[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 94 (Wednesday, July 15, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5521-H5540]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 278, I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 499, 
I call up 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 Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill is considered as having been read 
for amendment.
  The text of H.R. 3682 is as follows:

                               H.R. 3682

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Custody Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS TO AVOID CERTAIN LAWS 
                   RELATING TO ABORTION.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 117 the following:

``CHAPTER 117A--TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS TO AVOID CERTAIN LAWS RELATING 
                              TO ABORTION

``Sec.
``2401. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws relating to 
              abortion.

     ``Sec. 2401. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws 
       relating to abortion

       ``(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 such individual obtain an abortion, if in fact the 
     requirements of a law, requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's abortion decision, in the State where the individual 
     resides, are not met before the individual obtains the 
     abortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 
     more than one year, or both.
       ``(b) Exception.--The prohibition of subsection (a) does 
     not apply if the abortion was necessary to save the life of 
     the minor because her life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a 
     life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself.
       ``(c) Civil Action.--Any parent or guardian who suffers 
     legal harm from a violation of subsection (a) may obtain 
     appropriate relief in a civil action.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's 
     abortion decision is a law--
       ``(A) requiring, before an abortion is performed on a 
     minor, either--
       ``(i) the notification to, or consent of, a parent or 
     guardian of that minor; or
       ``(ii) proceedings in a State court; and
       ``(B) that does not provide as an alternative to the 
     requirements described in subparagraph (A) notification to or 
     consent of any person or entity who is not described in that 
     subparagraph;
       ``(2) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older 
     than the maximum age requiring parental notification or 
     consent, or proceedings in a State court, under the law 
     requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion 
     decision; and
       ``(3) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 117 the following new 
     item:

``117A. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws relating to 
  abortion.....................................................2401.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 499, the 
amendment printed in the bill is adopted.
  The text of H.R. 3682, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 3682

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Custody Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS TO AVOID CERTAIN LAWS 
                   RELATING TO ABORTION.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 117 the following:

``CHAPTER 117A--TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS TO AVOID CERTAIN LAWS RELATING 
                              TO ABORTION

``Sec.
``2401. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws relating to 
              abortion.

     ``Sec. 2401. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws 
       relating to abortion

       ``(a) Offense.--
       ``(1) Generally.--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 that such individual obtain an abortion, and thereby 
     in fact abridges the right of a parent under a law, requiring 
     parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, of the 
     State where the individual resides, shall be fined under this 
     title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
       ``(2) Definition.--For the purposes of this subsection, an 
     abridgement of the right of a parent occurs if an abortion is 
     performed on the individual, in a State other than the State 
     where the individual resides, without the parental consent or 
     notification, or the judicial authorization, that would have 
     been required by that law had the abortion been performed in 
     the State where the individual resides.

[[Page H5522]]

       ``(b) Exceptions.--(1) The prohibition of subsection (a) 
     does not apply if the abortion was necessary to save the life 
     of the minor because her life was endangered by a physical 
     disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a 
     life endangering physical condition caused by or arising from 
     the pregnancy itself.
       ``(2) An individual transported in violation of this 
     section, and any parent of that individual, may not be 
     prosecuted or sued for a violation of this section, a 
     conspiracy to violate this section, or an offense under 
     section 2 or 3 based on a violation of this section.
       ``(c) Affirmative Defense.--It is an affirmative defense to 
     a prosecution for an offense, or to a civil action, based on 
     a violation of this section that the defendant reasonably 
     believed, based on information the defendant obtained 
     directly from a parent of the individual or other compelling 
     facts, that before the individual obtained the abortion, the 
     parental consent or notification, or judicial authorization 
     took place that would have been required by the law requiring 
     parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision, had the 
     abortion been performed in the State where the individual 
     resides.
       ``(d) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers legal harm from 
     a violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief 
     in a civil action.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's 
     abortion decision is a law--
       ``(A) requiring, before an abortion is performed on a 
     minor, either--
       ``(i) the notification to, or consent of, a parent of that 
     minor; or
       ``(ii) proceedings in a State court; and
       ``(B) that does not provide as an alternative to the 
     requirements described in subparagraph (A) notification to or 
     consent of any person or entity who is not described in that 
     subparagraph;
       ``(2) the term `parent' means--
       ``(A) a parent or guardian;
       ``(B) a legal custodian; or
       ``(C) a person standing in loco parentis who has care and 
     control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly 
     resides;

     who is designated by the law requiring parental involvement 
     in the minor's abortion decision as a person to whom 
     notification, or from whom consent, is required;
       ``(3) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older 
     than the maximum age requiring parental notification or 
     consent, or proceedings in a State court, under the law 
     requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion 
     decision; and
       ``(4) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 117 the following new 
     item:

``117A. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws relating to 
  abortion.....................................................2401.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) will each control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the legislation under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my good 
friend, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the sponsor of 
the bill.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) for his help throughout this process in passing the Child 
Custody Protection Act.
  As a writer stated, of all the rights of women, the greatest is to be 
a mother. I and every mother will assure the Members that an immediate 
bond exists as our newborn child is placed in our hands, a bond that is 
sacred, a bond that lasts forever, a bond that is innate, a bond 
between parent and child.
  This legislation is about one thing and one thing only, Mr. Speaker, 
protecting the rights of parents from being stripped by strangers who 
dare to play and pretend to be mothers and fathers with our children.

                              {time}  1345

  This bill will make it a Federal misdemeanor for an adult to 
transport a minor across State lines in order to evade parental consent 
or notification laws on abortion. Already 16 States have parental 
consent laws, and 10 more have parental notification laws on abortion.
  Unfortunately, these laws are being evaded by those who 
unscrupulously take our minor daughters to obtain an abortion without 
our consent or notification. This law-breaking activity is encouraged 
by the abortion mills in States with consent or notification laws. They 
advertise in publications in States which do have those laws. They 
entice law-breaking without consideration of the physical and mental 
ramifications that this life-threatening medical procedure can have on 
a minor. Indeed, even the United States Supreme Court noted that the 
procedure leaves lasting medical, emotional and psychological 
consequences and, it said, particularly so when the patient is 
immature.
  Parents are required in schools across our Nation to provide consent 
for our daughters for field trips or even to take an aspirin while in 
school custody. However, when it comes to our daughters being subjected 
to a possible life-threatening medical procedure, a stranger can take 
our daughters with no repercussions whatsoever.
  This is simply not acceptable. This bill, Mr. Speaker, does not 
implement a Federal notification or consent law. It merely helps States 
to enforce their laws to ensure that parents are able to comfort and 
advise their minor daughters during this crisis pregnancy. Congress 
should send a clear message across America that we stand for parental 
rights, that we will not allow strangers to take advantage and exploit 
our young daughters.
  Today I spoke with Joyce Farley, a mother from Pennsylvania whose 
inherent right to comfort her daughter during this difficult time was 
stripped away by a complete stranger. Joyce's daughter became gravely 
ill after being subjected to a botched abortion where she was taken by 
the stepmother of the man who raped her. And it was only after Joyce 
Farley noticed that her daughter was ill that she learned that the 
abortion had been committed on her daughter.
  For mothers like Joyce Farley and her daughter, this legislation is 
about women's rights, the right of every mother in our Nation to 
protect her child from the unknown hand of a stranger, the right of 
every mother to protect her relationship with her daughter. This issue 
goes above and beyond the abortion issue. It is about your rights, my 
rights and every single parent's right to protect our children.
  The Child Custody Protection Act will provide peace of mind to 
countless mothers and fathers across this great land. I urge our 
colleagues to protect our daughters and, of course, to protect the 
sacred bond that exists between parents and children.
  I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, H.R. 3682. The 
bill purports to protect children by making it a crime to accompany 
them as they travel across State lines to get an abortion if they are 
not in compliance with their home State's parental consent or 
notification laws. This bill will endanger children more than it will 
protect them. It will have the cruel practical effect of requiring 
young girls to risk their lives by traveling across State lines to 
obtain a safe and legal procedure, despite the fact that it is in their 
best medical interest to have someone accompany them.
  Make no mistake about it, under this bill it is not a crime, not a 
crime for the minor to go across State lines without having complied 
with the parental consent laws. It is a crime to have someone accompany 
them across State lines. It is not strangers. It is brothers and 
sisters, grandmothers and grandfathers who would be made criminals. 
Unfortunately, again we are paying politics with the lives and well-
being of women by attempting to pass laws that will have the effect of 
making it more dangerous to obtain a legal abortion.
  The overwhelming majority of minors seeking abortions consult their 
parents before they undergo the procedure. Even in States that have no 
mandatory parental consent or notification, more than 57 percent of 
minors under the age of 16 involve one or more of their parents. No big 
government mandate can make minors talk to their parents more than they 
already do.
  More than half of all minors not involving their parents in an 
abortion decision do involve an adult, including many who involve a 
stepparent or adult relative. These are the very same people that we 
will make criminals if this law is enacted and the same minors that 
will be isolated because of this bill.

[[Page H5523]]

  The compassionate older sibling or grandparent who insists on 
accompanying a minor in order to ensure their safety will be sent to 
jail if this bill becomes law. Even those ministers, relatives or 
family friends who oppose abortion but wish to ensure that the minor 
undergoes a safe procedure and comes home unharmed will be considered 
criminals based on the scheme proposed in this bill.
  Again, it is not a crime for the minor to go across State lines 
without complying with parental consent laws if they go alone. It is 
only a crime if they are accompanied.
  For the subcommittee hearing, Mr. Speaker, I had moving testimony 
from Bill and Mary Bell submitted for the record. The Bells are parents 
of a daughter who died receiving an illegal abortion because she did 
not want her parents to know about her pregnancy, but Indiana law 
required parental notice before she could have a legal abortion. A 
Planned Parenthood counselor in Indiana informed Becky that she would 
either have to notify her parents or petition a judge in order to get 
the abortion, and she responded that she did not want to tell her 
parents because she did not want to hurt them. And she also replied 
that if she could not tell her parents, she certainly could not tell a 
judge who she did not even know. The counselor suggested that Becky 
travel 110 miles away to Kentucky where she would not need to notify 
her parents, but instead she underwent a botched illegal procedure 
closer to home and died as a result.
  Although this bill would not have hurt Becky Bell, it will hurt young 
women in similar situations who are unable to cross State lines with 
someone else to obtain a safe and legal abortion.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we heard testimony at the hearing that this 
bill could make doctors and nurses criminals for the simple task of 
providing a safe and legal abortion to a woman who happened to live in 
another State. We should resist at all cost this vile attempt to scare 
and intimidate doctors and nurses by creating a criminal scheme that 
could have them thrown in jail even when they are not aware that a 
minor intends to evade a State's consent laws. By taking down a name 
and address and setting up an appointment, clinic nurses could be 
accessories to the crime. Even assisting in having a cab drive a woman 
home, someone could be found criminally responsible as an accessory 
after the fact and, therefore, also subject to civil liability.
  The civil liability provisions of the bill create a blanket Federal 
cause of action for a parent who suffers ``legal harm.'' Based on 
agency principles, the doctor, the nurse, a cab driver, a bus driver 
could be held civilly liable for providing safe and legal assistance to 
a minor. This federalization of tort law is unprecedented and 
counterproductive to what should be the compelling interest of ensuring 
doctors and other health professionals the freedom and comfort to 
provide the best medical care available.
  How will insurance companies respond to this new Federal tort? Will 
they force doctors to interrogate any woman looking under the age of 
25? Will they require birth certificates and residence cards to prove 
their residence before they are able to get the medical care they are 
seeking? The civil liability provision should be eliminated.
  For these and many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues 
to pause and take a long, hard look at the consequences that will 
result from this bill which will be encouraging the isolation and 
endangerment of the young Becky Bells of the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I think the greatest threat to society today 
is the assault on the family. No matter what direction we look in, the 
authority of the parents is being eroded. It is particularly true in 
entertainment. I have yet to see a movie where the parents are smart or 
know as much as the children do. But the fact is, parental authority is 
certainly a far cry from what it once was.
  Now, this bill seeks to reinforce the primacy of the parent. Parents 
are most suitable, when it comes to caring for, nurturing care for 
their young daughter. We pass laws for the normal situation, not the 
abnormal. We deal with the abnormal situation in the judicial bypass. 
But the fact is, the overwhelming majority of parents love their 
daughters, care for their daughters, are concerned for their daughter's 
welfare, health, safety more than anybody else is, more than a social 
worker, more than a relative no matter how close. There is something 
about parental love that is unique.
  Now, what about the parents that are not there? What about the 
abusive parents? What about the child that is terrified that telling a 
parent would result in some bodily harm or some irrevocable 
estrangement? That is why we have a judicial bypass. Twenty-two States 
have these laws requiring parental notification, but every law requires 
the placement of a judicial bypass for those circumstances where it is 
inappropriate for whatever reason to try to notify the parents.
  How do you get to the judge if you are a young girl and you have this 
problem pregnancy? Well, the abortion clinic, euphemistically so-
called, should require the parents be notified if that is the law of 
the State. And if the parents are not notified, they can direct the 
young lady to a social worker who will take care of the judicial 
bypass. So the mechanics are there. The process is there. But what you 
have to have is an adult, preferably the parent, the loving, caring, 
nurturing, uniquely caring parent making a decision, providing advice, 
supporting, helping the child in this very important operation.
  Now, to me it is grotesque that in a school you cannot take a 
Tylenol, you cannot have your ears pierced without parental consent. 
But abortion, which is an irrevocable act that has consequences perhaps 
permanent, if it is not done just properly, if the uterus is damaged or 
perforated; and that reminds me of another thing, do not forget, 
follow-up care following an abortion. What if the young lady goes 
across the State with whomsoever, has the abortion and then comes back 
and has adverse consequences, starts hemorrhaging?
  Well, the clinic that performed the abortion on her is nowhere to be 
found. That is when you need your parents. That is when you need 
somebody to care about whether you live or die and that you get the 
medical care you need.
  So it is a terrible mistake to avoid parental authority, parental 
responsibility, to camouflage that and to go to another State to avoid 
the laws of the State of residence of the young lady for the purposes 
of an abortion.
  Now, lastly, as a grandparent, I would be very concerned if my 
daughter were to be young and have an abortion and I not know about it, 
because I have an interest as a parent, too, in the children of my 
children. But this protects the child. This provides the follow-up care 
that may be necessary, if you obey the law.
  Let us reinforce the family. Let us not tear it down. I hope Members 
will support this well thought out, necessary bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Lowey).
  (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)

