[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.
____________________