoints to catch 
grandmothers helping their granddaughters? Will we have dogs and 
searchlights at State borders to lock up aunts and uncles?
  Mr. Speaker, I am a grandmother of two, and I believe grandparents 
should be able to help their grandchildren without getting thrown in 
jail. As much as we wish otherwise, family communication, open and 
honest parent-child relationships, just cannot be legislated. When a 
young woman for many reasons cannot turn to their parents, she should 
certainly be able to turn to a grandmother, or a favorite aunt, or 
a relative.

  Democrats made other efforts to improve the legislation. The 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) offered an amendment to add a 
health exception to the bill. His amendment would have allowed a 
relative to accompany a young woman for an abortion if the young 
woman's health was endangered. Demonstrating its ``high'' regard for 
women's health, the Committee on Rules rejected that amendment as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we should make abortion less 
necessary

[[Page H5517]]

for teenagers, not more dangerous and difficult. We need to encourage 
teenagers to be abstinent and responsible. We need a comprehensive 
approach to keeping teenagers safe and healthy. We need to encourage 
family involvement, not tear families apart.
  Mr. Speaker, in the remaining time I would just like to respond to 
some comments of a good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady). We have heard a lot of talk today about States rights, and the 
Republican Party is the party, say they are the party, of States 
rights. And yet, here they are supporting legislation that tramples all 
over States rights. The bill will grant the Federal Government brand 
new authority to enforce State law. It interferes with the rights of 
citizens to travel between States by saddling a young woman with the 
laws of her home State no matter where she goes. I wonder if the 
gentleman from Florida might be as willing to apply this novel approach 
to other areas of the law like gun control.
  For example, in New York we have very tough, sensible restrictions on 
gun ownership. His State of Florida has very weak gun control laws. 
Would the gentleman support legislation that applied New York's gun 
control laws to New Yorkers seeking to purchase guns in Florida? We 
have heard a lot of talk about States rights, but I wonder if the 
gentleman would respond or if someone else would respond whether our 
tough New York gun control laws could be enforced in the State of 
Florida, for example.
  If we are really for States rights, let us think about that.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  As my colleagues know, the other side does have a motion to recommit 
with instructions, and it is wide open for any amendments that they 
would like to include in that. So I just wanted to make that point for 
the record.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington 
State (Mrs. Linda Smith).
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I want to again say what 
H.R. 3682 does, because sometimes in the debate what it does gets lost.
  This bill simply makes it a Federal offense to transfer a minor girl 
across State lines to obtain an abortion in order to circumvent that 
State's parental consent laws.
  It is very simple. It is a fundamental principle that parents protect 
their children and have the rights, unless they are not good parents, 
and then they are given to a guardian, sometimes a grandparent, 
sometimes someone else. But someone is ultimately in charge of that 
child because someone needs to be responsible to protect that child. 
Without this bill our children are at risk.
  Now we hear situations today described as if every family is normal 
and every uncle, every grandma and every cousin and everyone that would 
like to should be able to take a little girl, 12, 13, 14, to another 
State for an abortion.
  I am a grandma of six. I have one grandchild reaching teenage years 
in a couple years, and I would not want her to be taken across a State 
line by some of the relatives I have had in my background. The fact 
that they are a relative does not mean that they could not be the 
problem.
  I guess ultimately we have to start thinking about whether or not 
parents have any rights or not. This is an issue of parental rights, 
and it is about the rights of the parents. Do they have the rights in 
the child's life to be ultimately responsible for that child?
  Now we have heard the example of the 12-year-old. It is real where 
the mother of the 18-year-old took the child across State lines; and, 
by the way, charges against her were dropped. She did not do anything 
wrong. Well, I would tell my colleagues, as a mother of someone that 
had teenagers, I would be incensed because my little girl could not 
even get aspirin at the school without permission, she definitely could 
not get dental work, and no hospital would accept her, no clinic, no 
reputable physician, without her mother or her father's permission.
  Now let us just get right down to what an abortion is and what it 
does. Most of the time we are dealing with a person that is going to 
bleed extensively. We are dealing with a young woman that needs after-
care. We are dealing with someone that needs her mother. Now my 
colleagues can stand and say she has a right to this, but I say she has 
a right to her mother, and, if someone has parents that are not good 
enough to be parents, we have procedures to let someone else be their 
guardian.