                              {time}  1400

  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in opposition to this bill. This is a dangerous 
misguided bill that isolates our daughters and puts them at grave risk. 
That is why the President has threatened to veto it.
  Under this legislation, young women who cannot turn to their parents 
when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to fend for 
themselves without any help from any responsible adult. Thankfully, 
most young women, more than 75 percent of minors under age 16, already 
involve their parents in the decision to seek an abortion, and that is 
the good news. But not every child is so lucky. Not every child has 
loving parents.
  Now, I believe that those young women who cannot go to their parents

[[Page H5524]]

should be encouraged to involve another responsible adult, a 
grandmother or an aunt, in this difficult decision. Already more than 
half of all young women who do not involve a parent in the decision to 
terminate a pregnancy choose to involve another adult, including 15 
percent who involve another adult relative, and that is a good thing. 
Unfortunately, this bill will impose criminal penalties on adults like 
grandmothers who come to the aid of their granddaughters.
  We have tried to address this problem at the Committee on Rules by 
exempting close family relatives from criminal liability under the 
bill, but that amendment was denied. As a result, this bill will throw 
grandmothers in jail for assisting their granddaughters. Mr. Speaker, I 
am a grandmother of two, and I believe grandparents should be able to 
help their grandchildren without the risk of being thrown in jail. 
Unfortunately, this legislation would criminalize that involvement.
  And so this bill tells young women who cannot tell their parents, 
``Don't tell anyone else. Don't tell your grandmother. Don't tell an 
aunt. No one can help you. You are on your own.''
  Let me give you one tragic example. Ten years ago Becky Bell was 17. 
Unfortunately, she became pregnant. Hoping to keep the pregnancy from 
her parents, she went to a local Planned Parenthood clinic. They told 
her that under Indiana law, if she wanted an abortion, she would have 
to obtain her parents' permission or ask a judge for a waiver. Well, 
Becky was ashamed to tell her parents and said, ``If I can't tell my 
mom and dad, how can I tell a judge, who doesn't even know me?'' So 
Becky obtained an illegal back-alley abortion, an illegal, unsafe 
abortion that killed her.
  Parental consent laws did not force Becky to involve her parents in 
her hour of need. Just the opposite. At her most desperate hour, 
Indiana's parental consent law drove Becky away from the arms of her 
parents and straight into the back alley.
  Mr. Speaker, parental consent laws do not protect our daughters, they 
kill them. They do not bring families together, they tear them apart. 
And so I ask the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), how many young 
women like Becky Bell will lose their lives because of this 
legislation? How many more of our daughters will be killed by these 
misguided laws?
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we should make abortion less 
necessary 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 do not 
need a bill that isolates teenagers and puts them at risk.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) for yielding me this time because I want to refute what 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) said, and the other 
speakers, about this Becky Bell case. It reminds me of what Benjamin 
Franklin said about the death of a beautiful theory by a gang of brutal 
facts.
  Let me give my colleagues the brutal facts about this Becky Bell 
case. Abortion advocates claim that this case came from an illegal or 
self-induced abortion; that this young lady sought this illegal 
abortion because she was afraid to tell her parents about the pregnancy 
as required by Indiana law. And certainly that Becky died is a tragedy. 
However, there is no solid evidence whatsoever to support the claim 
that she died of an illegal or self-induced abortion.
  In fact, several abortion advocates have expressed concerns about 
using this case as an example of an illegal abortion death. And let me 
give my colleagues some of the most recent opinions and statements and 
evidence to date.
  The head of forensic pathology at Indiana University said, ``I cannot 
prove she had an illegal abortion. I cannot prove she had anything but 
a spontaneous abortion.'' The pathologist on the case found no evidence 
of internal injury, which he felt ruled out a self-induced abortion. 
And even the Executive Director of Planned Parenthood said, and I 
quote, ``I have some reservations about hyping this whole thing when it 
is so mixed about what actually went on.''
  A well-known doctor, very well known on the abortion issue says, and 
I quote, ``The most reasonable probability is that Rebecca Bell died of 
an overwhelming pneumonia death, the same condition that puppeteer Jim 
Henson died of. Ms. Bell probably had an incomplete spontaneous 
abortion, which is a miscarriage, with tissue still remaining in the 
uterus, which is typical of a spontaneous miscarriage.''
  The facts clearly point to the fact that although it seems like a 
good example to use, Becky Bell did die, there is no doubt about that, 
but she did not die from an abortion as a result of not wanting to go 
to her parents with the news of her pregnancy. Those are the facts.
  Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record further documentation relating 
to the case of Becky Bell.

                                                 New York, NY,

                                                September 4, 1990.
     Re Rebecca Suzanne Bell.

     Becky Moore,
     United Families,
     Eugene, OR.
       Dear Ms. Moore: There is no evidence of any septic abortion 
     contained in the coroner's report; there is no infection in 
     or around the uterus, no pus, no odor to the uterus and no 
     peritonitis. The serosa of the uterus is described as 
     ``smooth and glistening.'' In the case of a septic abortion 
     this tissue would be shaggy and discolored. Further, all 
     blood cultures were consistently negative. Indeed, there is 
     no evidence for an induced abortion at all: no marks or 
     stigmata of instrumentation (dilation of the cervix by 
     instruments, marks on the cervix, etc.) in the genital tract.
       The most reasonable probability is that Rebecca Bell died 
     of an overwhelming streptococcus pneumonia (the same 
     condition that puppeteer Jim Henson died of). Ms. Bell 
     probably had had an incomplete spontaneous abortion 
     (miscarriage) with tissue still remaining in the uterus 
     (typical of a spontaneous miscarriage). The tissue which 
     remained showed absolutely no evidence of infection or 
     inflammation. If the coroner had been convinced of a ``septic 
     abortion'' he should have made cultures of that tissue: if 
     this had truly been a death from septic abortion the cultures 
     of the tissue would have yielded streptococcus pneumoniae. 
     Finally, in the case of a septic abortion the lungs would 
     have shown septic pulmonary emboli, not generalized 
     pneumonia.
       In short, the cause of death here was probably overwhelming 
     pneumonia unrelated to the abortion/miscarriage. This was 
     about as superficial and careless (not to say ``negligent'') 
     an autopsy as I have seen in my considerable experience 
     evaluating medico-legal files over the past twenty years.
       I would strongly suggest that all slides of tissues 
     examined at autopsy be reviewed by a competent impartial 
     pathologist. I am confident that my opinion will be 
     supported.
           Sincerely,
     Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D.
                                  ____

                                            National Right to Life


                                               Committee, Inc.

                                                   Washington, DC.

                   Known Facts of the Becky Bell Case

       Abortion advocates, including Becky Bell's parents, claim 
     that Becky Bell died in 1988 from an illegal or self-induced 
     abortion. She allegedly sought the illegal abortion because 
     she was afraid to tell her parents as required by Indiana 
     law.
       Certainly, that Becky Bell died is a tragedy. However, 
     there is no solid evidence to support the claim that she died 
     of an illegal or self-induced abortion. In fact, several 
     abortion advocates have expressed concerns about touting the 
     Becky Bell death as an illegal abortion death.
       Among the most recent evidence and opinions to date:
       ``I cannot prove she had an illegal abortion. I cannot 
     prove she had anything but a spontaneous abortion,'' said 
     [Dr. John] Pless [head of forensic pathology at Indiana 
     University Medical Center, who performed the autopsy on Becky 
     Bell].--``Abortion debate shifting,'' by Joe Frolik, 
     Cleveland Plain Dealer, page 1, Sept. 9, 1990.
       Pathologist She . . . found no evidence of internal injury, 
     which he felt ruled out a self-induced abortion. Nor were 
     there any marks on Becky's cervix that would be left by the 
     instruments commonly used for clinic abortions.--same 
     article.
       ``I heard about Becky's death right away, but I heard 
     conflicting opinions right away, too,'' said Delbert Culp, 
     executive director of Planned Parenthood of Central Indiana. 
     ``I have some reservations about hyping this whole thing when 
     it's so mixed about what actually went on.''--same article.
       ``In this case, the pathology report is notable in that 
     while there is evidence of massive infection in the lungs and 
     elsewhere in the body, there is no evidence of infection on 
     the outside or within the uterus . . . [the germ that killed 
     Becky] is a common pneumonia germ . . . which is unlikely to 
     originate from a contaminated abortion procedure.''--Dr. John 
     Curry, former head of the Tissue Bank

[[Page H5525]]

     at Bethesda Naval Hospital, as quoted in ``A rush to blame in 
     Becky Bell's death,'' by Cal Thomas, Washington Times, Aug. 
     9, 1990.
       Karen Bell [Becky's mother] believes her daughter had 
     someone try to induce an illegal abortion . . . [Heather] 
     Clark [Becky's best friend] insists her friend did nothing of 
     the sort, saying Rebecca talked about getting a legal 
     abortion in Kentucky until she died. She thinks Rebecca had a 
     spontaneous abortion.--``Abortion Law: Fatal Effect?'' by 
     Rochelle Sharpe, Gannatt News Service, Washington, D.C., Nov. 
     24, 1989.
       Note: For more information about the Becky Bell case, 
     including the coroner's report, autopsy report and other news 
     stories, please contact the NRLC State Legislative Department 
     at (202) 626-8819.
                                  ____

                                            National Right To Life


                                              Committee, Inc.,

                                                   Washington, DC.

           The Becky Bell Case: Not an Illegal Abortion Death

       Abortion advocates, including Becky Bell's parents, claim 
     that Becky Bell died in 1988 from complications of an illegal 
     abortion she allegedly sought because she was afraid to tell 
     her parents as required by the Indiana law.
       However, the facts of the case do not support the abortion 
     advocates' claims.
       Fact 1. Becky, suspecting she was pregnant, went to Planned 
     Parenthood in Indianapolis for advice.
       Fact 2. After Becky left Planned Parenthood, she talked 
     about going to Kentucky for an abortion.
       Fact 3. Becky was scared and confused.
       Fact 4. She considered both adoption and abortion.
       Fact 5. Her best friend, Heather Clark, believes Becky 
     miscarried, and did not have an abortion.
       Fact 7. On the day before her death, Becky asked Heather 
     Clark to make a Saturday appointment at a Kentucky abortion 
     clinic.
       Fact 8. Becky's baby was still alive immediately before she 
     died.
       Fact 9. Becky Bell did not die from an illegal abortion.
       Heather Clark, Becky's best friend, was, unlikely Becky's 
     parents, in her confidence during the last week of her life. 
     As reported by Rochelle Sharpe of Gannett News Service in 
     Abortion Law: Fatal Effect? (11/24/89), the two girls 
     together: went to Planned Parenthood, where a counselor . . . 
     told them about the Indiana parental-consent law. During the 
     four months of her pregnancy, though, Rebecca wavered . . ., 
     Clark said. She contemplated a trip to Kentucky abortion 
     clinic or running away to California, where she planned to 
     have the baby and put it up for adoption. Most of the time, 
     she said, Rebecca favored the abortion, but she kept 
     postponing her trip out of state.
       Karen Bell [Becky's mother] believes her daughter had 
     someone try to induce an illegal abortion . . . Clark insists 
     her friend did nothing of the sort, saying Rebecca talked 
     about getting a legal abortion in Kentucky until she died. 
     She thinks Rebecca had a spontaneous abortion. . . .
       Whatever happened, Rebecca got sicker by the day. She was 
     so sick at school on Tuesday, she was crying when she saw her 
     friend Clark. . . .
       By Thursday, ``She was so sick, she could not breath,'' 
     Clark said. ``She couldn't lay down all the way.''
       Still, Rebecca asked Clark to make a Saturday appointment 
     at the Kentucky abortion clinic. As she lay dying, Clark said 
     Rebecca requested she call one of her friends, who'd gone to 
     the Kentucky clinic. That girl described the procedures to 
     Rebecca.

