[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 120 (Friday, September 11, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10227-S10231]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10
a.m. is equally divided between the Senator from Michigan, Mr. Abraham,
and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, or their designee.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, time is very limited this morning, so I
will be brief.
We are voting shortly on cloture on a Motion to Proceed. In other
words, Senators will be deciding whether or not we can simply consider
this important measure.
We all know how contentious the issue of abortion can get around
here, and across the country. But this matter is not really even about
abortion. This bill is simply about protecting the health and safety of
minor children and the rights that their own states have concluded
their parents should have. Specifically, it simply seeks to enforce
state laws requiring parental involvement in their minor daughter's
abortion so that someone other than those parents cannot readily avoid
those state laws by taking a young girl across state lines for an
abortion, certainly not without the notification to their parents.
But whether my colleagues agree or disagree with this bill, or
whether, like the Clinton administration, that want to modify or limit
it, there is simply no reason to vote no on just proceeding to a
discussion.
The concern has been expressed that there be an opportunity to offer
relevant amendments. Mr. President, no one has suggested otherwise.
Let's have at it. The only action that would preclude amendments is a
no vote this morning.
We are prepared to debate and vote on amendments. That opportunity
was available at committee and it can be worked out here. In fact, the
amendments offered or filed at committee would likely be germane post-
cloture even if this were a cloture vote on the bill itself, rather
than a motion to proceed.
So let's not look for excuses here. I urge my colleagues to vote yes
and allow us to consider this important legislation. American
families--parents and their children--deserve no less.
Having said that, I want to personally pay my respects to the
distinguished Senator from Michigan, Senator Abraham, for the
leadership he has provided on this. Without him, we wouldn't be this
far. I have to say he has been a great leader on the Judiciary
Committee. I personally appreciate the efforts he has made on this bill
thus far. I will support him every way I possibly can.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his
kind remarks and look forward to
[[Page S10228]]
working together on this and other legislation.
At this point, I yield up to 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, the purpose of this legislation is very
simple: It is to make it a crime to transport a child across State
lines if this circumvents State laws requiring parental involvement or
if it circumvents State laws requiring a judicial waiver for a minor to
obtain an abortion. It is that simple.
Many States, as we know, have laws saying a parent or guardian has to
be notified if a child is trying to get an abortion. But not all States
have these laws. What is happening now, far too often in this country,
is that people who aren't parents, who aren't guardians, are taking
these children across State lines, secretly, to get abortions in
another State where parental notification is not required. It is that
simple.
What we are addressing in this bill, and what Senator Abraham is
addressing, is an obvious circumvention of these State parental consent
and notification laws. This bill, then, has two purposes: to protect
the health of children and to protect the rights of parents. In fact,
it might not be much of an exaggeration to say that these two purposes
really boil down to just one purpose, because, Mr. President,
empowering parents is the single biggest investment we can make in
ensuring the health of our children.
What we are saying with this legislation is that, yes, parents have
the right to be involved in a moral and medical decision that affects
their children's welfare. They have the right to do this. They have the
duty to do this. When it comes to parental notification on abortion,
the American people have reached a clear consensus. By a huge majority,
80 percent, favor parental notification; 74 percent favor not just
parental notification but parental consent, as well--74 percent. This
is a clear expression of the national wisdom. This legislation is an
effort to make that kind of informed decision possible.
Now, earlier this year, we in Congress worked on another bill, one
that is now law. In that bill, the President and the Congress mandated
that the flight of a parent to another State to avoid paying child
support would be a Federal crime. I worked with Senator Kohl to
champion the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act in order to protect the
interests of America's children. We have to pursue very vigorously
those who would harm our children, either by omission or by commission.
Mr. President, the very same principle is embodied in the Child
Custody Protection Act that we are considering today.
There are those living among us, Mr. President, who would place our
children in harm's way by transporting them across State lines to
achieve dangerous goals, both physically and emotionally. One such goal
is abortion. The right of citizens to pass and enforce laws regarding
the rights of parents is completely violated by the ability of others
to transport children to another State to obtain an abortion. As a
Nation, we must use all the resources available to us in order to
protect our children and our families from this conduct.