                              {time}  1300

  Little girls of 12, 13, 14, and I know some would say they are women 
with the same rights as any other women, no, they are little girls, are 
going to go through cramps, they are going to go through bleeding, they 
are going to sometimes go through the need of surgery, and you are 
telling me that I do not have a right as a mother to know? I do. And 
that is what this bill is a part of. But now you are going to say that 
if we do not pass this bill, everything will be just fine?
  This just says you cannot take kids across State lines where States 
say parents should be involved, at least being notified. You are saying 
they can take them to a State, bring them back, and they are not 
notified, they are not involved, until the little girl starts bleeding 
to death or she is sterile because she did not take care of herself, 
because she did not want to tell anybody because she got across State 
lines. No, you see, this is not even reasonable.
  This bill makes sense. If we have got bad parents, we have procedures 
for them. But to assume all parents are bad and we have to take their 
children away somewhere to have abortions is a wrong assumption.
  This is a very good bill. It is reasonable, whether you are pro-life 
or pro-choice, because we are all pro-parent and we are all pro-family.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if I could respond to my friend from Washington State, 
anyone who impregnates a 12-year-old girl has committed statutory rape 
and should be imprisoned for a very long time, and I hope he was. But 
the issue is then, the 12-year-old girl; should she be forced to carry 
a child to term? That is probably where we have a division of opinion. 
I think requiring girls as young as 9 years old to bear children is a 
question that society needs to talk about. I think it is barbaric.
  We certainly live in a strange time. This body has for years 
attempted to take away a woman's control over her reproductive system 
at the same time that it rejoices over the introduction of Viagra!
  Congress believes it is wise enough to outlaw medical procedures it 
doesn't like--perhaps vasectomy should require parental consent so at 
least that would ease the double standard.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Paul).
  (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. PAUL. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule but in opposition to H.R. 
3682, the Child Custody Protection Act, because it is seriously flawed. 
Although well motivated, the problem we are dealing with is the 
breakdown of the American family, respect for life and abortion, not 
too much freedom to travel between States.
  Having delivered nearly 4,000 babies in my three decades of medical 
practice and having seen the destructiveness of abortion, I strongly 
agree that legalized abortion is the most egregious of all current 
social policies. It clearly symbolizes the moral decline America has 
experienced in the last 30 years.
  However, Federal law restricting interstate travel, no matter how 
well intended, will serve no useful purpose, will not prevent 
abortions, and, indeed, will have many unintended consequences.
  It is ironic that if this bill is passed into law, it will go into 
effect at approximately the same time that the Department of 
Transportation will impose a National I.D. card on all Americans. This 
bill only gives the Federal Government and big government proponents 
one more reason to impose the National I.D. card on all of us. So be 
prepared to show your papers as you travel about the U.S. You may be 
transporting a teenager.
  There is already a legal vehicle for dealing with this problem. Many 
States

[[Page H5518]]