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the 
deceptively titled Child Custody Protection Act. I am a mother, too. I 
have two young daughters. And I would hope and pray that my two young 
daughters would come to me if they got into the tragic situation of an 
inadvertent pregnancy. But if they could not come to me, I certainly do 
not want them in a back alley having an unsafe abortion.
  Do we want to create a society where young women who face an 
unintended pregnancy cannot turn to a relative or a close friend for 
help? Do we want to increase the number of illegal and often lethal 
back-alley abortions? Do we want to criminalize grandparents for taking 
their grandchildren to another State for an abortion? Do we want to 
criminalize a bus driver who transports a minor across State lines for 
an abortion? Do we want to force the few young women who cannot involve 
their parents in these decisions into potentially violent and abusive 
situations by forcing them to get the consent of their dysfunctional 
parents? I think not. And I think we should vote against the bill for 
this reason.
  Columnist Ellen Goodman said last week, ``You can't write a law 
forcing parent-child communication.'' But if we try, we are going to 
see tragedies across this country.
  If my colleagues do not like the Becky Bell example, let us talk 
about Spring Adams, a 13-year-old girl from Idaho who was shot to death 
by her parent after he learned she intended to have an abortion for a 
pregnancy that he himself caused.
  The proponents of this bill claim it to be constitutional. But it 
would be the first Federal legislation which would restrict the rights 
of the adults, of the adults, to cross State lines legally. That is why 
this bill is unconstitutional. It is wrong. It will not solve the 
problem and we need to reject it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue before us today involves two important values: 
The rule of law and the role of parents. The law before us upholds each 
of these values.
  The practice of transporting a minor across State lines to obtain an 
abortion is not simply an abstract discussion. In the State of 
Arkansas, where I live, there are parental notification laws in place 
to assure parents are consulted. And, yes, there is an appropriate 
provision for judicial override in those extraordinary circumstances 
that dictate that parents should not be involved. However, Arkansas 
borders on three States that do not require parental consent. Abortion 
clinics do not hesitate to encourage minors to cross State lines to 
obtain an abortion.
  A Texas clinic, for example, has taken out an ad in the Little Rock 
phone book targeting Arkansas teens by stating that it, ``Specializes 
in teenage care and in difficult cases.''
  In 1996, 746 Arkansas residents traveled out of State to obtain an 
abortion. Based upon the hearing that was held in the Subcommittee on 
the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, it is clear a 
significant number of these 746 abortions were in order to circumvent 
Arkansas's parental notification law. This is an affront to the rule of 
law.
  But the rule of law is not the only value that will be protected by 
this law. The bill fortifies parents' responsibilities to provide 
guidance and care for their child. It is the role of the parent, not 
the government and, yes, not the grandparent to raise a child. And in 
critical times like that of an unexpected pregnancy, a child most 
benefits from the guidance of a parent. To deny the parents the ability 
to know and to act in the best interest of their child not only harms 
the parent but harms the child as well.
  The long-term physical and emotional consequences of abortion must be 
taken into consideration. Parents need to be aware of their daughters' 
situations so that they can provide critical counseling to that child. 
Regardless of our position on abortion, this law makes sense for all 
involved. It protects the rule of law, the responsibility of parents, 
and the well-being of our children.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Mr. 
Speaker, despite the rhetoric, we all know that the real purpose of 
this bill is to make it even more difficult for women to exercise their 
constitutionally protected right to have an abortion. That is the real 
motivation and that is what is driving this bill, not the concern about 
parental involvement.
  We know, in any event, that 75 percent of women under the age of 16 
consult their parents before seeking an abortion. But young woman who 
feel they cannot confide in their parents will now be unable to confide 
in their grandparents or any other adult. This bill would punish young 
women, would force them to risk their health and isolate them from 
adults who might be able to help them in a time of crisis. This bill 
would force a young woman to drive by herself for long distances both 
before and after an abortion rather than allow a responsible adult to 
accompany her.
  The American Medical Association has noted women who feel they cannot 
involve a parent often take drastic steps to maintain the 
confidentiality of their pregnancies, including running away from home, 
obtaining unsafe back-alley abortions, or resorting to dangerous, 
sometimes fatal self-induced abortions. The AMA has reported

[[Page H5526]]

that, ``The desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading 
reasons for illegal abortion deaths since 1973.''
  This bill, Mr. Speaker, is a death sentence for many young women. 
Like all parental consent laws, this bill further risks women's health 
because it delays abortions. As we all know, the further a pregnancy 
progresses, the more dangerous any termination procedure becomes. We 
should be taking action to ensure that abortions are as safe as 
possible, and we should be strengthening sex education and increasing 
the availability of contraception to help reduce the number of 
unintended pregnancies. This bill does not address those issues, and 
instead seeks to isolate teenagers and makes their lives even more 
difficult.
  This bill also invites families to sue one another for damages. Who 
gets to sue? Parents. Even parents who have been abusive or have 
abandoned their children. Fathers who have raped their daughters are 
allowed to sue for damages. Who can they sue? They can sue doctors, 
clinics and relatives.
  What about the criminal penalties? This bill could force a 
grandmother to go to jail for coming to the aid of a grandchild. It 
could criminalize almost any adult relative of a child who tries to 
help the young woman at this time.
  Proponents of this bill ignore these concerns and wave around 
judicial bypass as a panacea. But the judicial bypass option of many 
parental consent laws has proven ineffective. Many local judges refuse 
to hold hearings or are widely known to be anti-choice and refuse to 
grant bypasses, despite rulings of the Supreme Court that they cannot 
withhold a bypass under certain conditions.
  This bill also promotes a dangerously unconstitutional concept. I 
know of no other law that seeks to make it criminal to accompany 
someone to a different State for the purpose of doing something that is 
legal in that State. Will we next make it illegal to help someone go 
from New York, where gambling is illegal, to Atlantic City or to Las 
Vegas? What this bill really says is: We regret forming the 
Constitution. We regret our Federal union and we want to go back to a 
series of sovereign States, back to the Articles of Confederation. That 
is simply foolish and dangerous.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this bill and to affirm 
that in a Federal union we cannot criminalize going to another State to 
do what is legal in that State.

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).
  Mr. RYUN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this 
measure, knowing that another young girl will secretly be taken across 
State lines and have an abortion without her parents' knowledge. And I 
want to emphasize that: Secretly taken across State lines without her 
parents' knowledge. This is done to bypass State parental requirements. 
This circumvents the State law and it must end, and we are taking a 
step in that direction today.
  H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act, will make it a Federal 
offense for adults with no legal parental authority to transport 
someone else's child across State lines for the purpose of having an 
abortion. The Child Custody Protection Act will punish those who 
disregard the safety of our children while, at the same time, returning 
to parents the authority to make those important medical decisions for 
their children.
  I know as a parent of four children, Anne and I appreciate as much 
input as we possibly can have in the medical decisions of our children, 
and that is why I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3682. We must 
protect the authority of parents, the welfare of our children, the 
rights of the unborn, and this is a beginning in that direction.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Section 2401(b)(2) specifically exempts prosecution of a young lady 
who goes by herself across State lines. There is nothing in the bill 
that prevents skipping around the parental consent laws. So we just 
want to remind people of that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill 
currently under consideration. This bill rests on a fallacy. The 
fallacy is that we can compel each and every woman to inform her 
parents or a judge about her desire to have an abortion. The reality is 
quite different.
  Some young women are horrified at the prospect of telling their 
parents or a judge about a pregnancy, and they will do everything in 
their power to avoid it. So the question we really should be asking 
ourselves today is this: What will these young women do if H.R. 3682 
were enacted into law? The answer is some will travel across State 
lines alone to have abortions, while others will be accompanied by 
trusted friends and relatives to underground illegal abortion providers 
who offer a way around consent laws.
  Can this really be the sort of behavior we want to encourage? We tell 
adults who have teeth pulled to bring along a friend or a family member 
to drive them home. Yet some Members of this body apparently have no 
qualms about seeing young women who cross State lines for abortion take 
home the bus with strangers.
  Mr. Speaker, we all would welcome a world where abortion is less 
prevalent, but I, for one, will not attempt to usher in that world by 
erecting obstacle after obstacle in the way of a woman's right to 
choose. I assure my colleagues we will pay a steep price for that 
strategy in the currency of many pregnant young women's health and 
safety. I urge opposition to this misguided legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I rise this afternoon as a cosponsor of this bill and in strong 
support of this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote in support 
of it. While there are fundamental differences between us regarding the 
prolife and prochoice debate, for many of us there is common ground 
regarding the protection of parental rights and the health of our 
teenage children.
  And certainly we are talking about teenage children here. We are not 
talking about women. We talking about young girls that are underage 
here, teenagers; 9-, 10-, 11-, 12-year-old teenagers up to perhaps, I 
guess, age 18 before in most States they become a minor.
  The truth of the matter is that many of these young pregnant 
teenagers, these young girls, 12- 13-year-old girls are being 
impregnated by adult boyfriends, more than 18-year-old men; and they 
are being carried across State lines by these young men who are 18 or 
over or by their parents.
  We heard cases where the mother of this boyfriend carried this young 
teenage girl across a State line, unbeknownst to her own parents, so 
she could get an abortion. And this is a complicated medical invasive 
procedure we are talking about. We are not talking about crossing State 
lines to go gambling or to go shopping. We are talking about major 
surgery here that has, as with any surgery, a very high risk not only 
during the surgery, but after the surgery.
  And to make matters even worse, this mother of the boyfriend or this 
boyfriend does not know the medical history completely, nor does that 
child know her own complete medical history that might be of some 
relevance to this doctor.
  Could there be a worse nightmare out there for parents to be in a 
situation where their child is across the State lines dying perhaps in 
one of these clinics without their knowledge? And all of this can be 
avoided by simply passing this law that allows a responsible parent, a 
guardian, or even a court where there are bad parents to intervene in 
this type of situation.
  This bill guarantees the goals of both sides of this issue, and I 
urge my colleagues to support this for the health and safety of our 
teenage children and for the responsibilities of knowing and caring 
parents.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3862.

[[Page H5527]]

  The idea that a girl who has a good relationship with her parents 
would face an abortion without parental support is absolutely absurd. 
Some young girls are forced to go behind their parents' back. They have 
to do that for their own safety.
  A third of the young women who do not notify their parents have been 
victims of family violence. They do not consider it safe to involve 
their own parents.
  I am outraged. Here we are, with the far right majority in Congress 
wanting to make it a crime to help pregnant girls, when we know that 
not all parents are loving. Some pregnancies are even caused by a 
family member. Some parents are in denial. Some are not knowledgeable. 
They cannot help that young person.
  But let us face it, even teenagers can have sex without parental 
support or consent. Teenagers can continue a pregnancy, receive 
prenatal care, and deliver a baby without parental consent. Teens can 
also give the baby up for adoption without parental consent. The only 
thing they are prevented from doing by this bill is making the decision 
to end the pregnancy.
  This bill seeks only to isolate young women who cannot involve their 
parents. We should be helping our teenagers. We should be helping our 
young women. Instead of criminalizing freedom of choice, we should be 
providing the support services that teens need. They need a better 
education. They need health care. They need support services.
  Many of the same people who are supporting this bill today and oppose 
a young woman's right to choose constantly oppose teaching our children 
about birth control, about their options to prevent pregnancies in the 
first place.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
much needed legislation.
  The Child Custody Protection Act offers the Members of this Chamber 
the opportunity to safeguard the rights of their parents and their 
special responsibility of caring for their children they have brought 
into this world. It is time for the Congress to speak loud and clear in 
defense of the family.
  Allowing other adults to circumvent State law requiring parental 
involvement in a minor's abortion deprives the child of the security, 
love, and wisdom that only a mother and father can provide in the most 
difficult times.
  I fully recognize that the practice of abortion is a divisive issue 
in our country today, and I hope that one day we will again honor the 
sanctity of life and reject the killing of millions of preborn babies.
  Despite the different views toward abortion, I believe the great 
majority of Americans remain committed to strong families where 
children can face difficult decisions with the help of a mother or 
father. Yes, some parents are better than others, and there are laws to 
protect their children from abuse or irresponsible mothers or fathers.
  The truth is that parents will never be able to offer perfect advice 
or guidance for their children. However, I know of no better refuge for 
a child who is confronting a personal crisis than the emotional support 
of a parent. Encouraging a child to procure an abortion, with all its 
emotional consequences and health risks, without parental involvement, 
is an assault on this refuge and historic legal rights of parenthood.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3682. The overwhelming 
majority of Americans agree that we must protect the fundamental right 
and responsibility of parents to protect their minor daughters from 
those adults who have no legal responsibility for the child, but decide 
that a secret abortion is the preferred option. Let us respect the 
States' parental notification laws that promote strong families and 
encourage minors to make wise decisions.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, could I determine the amount of time 
remaining on both sides, please?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ewing). Both Members have 42 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Furse).
  Ms. FURSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
3682.
  We have heard a great deal today about the sanctity of parenthood. 
Well, I am a parent. I think parenthood is a great, great thing. But 
let us talk about reality as well. I am sometimes very much afraid 
there is a big disconnect in this institution about reality.
  Just assuming that all families are good and kind does not make them 
so, and I think it is grotesque, yes, grotesque, that there are people 
in this institution who deny reality and in doing so jeopardize the 
lives of our daughters.
  This legislation assumes that all young women have a safe, warm, 
loving family, but, however, I know that there are many young women who 
fear physical and emotional abuse at home and who know that disclosure 
of pregnancy would bring violence to them.
  I am not talking just generally. I want to tell you about one such 
girl, one such family, one such case: Spring Adams, 13 years old, 
living in Idaho. Her father, Rocky Adams, raped her, and she became 
pregnant. She tried to get her mother to take her to Portland, Oregon, 
where she could have a safe and legal abortion, and her mother was 
afraid of Rocky Adams, rightly so. He was a violent, violent man.
  Spring did not know about a court, that she could go to a judge. She 
was 13 years old. Eventually a trusted friend said she would take 
Spring to Oregon, but it was too late for Spring because that night her 
father, hearing that she was going to get an abortion of this child 
that he had caused, this pregnancy, he shot her through the head.
  Not all families, not all families, are kind and loving. Spring 
Adams' family was not.
  Let us vote for Spring Adams. Let us vote against this bill that will 
jeopardize our daughters' safety.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey, Mr. Smith.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I think it is becoming 
abundantly clear to a growing number of Americans that abortion is 
violence against children. Abortion methods rip and tear innocent, 
unborn babies to pieces. Abortion methods dismember children with razor 
blades attached to suction machines. Abortion methods include pumping 
and injecting deadly poisons into the baby for the express purpose of 
killing the child.
  Abortion methods include killing the baby as he or she is actually 
being born. The partial birth abortion method, as we now know, entails 
jamming scissors into the child's skull and then vacuuming the brains 
out.
  Abortion is violence against children, Mr. Speaker. Thus, it seems 
very clear to me that secretly transporting teenagers across State 
lines to procure abortions in a State with no parental notification or 
parental consent compounds the violence by exploiting the vulnerable 
minor.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleagues may recall that when the partial birth 
abortion ban was debated on this floor many proabortion organizations, 
including Planned Parenthood Federation of America and their research 
arm, the Guttmacher Institute, wrote a letter saying that there were 
and I quote, ``fewer than 500'' partial birth abortions per year in the 
country, in the entire country.
  That statement, just like other statements that they made, has turned 
out to be totally bogus. It turned out to be a lie. One leading 
proabortionist even said that he ``lied through his teeth'' on this 
issue.
  It was a New Jersey newspaper, the Bergen Record, that broke the 
story that just one clinic in my State, the Metropolitan Medical 
Associates in Englewood, did about 1,500 partial birth abortions each 
and every year, many of them on teenagers. That's three times the 
number the abortion industry told us were performed in the entire 
nation.
  Now we know that the Metropolitan Medical Associates and other 
abortion mills in New Jersey advertise and market their business in 
Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and use the fact that New Jersey does not 
have a parental consent or parental notice law as a way of luring young 
girls to that clinic and to other clinics.
  If you look at this yellow page ad, promoting the Metropolitan 
Medicine

[[Page H5528]]

Associates Mr. Speaker, it stresses that pregnancies up to 24 weeks, 6 
months, very large, very mature babies, can be terminated, that is--
murdered--without parental knowledge, without parental consent. No 
waiting period, no parental consent, that is how they advertise in the 
Pennsylvania phone book.

