[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.
____________________