currently prohibit adults from taking underage teenagers across State 
lines for the purpose of marriage. States have reciprocal agreements 
respecting this approach. This is the proper way to handle this 
problem.
  Most importantly, this bill fails to directly address the cause of 
the problem we face regarding abortion, which is the absurdity of our 
laws permitting the killing of an infant 1 minute before birth, or even 
during birth, and a doctor getting paid for it, while calling this same 
action murder 1 minute after birth.
  The solution will ultimately come when the Federal Government and 
Federal courts get out of the way and allow States to protect the 
unborn. If that were the case, we would not have to consider dangerous 
legislation like this with the many unforeseen circumstances.
  Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited 
powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas 
for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For 
every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or 
consent of the governed and only the state governments, their 
designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such 
rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating 
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the people.'' Our nation's history makes clear that 
the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of 
central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding 
the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it 
differently.
  Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, 
Congress today will likely pass H.R. 3682. H.R. 3682 amends title 18, 
United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines to 
avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. 
Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their 
children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have 
their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes? 
Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking 
minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of 
parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there 
exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just 
such an action the answer is absolutely not.
  This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with 
criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states. 
To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity 
for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights 
protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes 
erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth 
amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be 
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or 
limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the 
same offense. However in United States v. Lanza, the high court in 1922 
sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government and 
a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine of 
double jeopardy. One danger of unconstitutionally expanding the federal 
criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger that 
one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. Despite 
the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a national 
police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
  The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized 
criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less 
effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those 
who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the 
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the 
integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via 
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as 
full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those 
who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal 
government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which 
allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal 
government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, 
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from 
one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed 
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon 
states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, 
unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to 
centralization of police power.
  It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well 
as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, 
independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or a ``adequate'' 
federal improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, preempts states' 
rights to adequately address public health concerns. Roe v. Wade should 
serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making matters worse in all 
states by federalizing an issue.
  It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in 
vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than 
shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government. 
There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read ``It's ten o'clock; 
do you know where your children are?'' I suppose we have devolved to a 
point where it reads ``It's ten o'clock; does the federal government 
know where your children are.'' Further socializing and burden-shifting 
of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal government is 
simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to be more 
involved.
  For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further 
and unconstitutional centralization of police power in the national 
government and, accordingly, H.R. 3682.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and H.R. 
3682, the Child Custody Protection Act. I want to commend my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for introducing 
this important legislation.
  The legislation before the House today is the product of extensive 
consideration and examination by the Committee on the Judiciary. The 
Subcommittee on the Constitution held a markup during which more than 
10 amendments were considered. The full committee markup lasted 2 days, 
and more than 20 amendments were considered.
  This bill has been examined and debated more exhaustively than much 
of the legislation that comes before this body. It is now time for 
Congress to pass this bill and protect the fundamental rights of 
parents to be involved in their children's lives.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people overwhelmingly support this 
legislation. This is a common-sense bill that will protect the 
integrity of State laws which require a child seeking to obtain an 
abortion to involve her parents in that decision.
  State parental notification laws are designed to secure the rights of 
parents to protect their daughters' physical and emotional health. 
However, these laws are frequently circumvented by individuals who 
transport minors to States without parental involvement laws. Some 
abortion clinics even advertise their own State's lack of parental 
involvement laws to encourage minors from other States to cross State 
lines so they may obtain an abortion without involving their parents.
  Loving parents, not friends, counselors, boyfriends or other adults, 
should be the ones most intimately involved in a minor child's decision 
as important as obtaining an abortion. An abortion is a complicated 
medical procedure that poses significant risks to the mother upon which 
the abortion is performed. Someone transporting a young girl to another 
State to obtain an abortion exposes her to many physical and emotional 
dangers that could be avoided by involving her parents, who may possess 
essential information about her medical and psychological history.
  Mr. Speaker, it is simply outrageous that any individual should be 
allowed to subvert State laws designed to protect families and children 
simply by going behind a parent's back. This bill protects the rights 
of parents to be involved in the decisions of their own children, it 
protects the rights of States to enforce their own laws, and it 
protects the safety of our children.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to vote yes on the 
Child Custody Protection Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myslef such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, these amendments would all have been in order under an 
open rule. I will insert these materials for the Record.

  Test of Previous Question for H. Res. 499 H.R. 3682--Child Custody 
                             Protection Act

       Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 3682) to 
     amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors 
     across State

[[Page H5519]]

     lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in 
     abortion decisions.
       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule 
     XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3682) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
     to prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws 
     requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against the committee amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute are waived. No amendment to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those specified in section 2 of this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order listed in section 
     2, may be offered only by a Member specified in section 2 or 
     his designee, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable 
     for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against the amendments specified in section 2 
     are waived. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: 
     (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2. The following amendments are in order pursuant to 
     the first section of this resolution:


   amendment to h.r. 3682, as reported, offered by mr. watt of north 
                                carolina

       Page 4, strike line 1 and all that follows through line 6 
     and insert the following:
       ``(b) Exception.--(1) The prohibition of subsection (a) 
     does not apply if the abortion was necessary to save the life 
     of the minor or to prevent serious physical illness or 
     disability or because her life or physical health was 
     endangered by a physical disorder, physical injury, or 
     physical illness, including a life endangering physical 
     condition or serious physical health condition caused by or 
     arising from the pregnancy itself.
                                  ____



   amendment to h.r. 3682, as reported, offered by mr. watt of north 
                                carolina