                              {time}  1430

  These ads are telling young teens, ``Hey, we can end your baby's 
life, and your parents never need to know; it will be our secret.'' But 
if a teenager's secret abortion leads to complications, what then? 
Where is it written that the person driving the frightened and often 
very vulnerable 12 or 14 year old to an abortion mill is responsible? 
Who picks up the pieces of the shattered young girl when the bleeding, 
when the psychological and the emotional and the physical consequences 
set in? Obviously it will be her parents, or one of her parents. They 
will be responsible for and involved in her care after the abortion, 
when the disaster hits. The parents, should have had the chance to be 
involved without the circumventing of the more than 20 State laws that 
require parental involvement in this irreversible decision that takes a 
human life.
  On May 21, Mr. Speaker, Joyce Farley testified before the House 
Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, and she 
said, and I will quote her only briefly:
  ``My daughter was a victim of several horrible crimes between the 
ages of 12 and 13. My child was provided alcohol, she was raped and 
then taken out of the State by a stranger to have an abortion. This 
stranger turned out to be the mother of the adult male who provided the 
alcohol and then raped my 12-year-old daughter while she was 
unconscious. The rapist's mother arranged for and paid for an abortion, 
and it was performed on her child. This woman lied and falsified 
records.''
  And she goes on to say:
  ``Following the abortion the mother of the rapist dropped off my 
physically and emotionally battered child in a town 40 miles away from 
our home. The plan was to keep the rape and the abortion secret.''
  Then she goes on to say how, when she discovered the consequences, 
she then swung into action and did everything humanly possible to help 
her child who was bleeding and in severe pain.
  We need to say, Mr. Speaker, that the law does indeed matter. These 
State laws are there for a purpose. Other States are contemplating 
parental-involvement statutes as we speak. We need to say that parents 
matter, and we need to help those vulnerable children who are being 
carried across State lines and pushed into abortion clinics by relative 
strangers and who in many cases have their own reasons for making sure 
that these girls get abortions.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, Americans overwhelmingly support the Child 
Custody Protection Act. When asked a very simple question that goes 
right to the core of parental responsibility, ``Should a person be able 
to take a minor girl across State lines without her parents' knowledge 
to get an abortion'', 85 percent of Americans said no; only 9 percent 
said yes.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this very pro-child, 
pro-family, pro-parent legislation that has been offered by the 
courageous pro-life leader, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen). I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) as 
well for his exemplary work in shepherding this legislation through, 
and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) and all of us who had a 
part. It is a very important piece of legislation, and it will help our 
minor girls.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Wise).
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is one of those issues we just got to wrestle with 
and wrestle with our conscience.
  I support parental notification, I support the West Virginia statute 
which requires parental notification except in very limited 
circumstances, and to the gentleman who just recited a national poll, 
quoted from a poll saying that 85 percent feel that someone should not 
be able to take a minor girl across State lines for purposes of having 
an abortion without parental consent, he can put me down in that if I 
am asked the question just as he phrased it. But then if I am asked: 
What about the Spring Adams case where her father molested her and 
raped her, and because he found out she was going to have an abortion 
shot her; was he someone that my colleagues would require parental 
consent of?
  What about the limited circumstances? I happen to believe that the 
case cited, the Joyce Farley case, by the proponents of this 
legislation is a horror. But I also think that the Spring Adams case, 
in which she was raped by her father and then shot by her father, is a 
horror as well.
  There is another reason, too, that I oppose this legislation: Because 
I do not think we want the FBI and the Federal authorities 
criminalizing brothers and sisters and other loved ones who may feel 
that this is the only way they can help their pregnant sister.
  In West Virginia recently, because of overcrowded jails, and we are 
not the only State with overcrowded jails, everybody here has them, an 
inmate was killed because of an overcrowded jail, and the argument now 
is what kind of criminal offenses are we putting people in jail for? Do 
we really wanted to subject a brother or a sister to the criminal 
penalties, to imprisonment, for doing something that they do whether 
rightly or wrongly they do out of love and trying to help their sister? 
Is this something that we want frightened couples to be faced with?
  I urge us not to compound one tragedy by adding on another tragedy, 
and so for that reason I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in support today of the Child Custody 
Protection Act and want to comment, based on listening to the debate on 
the floor today and the tenure of that debate, that this is not an easy 
issue, this is a difficult issue, and yet standing for what is right is 
never going to be easy, and I want to credit the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 
the courage that they have demonstrated by bringing this important 
piece of legislation to the floor.
  I think it really revolves around three basic, fundamental questions. 
The first is: Does this Congress want to affirm the most basic and 
fundamental institution in our culture today, and that is the family? 
Secondly: Does this Congress want to affirm States rights to regulate 
and impose restrictions on abortions? And finally: Does this Congress 
want to affirm respect for the sanctity of human life? And if we answer 
yes on any or all three of those questions, then this is really a very 
simple and straightforward issue. It is not complicated, and most of 
the social problems that we encounter and see in America today can be 
traced back to one very simple basic problem, and that is that the 
American family has been undermined, eroded and attacked on every 
front.
  Mr. Speaker, the family is disintegrated, and government policy has 
aided that disintegration on every front by making it more difficult 
for families to spend time with their children; and opposing this 
legislation, as those on the other side have indicated they will do, 
further disenfranchises parents from their children.
  This is not a value-neutral issue. This strikes at the very core of 
our country's and our culture's value system, and far be it from this 
Congress to stand in the way of life, to stand in the way of families 
and parents and their children and to stand in the way of the ability 
of States to affirm their commitment to our most basic and fundamental 
core values in our culture today.
  So I support this legislation and would encourage my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle to stand firm in support of families, in 
support of life and in support of those States out there that are doing 
what they can to see those values are upheld.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

[[Page H5529]]

  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) for his leadership.
  This is a very difficult debate. It is one that gains us no friends, 
no ticker-tape parade, no applause and no positive newspaper headlines.
  For those that believe that politics is all about that, it would mean 
that those of us who oppose this legislation should quietly go to our 
seats.
  But this process of democracy goes further than the latest headline. 
It is about truth, it is about reason and rationale, it is about 
reality.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a tragedy to think that anyone who opposes this 
legislation is a bad parent, a bad human being, a bad American, but yet 
the characterization is for those who have a sense of concern, who want 
to express to the American people the realities of life, that they are 
bad people.
  There are good people in all places, and there are good intentions, 
and this legislation has its good intentions. But allow me to share 
with my colleagues the reality of what happens when we pass this 
legislation.
  First of all, we condemn all teenagers. We take the opposite of a 
parent that is not responsible. We begin to categorize all of our young 
people as irresponsible and people who do not have the ability to 
quietly know they have made a mistake and make their own choices along 
with the consultation of a private doctor, maybe, or religious leader, 
or a grandparent.
  I wish those two young persons in New Jersey from prominent, well-
endowed families, believing that they were in love with each other, had 
careers ahead of them, were in college. They were just convicted last 
week for murder of their new born baby. I wish that they had had 
individuals who they could counsel with to save not only their lives 
but the life of that baby.
  This particular law starts off with the wrong premise, that all of us 
are blessed with the American apple pie tradition of a mom and a dad, 
worship on weekends, grandparents, parades and picnics. But one-third 
of teenagers who do not tell a parent about a pregnancy have already 
been the victims of family violence. Studies show that the incidence of 
violence in a dysfunctional family escalates when the wife or a 
teenaged daughter becomes pregnant. This is the reality of what we are 
dealing with.
  Likewise, how many medical groups were inquired of about this 
legislation? The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical 
Association, the American Association of Family Physicians and the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose mandatory 
involvement for minors seeking abortions, concluding that access to 
confidential services is essential.
  Let me tell my colleagues what the proponents say about this 
legislation:
  ``Don't worry about the problems. You can go to the courthouse and 
get a waiver. You can go down to your local courthouse, stand before a 
judge and tell them about the most personalized act where you were 
caught up in the quagmire of your emotions. You may go to the 
courthouse; that is called a judicial bypass.''
  Well, my colleagues, that is what this democracy is all about, 
because I come from an inner-city district where I venture to say that 
many of my young people, God bless them, could not find the courthouse, 
would be intimidated by the courthouse, would be intimidated by the 
process.
  I represent young people like Alisha who lives with a single parent 
who is in a treatment facility for drugs and alcohol. Alisha herself is 
under treatment for mental dysfunctional aspects of her life. She has 
no father, and she is pregnant. Now the circumstances may be different, 
but just put Alisha in the context of seeking an abortion in another 
State and maybe possibly going to a religious leader, an aunt, or an 
uncle, or a cousin, or a grandparent. Those people would be fined and 
put in jail for 1 year.
  That is the neighborhood that I come from. I am not ashamed of it. I 
just recognize it.
  Or maybe the single parent with four children: Neither the father of 
my children are with me to help support or raise my children. I myself 
did not finish school. I am a dropout. I started my family at age 16. I 
am on a fixed income of $484, and after paying rent that is what I have 
as the remaining moneys to support my children. I have a pregnant teen 
at home.
  My colleagues, it is time that we use the floor of the House for a 
debate with the American people, that we tell them the truth.
  Yesterday we joined in support of giving grandparents more rights. We 
applauded the need to assure that if you give someone custodial rights 
or visitation rights in one State as a grandparent, they can have it in 
another. Today we come and deny that same grandparent the right to 
nurture and to counsel and to be with a child in their distress, and 
what we do is we say to that grandparent, that friend, that emergency 
medical personnel, we say to all of them, that religious leader, ``You 
are criminals, we disregard you, we disrespect you.''

                              {time}  1445

  This legislation has good intentions, Mr. Speaker, but I would simply 
argue that we can do better by teaching preventive measures, by 
respecting our young people, by embracing them and loving them, by 
teaching them abstention, by educating them, and by embracing the 
families that we have; by embracing the families that we have, the 
single parent family, the household where there is nothing but 
teenagers, the dysfunctional family.
  There is no shame in America to accept all of us as God's children. 
If we do that, with all of the good intentions of this legislation, we 
will recognize that the value of everyone's life is important; and that 
young person who finds comfort not in the home of that incestuous 
family, that violent family, that dysfunctional family, but may find it 
with that aunt or uncle or grandparent or responsible friend, will save 
the lives of many as they go forward to make a very important decision. 
Maybe we will not have young people incarcerated in prison, like the 
two young lovers in New Jersey who loved each other but did not 
understand and find their lives destroyed because they are now in jail 
because they killed a living being.
  Help us to make the right decisions. I would ask my colleagues to 
defeat this legislation, not because we do not care but because the 
rights of Americans are being threatened.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill. I 
hope that my colleagues will consider the importance of this 
legislation. Our Supreme Court has held that women have the right to 
seek an abortion. A pregnant minor is in crisis. She needs someone to 
speak with, and someone to trust. If we force our daughters, 
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!
  I am very concerned about children and teenagers in America and I 
want teenage women to have the right to reproductive health care. We 
know that in 1992, the Supreme Court decided Planned Parenthood v. 
Casey. In a highly fractionated 5-4 decision, the highest Court of our 
Nation reaffirmed the basic constitutional right to for both adult and 
young women to obtain abortions.
  As a result of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, courts now need to ask 
whether a State abortion restriction has the effect of imposing an 
undue burden on a women's right to obtain an abortion at any point 
during her pregnancy. This decision, thereby opened the door to States 
to legislate issues of parental involvement in minors' abortion 
decisions.
  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

[[Page H5530]]

the medical treatment she needs at a time early enough in the pregnancy 
to perform a safe abortion.
  We know that confidentiality is essential to encourage minors to seek 
sensitive medical services and information. Young women must often seek 
abortion services outside their home State for a variety of reasons.
  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, religious leaders to 
guide them through this time of crisis.
  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 hopeful that my colleagues will vote to oppose this bill in 
order to allow young women to access adult guidance and safe, legal 
abortions.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation. I commend the 
author, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for crafting 
this piece of legislation.
  As many know, I practiced medicine prior to coming to the House, to 
include working in emergency rooms. I can testify to all of you, one of 
the things an emergency room doctor fears in the course of his practice 
is to have a minor child come into the emergency room unaccompanied by 
a parent or legal guardian in need of acute medical care.
  The reason they fear that is because if you sew up a laceration or 
give a medication and find that the parents were unhappy with that 
particular intervention, you can get yourself into a lot of trouble. 
Indeed, in some States you can actually be charged for assault for 
providing needed medical care to a minor child.
  But in the interpretation of Row v. Wade, in many States, I believe 
30 of them, that doctor can perform an abortion, without any fear of 
being charged with assault or prosecution. However, he cannot give that 
child aspirin for a headache. Indeed, the school nurse cannot give a 
child aspirin for a headache. The technician who works in the jewelry 
store cannot pierce the ears of a minor child without parental consent, 
but in many States that same minor child can go and have an invasive 
procedure, a surgical procedure, an abortion, a procedure with the 
associated risks of hemorrhage, infection, infertility, death, but the 
child cannot have their ears pierced.
  Twenty States have appropriately responded to the will of the people, 
who have recognized in those States that this kind of a legal logic is 
crazy, and they have passed reasonable parental consent laws. But we 
have a situation right now, today, where children are being carried 
across State lines without their parents' knowledge to have abortions 
performed.
  Now we have before us today, before the House of Representatives, I 
believe a very reasonable and appropriate statute which makes that 
process illegal. It respects the laws in those States, and I encourage 
all of my colleagues to vote yes on this legislation.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Watt).
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Virginia for yielding me time for the purpose of debating this 
important issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I regret that the sponsor of this legislation, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) left the floor, because I 
have the greatest amount of respect for her and I am sure that her 
intentions in offering this legislation are honorable and with good 
intentions.
  This is a very difficult issue. Some folks tried to make it an issue 
on whether you support abortion or do not support abortion, or whether 
you support choice or do not support choice. But there are some very, 
very complicated issues involved in this legislation, and I regret that 
the Committee on Rules did not make some proposed amendments in order 
that would have allowed us to address those issues and vote them up or 
down. I would like to spend a few minutes talking about some of those 
issues, if I might.
  I said in the debate on the rule that this is unprecedented 
legislation. I believe it is. The sponsors of this legislation, the 
proponents of this legislation, have said that this is about trying to 
protect those 22 States that have parental consent legislation in their 
States.
  Well, what about the 28 States who do not have parental consent 
statutes in their State? If we owe a duty to protect one in our 
federalist system, in our system where States have rights to make laws, 
what obligations do we have to the 28 States?
  What, for example, would happen if, as is the case now, we have 
gambling legal in one State and gambling not legal in the adjoining 
State? The parallel here would be we would be making it a criminal act 
for people to transport somebody across State lines to engage in 
gambling because it was illegal in the State in which it was taking 
place.
  Some States have marital statutes that define the age at which kids 
can marry. The parallel here would be we would make it a criminal act 
to transport a minor across State lines if the law in one State said 
you have to be 18 and the law in the adjoining State says you can be 16 
and marry.
  So you have some very difficult Federalism issues that have been kind 
of masked over here because the folks who are proponents of this bill 
would like to have you believe that they are the defenders of States 
rights. They are always the defenders of States rights, but when the 
States disagree with them in writing their laws, then, all of a sudden, 
they do not defend the states' rights to make those laws. And these 
have been matters which have been governed by State law. The Federal 
Government has no statutory rule on when one can have an abortion or 
when one gets parental consent. All of this is governed under State 
law.
  The second issue: I said in the debate on the rule that this bill is 
probably unconstitutional. I offered an amendment in the Committee on 
Rules saying please let us debate this issue on the floor. The 
Committee on Rules said, no, we will not make your proposed amendment 
in order. My amendment would have said we are going to put an exception 
for the physical health and safety of the minor in the bill.
  Now, we think the Supreme Court has said that that is required to 
make this law a constitutional law, and, because of the importance of 
it, which I acknowledged at the outset of this debate, I would think if 
it were so important, we would want to make it constitutional.
  But what are the practical implications we are talking about here? 
You have a young girl who is feeling not well. She is pregnant. The 
closest hospital is across the State line. Somebody other than her 
parent is at home, and they transport that young girl across the State 
line.

  Under this bill it is criminal, because there is no intent standard 
in the bill. There is no protection of the health, physical health of 
the minor in the bill, so you have got to make a choice between trying 
to save a baby or getting consent, when you might jeopardize the health 
of that young girl for the rest of her life. She could become a 
paraplegic.
  We were hard on the chairman of our subcommittee because we kept 
asking him, would you want your daughter to be a paraplegic, trying to 
save an unborn infant? That is a difficult issue. That does not 
minimize the issue. It is a difficult issue which this bill does not 
address, and the fact that we were not able to offer amendments will 
not allow us to address.
  Third, we talk about the family issue. Who is family? Sure, Ozzie and 
Harriet, it was a mother and father and two children. But in some 
communities, grandparents have taken over the role of parenting. And, 
under this bill, if they assume that role responsibly, not as 
strangers, as my colleagues would have you believe this

[[Page H5531]]

bill is all about, but they assume that role responsibly, they become 
criminals under the bill.
  So there are some difficult issues that are not addressed in this 
bill. We can gloss them over if we want to. The Committee on Rules did 
not want us to talk about them, obviously, because they did not make my 
amendment in order which said there ought to be an exception for the 
physical health of the minor. They did not want us to talk about the 
fact that there is no intent to violate the law or statute. So even if 
you transport somebody across the line just because they are feeling 
bad, if they end up having an abortion in the adjoining State, then you 
are a criminal. They did not want us to talk about the Jackson-Lee 
amendment which would have protected the grandparents, not strangers, 
because we know that, in many communities, grandparents have assumed 
those roles.
  Those issues do not get addressed, and this bill is unworthy and 
ought to go back. I encourage my colleagues to vote against it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in support of 
this legislation and would like to commend the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) on her thoughtful work on this issue.
  Several of my colleagues will come before you today to speak about 
their reasons for supporting this legislation. I personally have six; 
that is, six daughters.
  Mr. Speaker, a yes vote on this legislation allows me to protect 
them. Our State parental notification and consent laws exist for a 
reason, to guard our children against individuals who would otherwise 
risk their physical and emotional health and safety.
  Allowing the transport of minor children across State lines in order 
to circumvent these laws makes a mockery of the integral role parents 
play in the lives of their young daughters. A vote against this 
legislation transfers to strangers the right of parents to keep their 
children safe.
  Mr. Speaker, to protect the precious lives of my daughters and the 
daughters of parents nationwide, I urge a yes vote on this important 
issue.
  May I just add, I have great confidence in the American people, and I 
believe that they can make a distinction between interstate gambling 
laws and marriage laws, as opposed to laws affecting such important 
matters as pregnancy and abortion among young women.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, as a mother of four children, two daughters and two 
sons, I find this probably the most difficult part of the debate on the 
right to choose.
  Some years back, when I first considered the issue of parental 
consent, my response was, I am a responsible parent, I have a trusting 
relationship with my daughters. I want them to talk to me before 
seeking to exercise their constitutional right to choose. That was my 
initial position, until I thought about many other families and many 
other relationships, and until I consulted my own daughters. Their 
response was, Mom, of course we would talk to you. We trust you, we 
know you. We know that you would give advice in our interests, and we 
also have listened to you over the years, and we know that the best 
thing to do is to avoid unwanted pregnancies. But nonetheless, they 
said, what about other girls? What about other families? What about 
other situations where there is no trust relationship? Then what? And 
their answer, and I believe it is the answer we have heard from speaker 
after speaker, was those girls will not talk to their parents; those 
girls will seek to have unlawful abortions or to make other unwise 
choices, and we have certainly heard the sordid tale of the couple in 
New Jersey who made a terrible decision and are having to pay for it.
  At any rate, my views have evolved on the subject, and I stand here 
to say that. My views are that I work as hard as possible to keep a 
trust relationship with my daughters, and one of them is still a 
teenager, and to make certain that they do consult me about the 
critical decisions in their lives, not just a decision like this; but 
that I do not presume that other daughters have the same opportunity 
that mine do, or that other mothers, even if they have good intentions, 
have the same success that I have been able to have with my own 
children.
  So my conclusion is that this is a tough subject, particularly tough 
for parents, but that the right answer is my daughters' answer, and 
that is to make certain that there is adult consultation, to make 
certain that young girls get advice, but not to require that they get 
parental consent, which is, 1, to undermine their right to choose; but 
2, to undermine their health. That is why I oppose this legislation.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to speak on 
behalf of the Child Custody Protection Act, and I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her hard work in 
bringing this important issue to the forefront today.
  I believe this Federal law is long past due. I am a parent as well. 
As a parent, when my children were in school, I used to have to sign a 
release form to allow them to go to a museum 6 blocks from the school. 
If they had a headache at school and they wanted to take an aspirin, 
that required parental consent. How can a parent think that those acts 
are acceptable, and yet a life-changing act like having an abortion is 
something that a child should and could decide on their own? We have 
heard some very tragic cases, and there are very tragic cases on all 
sides of this issue.
  An unwanted pregnancy in and of itself is a tragic situation, but I 
want to talk to my colleagues about another group of young women, of 
minors, that have not been discussed here today, and I think they are 
girls like I think I would have been had I been faced with an unwanted 
pregnancy when I was a teenager. I had a good relationship with my 
parents, I had a good relationship with my family. I still do. If I had 
found that I was pregnant when I was a minor, I would probably have 
wanted to have an abortion not because of what it would do in my life, 
and not because I was considering this unknown child that I was 
carrying, but because I would not want to hurt my mother and my father 
and my family. That is the wrong reason to get an abortion, and I 
venture to say there are many, many, many young girls out there who 
would get an abortion for that reason.
  When in the life of a girl does she need the wisdom, guidance, love 
and support of her parents more than when she is facing an unwanted 
pregnancy? While I know, I believe there are tragic situations out 
there that have occurred because parents, some sick parent was notified 
that the daughter was going to get an abortion, that is the minuscule 
minority. We have to look at what is best for the vast, vast majority 
of our young people, and facing an unwanted pregnancy and making the 
decision to kill one's own child when one is 12, 13, 14 years old is 
wrong. Those girls need their parents. They need all the love and 
guidance they can get. They deserve it. Let us pass this law.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by associating 
myself with the remarks made by Members on both sides of this debate 
about the difficulty of this debate. This is not an easy one. It really 
divides our own allegiances, those of us who are parents, and many of 
us have spoken about our parenthood in this debate. It divides our 
allegiance between the natural tendency of a parent to want to make 
sure that their children remain under their custody and their control, 
and our allegiance to want to do something to help those teenagers in 
America who are not so fortunate, who do not have parents who spend the 
time with them and talk with them, and who feel alone in these kinds of 
agonizing decisions.
  As a parent of two daughters, I know that for those of us who try as 
hard as we can to commit ourselves to communicating with and nurturing 
our children, the laws on parental consent and

[[Page H5532]]

parental notification do not make a difference, because they cannot 
break that bond. The bond that a parent establishes with a child is not 
going to be broken one way or another by these laws.
  But I think I also know, and I think I know some of this from my days 
as a social worker working with children who were abused and neglected 
and otherwise had very agonizing and very difficult lives, for those 
parents who simply will not talk with their children, these kinds of 
laws cannot make that bond. It would be nice if we could pass this law 
and suddenly that would engender discussions between parents and 
children, but that will not be the result.
  When we try to legislate in this area, we quickly discover that we 
are in an area where we do not belong. One cannot build a relationship 
with three pieces of paper. This is the legislation we are discussing 
today, three slim pieces of paper, and these three slim pieces of 
paper, even if signed by the President, and they will not be, they are 
not going to build a relationship between a mother and a daughter or 
between a father and a daughter. They are not going to change the 
behavior; the behavior will remain the same. When we try to legislate 
in this area, we recognize how foolish it is.
  Let me just cite some examples of the way this law does not make any 
sense and will not have any effect and will not be able to be enforced 
if a young lady comes to her aunt and says, I think I might be 
pregnant, and I think I want to go to the neighboring State across the 
river.
  I live in Pennsylvania; right across the river I can see New Jersey. 
If a young girl in my community went to her aunt and said, I cannot 
talk to Mom and Dad about this, or I do not have a mom, and my dad will 
not talk to me about any of this, will you go with me? And the aunt 
says, honey, I will be with you; I will see you through this decision. 
And the young lady, 17 years old, goes to the neighboring State of New 
Jersey and discovers that she is pregnant and decides then and there to 
have an abortion, and does so, legally, is the aunt that took her there 
now to be jailed because she transported her across the State line? If 
she drives her to the bridge in Frenchtown, New Jersey, and says, meet 
me on the other side, walk across the State line, and I will pick you 
up on the other side, is she to be jailed for that, or has she escaped 
these three thin pieces of paper with which we are trying to change 
this behavior? If the aunt buys her a bus ticket in Pittsburgh and 
says, I cannot go with you, but here is the bus ticket to New Jersey, 
will she be subject to these laws? I could go on and on, but the fact 
of the matter is we cannot fix this with three thin pieces of paper.
  I wish we could. I wish that if this law went into effect, teenagers 
in America would say, hum, I cannot get an abortion out of State 
without parental consent; now no one can take me over without going to 
jail. Therefore, what I will do is change my sexual behavior or I will 
suddenly create a discussion with my parents. That will not happen.
  What will happen with this kind of law is most people will not know 
they are violating it, and most people will not get it enforced, but 
some people will end up in jail as a result of it, inadvertently. But 
mostly what will result will be kids alone in strange cities in other 
States forced to travel by themselves, safely or unsafely, hitchhiking, 
being driven by another minor, alone and not with someone who cares 
about them, not a relative, a grandmother, an aunt who would care for 
them. They will be there alone, they will be there unsafe; they will 
have their abortions later, because they will delay the decision, and 
we will have accomplished nothing.
  How much better would it be if we could be on this floor of this 
House of Representatives today actually structuring ways to prevent 
these teenagers from becoming pregnant, to prevent these teenagers from 
making the kinds of wrong decisions that they make that lead to the 
sexual behavior, that lead to the inadvertent pregnancies.
  I hope my colleagues will see the wisdom of voting against this bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire concerning the 
amount of time remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 
27\1/2\ minutes; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 15 
minutes.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for working to protect children as well 
as the rights of the parents.
  As has just been mentioned a few moments ago by my colleague, 
children cannot go to a trip to the museum without their parents' 
consent. Children cannot be given a minor pain reliever like aspirin 
without their parents' consent. So the real question becomes, why 
should a child be allowed to undergo a life-changing and dangerous 
medical procedure such as abortion without their parents' knowledge and 
permission?
  This act that we are discussing today, the Child Custody Protection 
Act, will seek to protect the rights of parents to choose what is best 
for their minor children. I know it has been mentioned here today, but 
let me mention again that currently 22 States have parental 
notification laws, but what good will it do if a child can be taken 
across State lines by a total stranger to the parents and receive an 
abortion in a neighboring State.
  The fact is that some abortion clinics actually advertise in the 
phone books, with the words, ``No parental consent required.'' It makes 
it very clear that these young women are being exploited.
  This violation of the parents' rights to make medical and moral 
decisions for the children has gone on for too long. Parents have a 
right to know what is happening to their children, and this bill that 
we are discussing today will strengthen those rights and protect young 
women from those who would seek to capitalize on this kind of 
vulnerability.
  I am proud to stand here today in favor of the Child Custody 
Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to support this bill that will 
protect the parents' right to know.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3682, the Child 
Custody Protection Act, although perhaps a more fitting title for this 
legislation would be, the Teen Endangerment Act. I will tell my 
colleagues why.
  This bill threatens to isolate a young woman from friends, extended 
family, and other advisors who may help her to make a difficult 
decision. Regardless of our political views, we can agree that during 
trying times, every young woman should be surrounded by caring people 
who will provide comfort, support, and advice. Ideally we all agree 
that parents should be directly involved. However, we must understand 
that many young women are not fortunate enough to have one, let alone 
two, concerned parents.