       Page 3, strike line 6 and all that follows through line 23 
     and insert the following:
       ``(a) Offense.--Except as provided in subsection (b), 
     whoever knowingly transports an individual who has not 
     attained the age of 18 years across a State line, with the 
     intent to evade the requirements of a law requiring parental 
     involvement in a minor's abortion decision, in the State 
     where the individual resides shall be fined under this title 
     or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
                                  ____



  amendment to h.r. 3682, as reported, offered by ms. jackson-lee of 
                                 texas

       Add at the end the following:
       (c) Study.--Not later than one year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the General Accounting Office shall 
     study the impact the amendment made by this Act has on the 
     number of illegal and unsafe abortions and increased parental 
     abuse, and report to Congress the results of that study.
                                  ____



  amendment to h.r. 3682, as reported, offered by ms. jackson-lee of 
                                 texas

       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(3) The prohibitions of this section do not apply with 
     respect to conduct by ministers, rabbis, pastors, priests, or 
     other religious leaders.
                                  ____



  amendment to h.r. 3682, as reported, offered by ms. jackson-lee of 
                                 texas

       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(3) The prohibitions of this section do not apply with 
     respect to conduct by a grandparent of the minor.
                                  ____



  amendment to h.r. 3682, as reported, offered by ms. jackson-lee of 
                                 texas

       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(3) The prohibitions of this section do not apply with 
     respect to conduct by an aunt or uncle of the minor.

  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote no on the previous question, so 
we may add these responsible amendments to the rule.

        The Vote On The Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's ``Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives,'' (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership ``Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives,'' (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual:
       ``Although it is generally not possible to amend the rule 
     because the majority Member controlling the time will not 
     yield for the purpose of offering an amendment, the same 
     result may be achieved by voting down the previous question 
     on the rule . . . When the motion for the previous question 
     is defeated, control of the time passes to the Member who led 
     the opposition to ordering the previous question. That 
     Member, because he then controls the time, may offer an 
     amendment to the rule, or yield for the purpose of 
     amendment.''
       Deschler's ``Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives,'' the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
       ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on 
     a resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the item for debate thereon.''
       The vote on the previous question on a rule does have 
     substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 499.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina and I 
rise in support of the rule and the underlying bill. While it is a 
closed rule, I think that it is an appropriate one, given the very 
narrow, significant scope of this bill.
  The family is the building block of every community in this Nation. 
Not only is this a recognized principle in our culture, but something 
we have actively encouraged by enacting laws promoting more family 
involvement in education decisions, stronger child support enforcement, 
and special tax benefits for families.
  We recognize the rights of parental notification and consent when a 
child gets a tattoo, or a body piercing, or even takes an aspirin at 
school. How can we tell moms and dads across the country they have no 
right to know if a perfect stranger takes their daughter miles away 
from home, to another State, to have a life altering medical procedure 
without their knowledge. Today, we seek to ensure that basic right is 
not emasculated.
  Opponents of the Child Custody Protection Act want to turn this into 
a debate about abortion. This is not about abortion. It's about family, 
parental support and parental responsibility

[[Page H5520]]

and about children growing up in a society of confusing mixed messages. 
States have the right to pass consent or notification laws for minors, 
yet these laws become meaningless when a young girl is assisted taking 
a trip to another State to avoid the difficult task of counseling with 
her parents about an unplanned pregnancy.
  I urge all of my colleagues to think about the natural role of a 
parent, the importance of States' rights and, most importantly, the 
well-being of the children--at risk in these situations. I think these 
justify a closed rule and I urge support for the rule and H.R. 3682.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently, a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 5, rule XV, the Chair will reduce to a minimum of 
5 minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device, 
if ordered, will be taken on the question of agreeing to the 
resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 252, 
nays 174, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 277]

                               YEAS--252

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Manton
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (OR)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--174

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baesler
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Condit
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gordon
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Neal
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Clyburn
     Dingell
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     McNulty
     Moakley
     Payne
     Rogan

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PORTER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. RAHALL, HALL OF TEXAS, GILCHREST, KLINK, MURTHA, DOYLE, 
KANJORSKI, MASCARA, GOODLING, HOUGHTON, LAFALCE, RADANOVICH, SKELTON, 
OBERSTAR, and DAVIS of Virginia changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                          ____________________