                              {time}  1515

  Yet, this bill would effectively tell these young women that 
honorable men and women who may not be family, but are as compassionate 
as family, cannot care for them.
  Now, supporters of this bill cite the need to protect young women 
from overreaching adults who may attempt to assist them, against their 
will, in traveling into other States where there is no requirement of 
parental notification or consent.
  If this was the case, then I would be in support of this legislation. 
However, a closer look at the facts show young women in this Nation are 
not under attack from such ruthless adults. In fact, most young women 
involve one or both parents in decision-making, and in those cases 
where a parent is not involved, women turn to trusted relatives or 
family friends who often provide guidance to them during a very 
difficult period in their lives. Yet, this bill would criminalize the 
actions of these compassionate people.
  I am troubled, because if we are serious about teaching young women 
to make rational decisions, then why is this Congress proposing a 
measure that

[[Page H5533]]

does little more than complicate an already delicate situation?
  It is our job, Mr. Speaker, as I see it, to ensure that there is no 
element of coercion in this very serious decision. That is why I urge 
my colleagues to support the motion to recommit, which would punish 
those people who would coerce those people to travel across State 
lines, where there is no requirement, and oppose H.R. 3682, the Child 
Custody Protection Act, which in actuality, instead of actually 
helping, does in reality hurt and harm our children.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I have been listening to the debate here today, I 
have been struck by some of the rhetoric that has been used. Quite 
frankly, I have been disappointed by some of the arguments I have 
heard. I think it is important for the Members to focus on this bill 
and exactly what it does.
  This is a very straightforward bill. It is a bill that is designed to 
deal with a serious problem. As anyone who has listened to the debate 
will know, that is the problem of minor girls being transported across 
State lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion in defiance of 
parental notification and consent laws.
  Lest anyone think this is not really a serious problem, I would quote 
Catherine Colbert, who in 1995, as an attorney with the pro-abortion 
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, stated ``There are thousands of 
minors who cross State lines for an abortion every year.'' ``There are 
thousands who cross State lines for an abortion every year.''
  So this is a practice that is going on on a widespread basis. Despite 
the fact that over 20 States have parental consent or notification 
laws, vulnerable teenage girls are still being taken from their 
families to out-of-State abortion clinics, in disregard of the legal 
protections the States have provided.
  Today this House has an opportunity to curb this abuse and to protect 
the health and well-being of minor girls. The bill before the House 
today would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code by criminalizing the 
knowing transportation across the State line of a minor girl with the 
intent that she obtain an abortion, in abridgement of a parent's rights 
of involvement under the law of the State where the child resides.
  I would ask the Members to focus on this specifically. This requires 
knowing transportation across the State line with the intent that an 
abortion be obtained. Some of the examples, some of this parade of 
horribles we have had, clearly would not take place under this explicit 
language which requires the knowing transportation with the intent that 
the minor obtain an abortion.
  Under the bill, a violation of a parental right occurs when an 
abortion is performed on a minor in a State other than the minor's 
State of residence and without the parental consent or notification, or 
the judicial authorization that would have been required had the 
abortion been performed in the minor's State of residence.
  The Child Custody Protection Act gives the parents of the minor girl 
a civil cause of action if they suffer legal harm from a violation of 
the bill. The bill also, we should note, explicitly provides that 
neither the minor herself nor her parents may be prosecuted or sued in 
connection with a violation of the Act. The bill also contains an 
exception for the life of the mother.
  In addition, the bill provides an affirmative defense to prosecution 
or civil action where the defendant reasonably believed, based on 
information obtained directly from the girl's parents or other 
compelling facts, that the requirements of the girl's State of 
residence regarding parental involvement or judicial authorization have 
been satisfied. Again, there is a defense here for someone who makes an 
honest mistake based on compelling facts.
  But the argument that is being advanced by the opponents of this bill 
is, essentially, we should have had an amendment in the bill that 
provides that ignorance of the law is an excuse, that ignorance of the 
law would be an excuse. I do not accept that. We do not have those 
kinds of provisions in the criminal law. In the criminal law of this 
country, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I do not believe that, 
in this context, we should make a special exemption and provide that 
ignorance of the law is an excuse.
  It is also important to understand that the provisions of the Child 
Custody Protection Act are operative only when the State where the 
minor resides has adopted a valid constitutional parental involvement 
law under the standards articulated by the Supreme Court. That is 
absolutely critical here.
  They argue that it is not constitutional. That is absolutely 
incorrect, because the predicate for the operation of this statute is a 
valid constitutional State law. That is what we are talking about.
  What the opponents of this bill are essentially driven to argue is 
that there is a constitutional right to travel, to go across State 
lines, that minors have to avoid the supervision of their parents.
  I think if Members think about that for a minute and think about the 
consequences of that argument, they will see that it is ridiculous and 
it is unacceptable, and would lead to all sorts of results that we 
would not want to see.
  Members will also hear arguments today that this bill will endanger 
the lives of young girls. This is a major thrust of the opposition to 
this bill. But quite the opposite is true. It is when young girls are 
secretly taken for an abortion without their parents' knowledge that 
they face serious risks to their health and well-being.
  An abortion is a serious and often dangerous medical procedure. When 
it is performed on a girl without full knowledge of her medical 
history, which is usually only available from a parent, the risk 
greatly increases. Moreover, minor girls who do not involve their 
parents often do not return for follow-up treatment, which can lead to 
dangerous complications.
  In the subcommittee's hearing on this bill, we heard from one mother 
whose daughter was secretly taken away for an abortion and subsequently 
suffered serious complications from the botched procedure. Her daughter 
required additional surgery after the abortion, additional surgery 
which could only be performed with her mother's consent.
  What an irony. What an irony involved in that case. Of course, it was 
a terrible tragedy for that family, all of the circumstances, but the 
irony there is that an abortion can be obtained without parental 
involvement, but if the abortion produces complications, parental 
consent is required for the necessary medical care.
  As Dr. Bruce Lucero, a prominent abortionist and abortion rights 
advocate, wrote last Sunday on the New York Times op ed page, I would 
ask the Members of the House to look at this. I know there are Members 
who would disagree with the views of those of us who support this bill 
on the general subject of abortion, but I would appeal to all Members 
to read this piece that appeared in the New York Times. It is under the 
heading ``Parental Guidance Needed.'' The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Ros-Lehtinen) and I circulated this as a Dear Colleague. It is very 
instructive.
  As Dr. Lucero wrote, teenaged girls who have an abortion without 
consulting their parents face greater risk to their health than those 
who consult with their parents. It is the parents who have the fullest 
access to relevant information concerning the girl's health, and it is 
the parents who are in the best position to see that any complications 
are promptly and effectively treated.
  While I do not agree, by any means, with Dr. Lucero's views on the 
general subject of abortion, I believe that his support as a prominent 
abortionist and a prominent advocate of abortion rights is somewhat 
noteworthy. I would encourage my colleagues to pay a little attention 
to this. All of the Members of this House, whatever their position on 
abortion, they should pay attention to Dr. Lucero's conclusion that 
passage of this legislation is, and I quote him, ``important . . . to 
the health of teen-age girls.''

  The opponents of parental involvement laws and of this bill argue 
that the bill needs a health exception. It does not. The bill 
specifically provides that it would not apply if the abortion was 
necessary to save the life of the minor. If the concern is about the 
health risk of a non-life-threatening nature, then the best course of 
action is involvement of the parents, for the very reasons I have just 
discussed, and

[[Page H5534]]

for the reasons that Dr. Lucero discusses. He has a lot of experience 
in this particular area.
  If there is some compelling reason why the girl cannot tell her 
parents, then she always has the ability to seek an expeditious 
judicial review, which all valid State parental involvement laws are 
required to permit. It must be expeditious. That is one of the 
fundamental requirements that has been set forth by the Supreme Court.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have heard arguments that the parents are 
not really the people who should have the right to be involved when a 
minor girl is considering an abortion, but that the grandparents, the 
aunts and uncles, cousins, siblings, teachers, and pastors should have 
the right to take the child for an abortion.
  But the Supreme Court of the United States has not recognized the 
rights of teachers and pastors or cousins or siblings or other family 
members to be involved in a minor's decision to have an abortion. The 
Supreme Court has, however, recognized the rights of parents, as 
reflected in State parental involvement laws.
  At bottom, the arguments that are being advanced against this bill 
are really objections to the underlying State parental notice and 
consent laws, and objections to the Supreme Court rulings on this 
subject. Those who disagree with parental notice and consent laws ought 
to take that matter up with the State legislatures and with the Supreme 
Court. That is where their real objection lies.
  H.R. 3682 is not a Federal parental consent law. It is simply a law 
which protects State laws. As we have already heard, across the country 
a child cannot even be given an aspirin at school without her parents' 
permission, yet strangers can take children across State lines for 
abortion, in circumvention of protective parental involvement statutes. 
The Child Custody Protection Act will simply ensure the effectiveness 
of these State laws.
  While the abortion industry believes anyone, anyone should have the 
right to take a minor girl across State lines for a secret abortion, 
the American public disagrees by an overwhelming margin; indeed, a 
margin of nearly 9 to 1.
  According to a national poll conducted last week, 85 percent of 
voters asked said that a person should not be able to take a minor girl 
across State lines for an abortion without her parents' knowledge. I 
would urge my colleagues to pay attention to what the American people 
are saying on this subject. I would urge them to vote in favor of the 
bill.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out some of the 
doublespeak that has been going around in our Chamber relating to 
targeting ads and soliciting and extorting children, this time by the 
tobacco industry, yet that same kind of outrage is not directed at the 
abortion industry.
  I am talking about certain ads that I agree with, this one put out by 
certain anticancer groups, that says, ``It is time to keep tobacco 
companies from addicting any more of our children to their deadly 
product. Our Nation needs a tough bill that stops the lies, stops the 
killing, and stops big tobacco now.''
  So they are against targeting ads that entice young people to smoke, 
and I am against that, too. I am against having young people smoke and 
encouraging and enticing them to smoke. But apparently these 
legislators who are so incensed over big tobacco ads targeting young 
people are not equally incensed at the abortion industry that targets 
young people.
  Why are they not incensed that this ad says ``No parental consent 
required?'' Who is that targeted to, if not a minor daughter? Where 
else would they need a parental consent, if they are not a minor 
daughter? Obviously that is an ad that targets young people.
  So we are against big tobacco. We say,''Congress Must Choose: Big 
Tobacco or Kids,'' because we love kids. These cigarette companies 
should not be targeting our children. I agree.

                              {time}  1530

  They are not against these ads that say no parental consent? Who are 
they targeting? Who are these abortion mills targeting if not young 
people?
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I would love to hear the 
outrage from all of those Members who are so outraged about big 
tobacco, I am as well, why do they not get equally outraged about 
abortion mills targeting young girls and exploiting them in their hour 
of need?
  I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute and 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to ask the gentleman from 
Florida two questions. Firstly, he was talking about protecting State 
laws. I wanted to question the gentleman and wondered if he would 
protect New York State's gun laws as well. For example, Florida has no 
gun laws. Could we work together to make sure that the gun laws in New 
York are enforced if a person goes to Florida? That is the first 
question.
  Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. The answer to that question is no. I do not 
support the gun laws.
  Mrs. LOWEY. So you are not interested in protecting State laws.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. I do not support the gun laws of New York. I 
think a lot of New Yorkers are moving to Florida so maybe that has 
something to do with the better legal climate in Florida.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Then the question concerning preserving State laws is not 
really one of the valid arguments.
  The second question I have is, the gentleman was talking about a 
judicial bypass. Does the gentleman actually admit to this group that a 
grandmother, a loving aunt, a loving cousin, a sibling could be subject 
to penalty if they help this woman?
  I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida, could he clarify for 
me whether a loving grandmother, an aunt or a sibling would be subject 
to penalty if this young woman in her hour of need wants to go to a 
loving family member, if, in fact, because the parent might be a drug 
addict or might be abusive or might have abused her, if that young 
woman decided she could not go to the parent, would that relative, dear 
friend or family be subject to these penalties?
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman will continue 
to yield, under the laws of all the States, those individuals that the 
gentlewoman has specified would be enabled to go with the young woman 
to a judge for the judicial bypass. That is available under all the 
laws as required by the Supreme Court.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sadly misnamed 
Child Custody Protection Act. This bill does not encourage young women 
to ask a trusted adult for much-needed assistance. Instead this bill 
will cause some young women to face decisions about their pregnancy 
alone.
  Parental involvement in a minor's decision about her pregnancy is the 
ideal. And for 75 percent of teens in this country, it is also the 
reality. But some teenagers, for various reasons, simply cannot or will 
not confide in a parent. This bill will make criminals of some 
grandmothers, aunts or other relatives that help pregnant teenagers 
exercise their legal rights.
  This bill would endanger the health and lives of young women who for 
a variety of reasons, including fear of abuse, are unable to involve a 
parent in their decisionmaking. We have heard several times comments 
over here about how what you do need parental consent for, but you do 
not need parental consent to give birth. You do not need parental 
consent to give a child up for adoption. This bill is about politics, 
not sound legislation. Four months away from an election, this bill is 
designed to strike contrasts between two sides rather than to enact 
good legislation.
  What we should be talking about today, following the suggestion of a 
Republican Member, the gentleman

[[Page H5535]]

from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), is how to involve adults in the 
decisionmaking process. We should look at policies that work, like the 
Adult Involvement Law that exists in my home State of Maine.
  The Adult Involvement Law recognizes that parental involvement and 
guidance is ideal for young women facing decisions regarding a 
pregnancy. However, when parental involvement is not possible, teens 
should not be alone. Maine's Adult Involvement Law allows young women 
to turn to a trusted adult for advice and counsel. The young woman 
considering an abortion may turn to a parent or another family member, 
such as an aunt or grandmother or a judge or a counselor.
  A counselor may include a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, 
social worker, clergy member, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, 
guidance counselor, registered nurse or licensed practical nurse. The 
counselor must discuss with the young woman all of her options, 
including adoption, parenting and abortion.
  In Maine, all minors seeking an abortion must receive counseling, 
even if that young woman has the consent of another adult. This 
provides the maximum guidance and support for the young woman. That is 
the kind of law we ought to be considering here today.
  This Child Custody Protection Act is designed to restrict a young 
woman's access to abortion, not to ensure the involvement of an adult 
in her decisionmaking process, because in many cases she simply cannot 
or will not go to a parent if there is a parent in the picture.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the so-called Child Custody Protection 
Act.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. HYDE. Madam Speaker, I have already spoken and redundancy is not 
the happiest thought. But I just wanted to say something.
  I have listened very carefully to this serious debate, and I have not 
heard one word about the little baby. That, I guess, just is kind of a 
given because we have a million and a half abortions every year since 
Roe versus Wade. That is about 35 million so far. We are so used to it, 
we are so desensitized that abortion is a good thing. I think abortion 
is an evil thing because it kills a human life, an innocent human life.
  Why is it helping a young girl by assisting her to kill her unborn 
child and saddle her for the rest of her life with wondering what her 
first little baby might have looked like? Yes, it is tragic to have an 
unwanted pregnancy. Yes, there are parents who are awful, who are less 
than human, and you do not want to saddle a little girl who is in real 
trouble with that kind of a situation. That is why you have a judicial 
bypass.
  The judges are going to be very sympathetic to that situation. But my 
God, somebody say a kind word for the little baby. Why is it helping, 
why is it helping a young girl to go behind the backs of her parents, 
take her across the State line to kill her unborn child?
  Now, grandma, who we are assuming is far superior to the mother in 
any given situation, grandmother is always available but not 
necessarily to help her kill the child. Maybe to help her have the 
child. Maybe to help her get the child adopted. Maybe to counsel her. 
Maybe grandmother can talk to mother and break the news that the 
daughter is so afraid to do.
  Grandmothers are not blocked out of this, nor grandfathers, nor a 
loving anybody. But taking the child across the State line to frustrate 
the law, to deny the parent the right to some say-so in this critical, 
crucial, life-threatening situation, that is what you are opting for.
  If abortion is a good thing, then you are right. But if abortion is 
killing an innocent human life, give some little passing concern for 
that little baby.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I want to make two points. One has to do with the real purpose of 
this bill. The second has to do with who it is really aimed at, whether 
intentionally or unintentionally, because the result is the same. The 
real purpose of this bill is clear. It is yet another attempt to 
sacrifice women and girls, to drive back the right to choose by any 
means necessary, whatever the consequences.
  America ought to be on notice, these folks have lost, because the 
people have spoken on the right to choose, the people and the courts 
have spoken on the right to choose. So they have lost on that question. 
They have adopted another strategy. They are trying to do incrementally 
to the right to choose what they have been unable to do through frontal 
attacks on the right to choose. What is particularly serious, as far as 
this Member is concerned, is who this bill is really aimed at.
  This bill chooses to go at the most vulnerable girls in this society. 
They are disproportionately girls of color. I resent the fact that this 
bill goes after those who are most likely to come from broken families, 
most likely to be abused children, and I stand here to speak for them. 
The most vulnerable people in the country are girls who find themselves 
pregnant and alone with not even a parent they can turn to.
  A third of them would find themselves involved in violence, according 
to the data, if they turned to a parent.
  So this bill really ought to be called the Runaways Encouragement 
Bill, because the children who are most likely to be hurt by it are 
those who have no adult to turn to. And to the extent they have one, 
you have taken away that right because even a sibling or grandparent or 
close friend they cannot turn to. So runaway, do it on your own.
  Instead of encouraging girls to turn to an adult, and I was impressed 
with what the gentleman from Maine has just said, it encourages girls 
to run away from adults. Who are we talking about? After all, 75 
percent of minors involve themselves with at least one parent. Who is 
it in America who does not?
  I have to tell my colleagues that the sponsors of this bill must have 
an Ossie and Harriet view of the family, but the fact is, if you saw 
the resent Ossie and Harriet documentary, even that one is gone. So 
that there are huge numbers of families that would be hurt by this. But 
they are disproportionately children of color, that is, inner city 
girls, those who come from where there are no families, where there are 
no fathers, where there may well be not any mothers. That is who you 
are hurting. You are hurting the people that I represent. You are 
hurting the people that the Black Caucus represents. You are hurting 
the people that Hispanic Caucus represents. You are hurting those who 
are most likely to be without parents, and I resent it. You ought to 
define family the way the family has always been defined in America, 
and that is as an extended family.
  The family is not simply a two-parent family. A family is not a one-
parent family. In my community, a parent may be mentors. It may be your 
cousin. Do not hurt those who have already been hurt by the 
disintegration of families, by the break-up of families. Do not make it 
any harder for children who have no place else to turn.
  Defeat this bill. Save the most vulnerable of our children.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith).
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Madam Speaker, the real purpose of 
this bill is to protect children, born and unborn. Children of all 
races deserve to be protected, not preyed upon. And by the way, we know 
that most babies of teenagers are fathered by adult men who, yes, go 
into these areas, prey upon them and then the best they can do is just 
pay for the abortion. They should not be treated any different than any 
other little girl in our Nation.
  To allow this to go on, to allow them to go into these areas and prey 
on these little girls of any color is just wrong. So we would certainly 
agree that they should all be protected equally, but we would not agree 
on the way to get there.
  I am hearing today that families are excluded if it is a grandma or 
an aunt or an uncle or someone else in the family. There is nothing 
further from the truth. The reality is that every court, every State 
that has parental provisions constitutionally have to have a bypass, 
because the Constitution has been determined to allow abortion.

[[Page H5536]]

                              {time}  1545

  Therefore, there has to be a simple, nonobstructive way of getting an 
abortion quickly outside of the parental involvement. So every State 
has a procedure.
  In fact, the average judicial bypass hearing lasts about 12 minutes. 
More than 92 percent of the hearings were less than 20 minutes. And the 
girl cannot, cannot under the State law, be put under an adversarial 
situation; or that is stopping her from having her rights. And it 
overturns that law.
  So what we have is the ability for a young girl who is pregnant to 
stay in the State, not to be moved to another State, away from family, 
away from parent. But in that State, she can go with an aunt, that 
grandma, that neighbor, that clergy, and there has to be a brief, quick 
process.
  I think it is important that we take a look at reality in these 
States. In the States that have it, in Massachusetts, we will find that 
every minor that sought judicial authorization received it. Every 
single one. Another Massachusetts study found that only one of 477 
girls was refused or was even slowed down.
  So what we have is everybody is getting the bypass. But what it does 
is it makes this little girl that is afraid to go talk to mom or dad, 
where she has a pretty good family, and who wants to tell mom or dad 
something is wrong, take a breath and go, well, maybe they are not that 
bad after all.
  We need to slow this down. Because it is awfully easy for that adult 
man to prey on that little girl, to take that little girl across State 
lines, or the parent or the relative that is involved or knows about 
this to want to cover it up. But we should not cover it up. We should 
help these girls and keep it in the light of day and make sure that 
they have their rights, as children, protected.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) has 4 minutes remaining and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. My colleagues, we have heard a lot today about love, 
parental responsibility, family values. Oh, I wish we could legislate 
those values here in this Congress but, unfortunately, we cannot.
  As a mother of three, as a grandmother of two, as many of my 
colleagues said, we hope and pray that our children will confide in us, 
speak to us when serious challenges face them in their lives. Not every 
family is Ozzie and Harriet. There are many young people who do not 
feel that they have parents they can confide in.
  Maybe they are lucky. Maybe they have a grandmother they can talk to 
in their hour of crisis. Maybe they have an aunt. Maybe they have a 
sibling that they can confide in. Yet in this bill we are going to say 
to that young woman in her moment of greatest need, when she has to 
make a very, very difficult decision, ``Don't go to your grandmother. 
Don't go to your aunt. Don't go to your dear friend.'' And we are 
saying, ``It's okay to go to a judge.'' And in 12 minutes that judge is 
going to make this decision. Twelve minutes.
  Let me tell my colleagues something. First of all, there are five 
States that do not even have a judicial bypass. Five States that do not 
have a judicial bypass. And some judges have never granted this 
authority. We have facts. This is a fact.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. LOWEY. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. The gentlewoman is certainly aware that the 
Supreme Court has required judicial bypass. And if a judicial bypass 
procedure is not available, the State law is invalid and unenforceable.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Reclaiming my time, Madam Speaker. The real problem here 
is that a young woman who is in need of assistance is going to have the 
person with whom she wants to confide subject to a penalty; thrown into 
jail. This just does not make sense at all.
  I urge my colleagues to join with me in preventing unwanted 
pregnancies. Let us work and reach out to our young people, encourage 
abstinence, encourage responsibility, but in their time of greatest 
need, let us not throw them in jail. Let us not throw their relative in 
jail.
  In fact, at 6 o'clock today I challenge my colleagues to join us and 
vote against a rule that prohibits coverage of contraceptives. One of 
the gentlemen who spoke earlier today voted against coverage of 
contraception. He is against abortion, he is against contraception. 
This is 1998. Let us work together to reduce unintended pregnancies, 
prevent unwanted, unwanted and unloved pregnancies, and let us move on 
and work together.
  This bill does not make sense at all. Let us not throw granny in 
jail, let us not throw the aunts, the relatives in jail, let us defeat 
this bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Christensen).
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his 
leadership on this issue, and over the past several years how he has 
led on this issue.
  I would like to identify myself with my colleague from Illinois when 
he talked about it is really about the child that we do not hear 
anything about from the other side.
  I know my colleague from New York is a grandmother, I know she cares 
about children. We just disagree on the approach here. A lot of us 
disagree on the issue of our tax dollars going to fund contraception. 
So it is an issue of where the money is spent and where the authority 
goes.
  This issue really is about children, though, and parental consent and 
the parents having some say. If a child is not going to tell his or her 
parent about a possible abortion that they want to seek, they are not 
going to seek the parents' help when it comes to medical problems they 
are experiencing from the complications of an abortion. So this bill is 
for parents and this bill is for children, and this bill, yes, this 
bill is for the unborn child as well.
  Parents should be involved. That is all we are saying. Pass this 
bill, H.R. 3682.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
  (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
bill.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and 
just want to say that I want to encourage my colleagues to read the 
bill.
  Reference has been made to ads targeted at minors. There is nothing 
in this bill that prohibits a minor from responding to the ad. The only 
problem is they have to go alone, without being accompanied by someone 
else. It is only an offense under this bill if someone transports the 
minor. Some criminal, including a brother or a sister. A criminal, like 
an aunt or an uncle or a grandparent. It is not limited to strangers or 
adult men. It includes brothers and sisters and close relatives.
  There is nothing in this bill that requires parental involvement or 
even ensures parental involvement. The minor can cross State lines 
alone. That is why the bill is not effective. That is why we should 
have been able to have amendments, and I would hope that we would 
defeat the bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  This has been an interesting debate. We have heard many things. Most 
of the things we have heard we have heard over and over again. I will 
not take all of the time I have allotted remaining. I just want to make 
again some very basic points about this bill.
  To those who say that this is an unconstitutional measure, I point 
out that the predicate for the operation of this bill is the existence 
of valid constitutional State laws, laws that have been adopted by 
State legislatures and which meet the requirements that have been 
outlined by the United States Supreme Court with respect to parental 
consent and parental notice laws.
  Now, there are a little more than 20 States that have such laws on 
the books that are valid and enforceable. And all we are saying in this 
bill is

[[Page H5537]]

that where we have such valid constitutional laws, this Congress has a 
role to play in making sure that people do not use the interstate 
transportation of a minor as a way of circumventing those valid 
constitutional State laws.
  It is very simple. This is not a complicated concept. It is something 
that I believe all Members, if they give it even the slightest 
attention, would understand very easily.
  It is also important to understand that first and foremost this bill 
is about protecting the health of young girls. Now, there is an 
additional concern here about protecting the integrity of the family 
and the role of the parents in counseling a young girl when there is 
consideration of an abortion. That is important for a number of 
reasons, but it is preeminently important because there are threats to 
the health of the young girl if such counseling is not available.
  Again to my colleagues, I would appeal to them, regardless of what 
their position may be on the subject of abortion in general, to 
consider the conclusion reached by Dr. Bruce Lucero, a prominent 
abortionist, a prominent abortion rights advocate, who said that the 
passage of this bill, and I quote, ``Is important to the health of 
teenage girls.''
  And in the article which Dr. Lucero wrote, he outlines the reasons 
for this, and it boils down to this. The parents are in the best 
position to have information about the health of the young girl; the 
parents are in the best position to make certain that if there are 
complications, there is appropriate and expeditious treatment of the 
young girl. It is the parents who stand in the position to help ensure 
that the health of the girl is protected.
  Now, we have heard that there are difficult circumstances where a 
girl may not be able to go to her parents. The judicial bypass 
procedure is available in any of these laws that are valid and 
enforceable. Some examples have been raised of laws that are not valid 
or enforceable and that do not have a judicial bypass. That is a red 
herring, and I believe that people raising that understand that that is 
a red herring. Any law, the enforcement of which would be aided by the 
bill that is under consideration today, must have a judicial bypass 
procedure. That is something the Supreme Court has ruled unequivocally.
  I think Members should reject this notion that minors have a 
constitutional right to go across State lines to evade the supervision 
of their parents. That is certainly a novel argument, and that is an 
argument I do not believe we would want to accept.
  So I ask the Members to carefully consider all the factors 
surrounding this bill, and I think if they do that, and they are truly 
concerned about the health of young girls, they will vote in favor of 
this bill.
  I want to conclude by thanking my colleague, the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen), for filing this important 
legislation. I am deeply grateful for her outstanding leadership in 
bringing this legislation forward. This is important for the families 
of America and it is important for the young people of our country.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
this bill.
  I'd like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 87th vote on 
choice since the beginning of the 104th Congress.
  This Congress has acted again and again to eliminate abortion 
procedure by procedure, restriction by restriction, and unfortunately, 
they are succeeding.
  Today we are debating a bill to criminalize the act taking a minor 
across state lines for an abortion without parental consent, if the 
state in which the person resides requires it.
  As a mother of two daughters, I know that this is not a simple issue. 
Of course, I would hope that my children would include me when making 
such an important decision.
  Unfortunately, parental notification requirements lead many teens--
especially those from from severely dysfunctional families not to seek 
a safe abortion at all.
  I would hope that any young woman who refuses to involve her parents 
would have another trusted adult from which to seek guidance and 
support. However, this bill will make criminals of those loving 
grandparents, siblings, counselors and friends who have nothing but the 
safety and well-being of the young woman in mind. It sends the message 
to young women that the abortion process is something they must go 
through alone.
  H.R. 3682 is a dangerous bill. It will succeed only in making it more 
difficult for young women to gain safe, legal abortions. If she refuses 
to involve her family and the law prohibits her from looking to another 
responsible adult for help she may be forced to travel alone to a 
clinic, adding delays which increase the risk to her health, or worse, 
resort to ``back alley'' or even self-induced abortion.
  H.R. 3682 is also an unnecessary bill. For those who worry about 
young women being forced or coerced by an adult into having an abortion 
against their will, let me remind them that we already have laws, such 
as informed consent laws or prohibitions against kidnaping and 
statutory rape, which protect against this. This bill doesn't protect 
young women from undue influence. On the contrary, it strips them of 
essential support.
  This bill is not about protecting our young women. It is driven 
solely by the divisive nature of abortion politics. I urge you to 
oppose H.R. 3682 and in doing so put the safety and well-being of 
America's young women before the political agenda of anti-choice 
legislatures.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3682. There 
is nothing more important in parent-child relationships than for 
parents to be involved in the healthcare decisions of their children. 
This basic parental right and responsibility is perhaps most critical 
in the case of pregnancies of young woman. In most American homes, no 
one cares more about the welfare, health and safety of a child than her 
parents. Although a young woman may be frightened or feel ashamed to 
share with her parents, parents are usually best able to provide 
support for these most personal decisions.
  Unfortunately, not all young women are able to confide in their 
parents should they become pregnant. A victim of family violence or 
incest is often not in a position to share her pregnancy with her 
parents for fear of further abuse. This bill, although laudable for its 
intention to encourage communication between parents and children, does 
not provide alternatives for a young woman who is unable, for fear of 
physical or emotional abuse, to involve her parents in her decision.
  In addition, the bill would criminalize the actions of close family 
members who might seek to assist a young woman who is struggling with 
this monumental decision. For troubled American households, 
grandparents, estranged parents, aunts, uncles, or siblings often serve 
in the parental role. The bill unfortunately does not make provisions 
for such circumstances. In fact, it may put these young women in a more 
dangerous situation should they feel compelled to turn to illicit 
providers of abortion services or travel alone.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the need for more parental involvement in 
their children's lives, but for these reasons, I must vote no on HR 
3682.
  Mr. PAPPAS. Mr. Speaker, the Child Custody Protection Act protects 
not only the lives of born and unborn children, but protects the rights 
of parents from those who wish to undermine them.
  I find it troubling that some in this body do not believe it is 
dangerous to allow a person, who knows nothing about a young girl's 
health history and who may not even know her, to take her to get an 
abortion. Risking permanent damage to a child's health, solely to keep 
her pregnancy a secret from her parents, suits no purpose whatsoever.
  In a recent poll, 85 percent of Americans said that they do not 
believe that a person should take a minor girl across a state line to 
have an abortion without her parents' knowledge. Many of these people 
call themselves ``pro-choice.'' Even a physician who performed 
abortions wrote in a recent New York Times op-ed that he supports this 
legislation, mainly because of his concern for the health and life of 
the minor during and after this procedure.
  Mr. Speaker, getting a young woman to the abortion doctor does not 
end the situation. This is not a haircut. Rather, this is a potentially 
dangerous medical procedure whose effects, both physical and emotional, 
will continue to be with the young woman once she returns to her home. 
A stranger will not be there. Parents will be.
  I ask my colleagues to protect our young women from those who wish to 
break the law. A vote in favor of the Child Custody Protection Act is a 
vote in favor of preserving the law and protecting the rights of our 
nation's parents.
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3682. the 
Child Custody Protection Act which would make it a Federal offense for 
anyone other than that minor's parents to transport that minor to 
another State so that she may obtain an abortion.
  This legislation would prohibit anyone including grandparents, step-
parents, religious counselors and any other family members, from 
accompanying a woman across State lines to obtain an abortion. Parental 
involvement is ideal and currently, some 75 percent of minors under age 
16 already seek the advice and help of a parent when faced with an 
unintended pregnancy and the prospect of obtaining an abortion. These 
young ladies are fortunate enough to have loving and understanding 
parents that they can talk to, but not

[[Page H5538]]

all teenagers are that lucky. For those teenagers who feel that they 
cannot involve their parents, they are left with no one else to turn 
to. No one to counsel them about alternatives to abortion, thus 
ensuring that they will go through with an abortion. Should this bill 
pass, young women would be forced to make this difficult decision 
alone, for fear of putting a family member or a trusted adult in danger 
of committing a Federal crime.
  Supporters of this bill claim that this legislation will strengthen 
the lines of communication between young women and their parents, when 
actually the opposite will result. Fearful of putting a trusted family 
member at risk, who knows what a young, frightened teenager might do? 
Forced to make a decision on her own, she may make the journey across 
State lines by herself, traveling by bus or even worse, hitchhiking. 
She may turn to an illegal back alley abortion where she puts her young 
life in unnecessary danger.
  We owe it to these young women, to allow them the chance to involve 
someone they trust in making this important decision. Most teenagers 
who do not involve a parent involve an adult in the decision with some 
15 percent talking with a step-parent, grandparent or sibling. If any 
of these family members attempted to help that teenager obtain an 
abortion, they would pursuant to the bill before us, be committing a 
Federal offense.
  We need to teach our youth to practice abstinence and to be 
responsible, thus making abortion an unnecessary procedure. That would 
be far better than passing legislation which holds concerned family 
members and trusted adults criminally responsible for helping these 
young women make a very difficult decision. Accordingly, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Child Custody Protection Act.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my strong support 
for H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act. As a father of seven 
and a grandfather to 34, the thought of a stranger taking one of my 
children or grandchildren to another state to receive an abortion 
absolutely sickens me.
  The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a federal offense for 
someone who is not the guardian, to knowingly transport a minor across 
state lines so she may receive an abortion. An abortion is a life 
altering and life threatening procedure and for a parent to be kept in 
the dark is absurd.
  We should not allow state laws to be thwarted without consequence. 
When a minor is taken across state lines for the purpose of obtaining 
an abortion, the intent is specifically to avoid parental notification 
or consent laws. Parental notification laws ensure that a parent is 
aware of the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy of a child to 
determine whether they were abused, molested, or the victim of a crime. 
It is alarming to think that our children are required to receive 
parental consent to take aspirin at school, yet they can be taken 
across state lines by someone who is not their guardian to have an 
abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 3682, and 
vote in favor of protecting our daughters. A stranger should not be 
allowed to make critical decisions about the health and well being of 
our children.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired. Pursuant to House 
Resolution 499, the previous question is ordered on the bill, as 
amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Scott

  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SCOTT. I am opposed, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Scott moves to recommit the bill H.R. 3682 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Custody Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS TO AVOID CERTAIN LAWS 
                   RELATING TO ABORTION.

       (a) In General.--Title 18, United States Code, is amended 
     by inserting after chapter 117 the following:

``CHAPTER 117A--TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS TO AVOID CERTAIN LAWS RELATING 
                              TO ABORTION

``Sec.
``2401. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws relating to 
              abortion.

     ``Sec. 2401. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws 
       relating to abortion

       ``(a) Offense.--Whoever uses force or the threat of force 
     to transport an individual who has not attained 18 years of 
     age across a State line, with the intent that such individual 
     obtain an abortion, and thereby knowingly abridges a State 
     law requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion 
     decision, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not 
     more than 5 years, or both.
       ``(b) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) a law requiring parental involvement in a minor's 
     abortion decision is a law--
       ``(A) requiring, before an abortion is performed on a 
     minor, either--
       ``(i) the notification to, or consent of, a parent of that 
     minor; or
       ``(ii) proceedings in a State court; and
       ``(B) that does not provide as an alternative to the 
     requirements described in subparagraph (A) notification to or 
     consent of any person or entity who is not described in that 
     subparagraph;
       ``(2) an abridgement of the State law requiring parental 
     involvement occurs if an abortion is performed on the minor, 
     in a State other than the State where the minor resides, 
     without the parental consent or notification, or the judicial 
     authorization that would have been required by that law had 
     the abortion been performed in the State where the minor 
     resides;
       ``(3) the term `parent' means--
       ``(A) a parent or guardian;
       ``(B) a legal custodian; or
       ``(C) a person standing in loco parentis who has care and 
     control of the minor, and with whom the minor regularly 
     resides who is designated by the law requiring parental 
     involvement in the minor's abortion decision as a person to 
     whom notification, or from whom consent, is required;
       ``(4) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older 
     than the maximum age requiring parental notification or 
     consent, or proceedings in a State court, under the law 
     requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion 
     decision; and
       ``(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 117 the following new 
     item:
``117A. Transportation of minors to avoid certain laws relating to 
    abortion................................................2401''.....

  Mr. CANADY of Florida (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and 
printed in the RECORD.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his 
motion.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Madam Speaker, we have heard a considerable amount of 
concern from our friends on the other side of the aisle about older 
predator males smuggling or forcing young women across State lines for 
an abortion. We share that concern.
  States must do a better job of enforcing the statutory rape laws, and 
we must make it clear to older men that if they have sex with underage 
women, they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows.
  We must also ensure that women are not being forced or coerced to 
cross State lines to obtain an abortion. We support the right to 
choose, and we must guarantee that every woman can exercise that right 
free from harm, threats or intimidation.
  Our motion to recommit will instruct the Committee on the Judiciary 
to report back a substitute that will make it illegal to force or 
coerce a woman across State lines so that she can obtain an abortion. 
The substitute also strengthens the underlying bill's criminal 
penalties by sentencing violators to 5 years in jail.
  This amendment gets at the heart of what the underlying bill was 
trying to do, deter and punish those who intentionally try to evade 
parental laws and force young women to have abortions without the 
proper consent or notification requirements having been met.
  H.R. 3682, as currently written, is far too overbroad. As we have 
seen, it would have the effect of criminalizing grandparents and close 
family relatives who are in many cases a young woman's only family and 
only source of support in times of crisis.

[[Page H5539]]

  H.R. 3682, as currently written, would lead to back-alley abortions 
and increase family violence, particularly for young women who have 
nowhere to turn and no one to help them at a critical time in their 
lives. Surely, we want to strengthen family ties, not damage them.
  H.R. 3682 is a bad bill. It will put our children at risk. It will 
throw our grandmothers in jail. Let us really do something about sexual 
predators by voting for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, without this motion to 
recommit, the matter will be denied the assistance from a trusted 
friend or relative.
  The bill in its present form, without the motion to recommit, does 
not require parental consent because a minor could go alone. I would 
ask that we vote yes on the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  I ask the Members of the House to focus carefully on exactly what 
this motion to recommit says. I had actually thought we might get a 
motion to recommit that would try to address some of the concerns that 
we have heard about. But this does not do that. It instead brings to 
the House a bill that would outlaw kidnapping and abduction for the 
purposes of obtaining an abortion.
  This measure in the motion to recommit would simply say they cannot 
kidnap or abduct, use force or threat of force to transport an 
individual across State lines for the purpose of obtaining an abortion 
in the circumstances outlined. There are laws on the books already to 
deal with that kind of circumstance. There are laws against kidnapping. 
There are laws against abduction. There are laws that relate to the 
improper use of force or the threat of force.
  So this is meaningless. This is absolutely meaningless. I think that 
the Members of the House should understand that. But more importantly, 
I think that the Members need to again focus on what the point of the 
underlying bill is.
  This bill is here to protect the rights of parents to be involved in 
their minor daughter's decision to have a serious, potentially 
dangerous surgical procedure and the right of children to have the 
counsel and protection of their parents at that critical time when that 
decision is being made.
  Now, many States have decided to give legal protection to this 
relationship through enactment of parental involvement laws, whether 
they be consent laws or notification laws. Now, without H.R. 3682, many 
people will continue to circumvent these protective State laws by 
secretly taking someone else's daughter across State lines for an 
abortion.
  This motion before us is not serious. I have the greatest respect for 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) who has offered the motion, but 
I have to submit that this is not a serious attempt to deal with these 
issues.
  As a matter of fact, if the type of provision that is in this motion 
were to become the law of the land, Joyce Farley and her daughter would 
be in the same position they have been in. Ms. Farley's 12-year-old 
daughter was raped, and the rapist's mother took the child out of 
Pennsylvania, which has a parental involvement law for an abortion. 
There was no evidence that the rapist's mother used force or the threat 
of force. She used persuasion with a very troubled young lady. She took 
advantage of her. Her son had taken advantage of her, and the mother of 
the offender took further advantage.
  H.R. 3682 would protect Ms. Farley and her daughter. The motion to 
recommit would do nothing for them at all. As a matter of fact, the 
motion to recommit would do nothing for anybody at all other than 
perhaps give a little cover to some people who are looking for some 
cover on an issue which they understand the American people have a very 
firm position on.
  The American people overwhelmingly support parental laws. The 
American people overwhelmingly support the bill that is before the 
House today. So I would urge that my colleagues in the House reject the 
motion to recommit and then vote for the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). Without objection, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT. Madam 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.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of 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 
passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 158, 
nays 269, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 279]

                               YEAS--158

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     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
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     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
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                               NAYS--269

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     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
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     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
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt

[[Page H5540]]


     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     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
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Dingell
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Hill
     McNulty
     Payne
     Roybal-Allard

                              {time}  1626

  Messrs. BERRY, METCALF, MOAKLEY, Mrs. McCARTHY of New York, and 
Messrs. COOKSEY, RILEY, WEYGAND, McCRERY, CONDIT and SAM JOHNSON of 
Texas changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. DOGGETT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Emerson). The question is on the 
passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 276, 
noes 150, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 280]

                               AYES--276

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Ensign
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Fox
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     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
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Redmond
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     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
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--150

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Furse
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefner
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Klug
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stokes
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn
     Yates

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Dingell
     Gonzalez
     Hill
     McNulty
     Petri
     Porter
     Roybal-Allard
     Tauzin

                              {time}  1636

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________