That is our purpose here today. Senator Abraham has shown strong
leadership in bringing this legislation forward. I thank him for his
work on this important bill, and I yield the floor.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Michigan for his
leadership on this very important issue. I am here to offer my
wholehearted support for him in his efforts on this piece of
legislation.
Currently, 22 States require parental notification if a minor is
going to receive an abortion. Each year, thousands of adults
deliberately circumvent these laws by taking children across State
lines to receive an abortion in another State which does not require
parental consent.
This legislation would make it a Federal criminal offense to take
children across State lines to receive an abortion without the
knowledge of their parents. By implementing this safeguard legislation,
we will insulate our children from exploitation by adults who do not
want the parents involved in the decisionmaking process for an
abortion, and who may not have the child's best interests at heart.
The decision to have an abortion is a critical one, which I hope
women of all ages would not choose. However, despite an individual's
personal opinion about abortion, the majority of Americans, myself
included, believe it is imperative for the parents of minor children to
be included in this life-altering decision. According to a 1996 Gallup
poll, 74 percent of Americans support requiring minors to get parental
consent for an abortion. According to the Supreme Court, ``the medical,
emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious
and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is
immature.'' Clearly, our Nation's children should not be kept from
their parents when making an important life decision, particularly one
with such broad ramifications as an abortion.
I find it unbelievable that schools throughout the country are unable
to dispense even a simple aspirin to a child without written consent
from their parents; yet, every day thousands of adults are permitted to
escort children across State lines for an abortion which has serious
physical and mental effects.
This is simply preposterous. A child cannot receive over-the-counter
medications like an aspirin to relieve a headache while at school, but
we allow that same child to have an abortion without the consent or
knowledge of their parents and guardians.
It is my firm belief that we must pass this law and stop people from
bypassing the laws of our individual States. I would like to stress
that this bill does not impact the individual rights of States, nor
does it alter, supersede, or override existing laws in the individual
States. What the Child Custody Protection Act does is protect the
current laws of States which have chosen to implement parental
notification. Most important, this legislation protects our children
from making a life-altering decision without the guidance of their most
trusted and caring advisers, their parents. The mental and physical
well-being of thousands of children depends on us passing the Child
Custody Act.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, at this time, I yield 2 minutes to the
Senator from Alabama.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I add my compliments to Senator Abraham
from Michigan for his outstanding work in crafting this professionally
drafted, constitutional, and well-done amendment.
There was a recent article in the New York Times by an abortion
doctor who admitted to doing 45,000 abortions. He said in that article
that parents ought to be consulted in these circumstances. He said
that, when someone--often some young man--takes a very young girl
across a State line to a State where abortions don't require parental
consent, he is jeopardizing the health of that young girl, because the
parents won't even know to watch out for her health. Having had the
abortion a long distance away, the girl won't be able to return to the
abortion clinic for follow-up. The parents won't be watching their
daughter's health and the complications that can arise. The doctor said
that pro-abortion forces do themselves a disservice when they oppose
such legislation as this. I think that is plainly so from a medical
point of view. I think it is plainly so from a family point of view.
Young toughs who have impregnated a young girl ought not to be able to
avoid their responsibility by secretly taking her away to a distant
place, without the knowledge of her parents. This is basic.
I was a Federal prosecutor for nearly 15 years, and during that time
we had what we call the Mann Act. It prohibits the interstate
transportation of a female across a State line for the purpose of
prostitution or other immoral purposes. That is a law that has been
upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court. This bill will be upheld by the
Supreme Court. It is consistent with American law. I am amazed that we
can't even get the bill up for a vote and that there are people
opposing it.
I thank the Senator from Michigan for his leadership.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, because the first 4 minutes of this
debate
[[Page S10229]]
was lost due to other business before the Senate, I ask unanimous
consent that we extend the time for debate an additional 5 minutes,
which would move the cloture vote to 10:05.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to express my
views on the vote we are taking today regarding the Child Custody
Protection Act. I will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed
to consideration of this legislation because I believe it is an issue
that merits consideration by the full Senate.
Based on my conversations with Pennsylvanians throughout the
Commonwealth in recent weeks, I am well aware of the strong views on
either side of this issue. It is the responsibility of the Senate to
deliberate over proposals concerning matters as complicated as an
individual's right to an abortion, particularly when minors are
involved and there are substantial State interests at stake as well.
While I am troubled by some of the implications of this bill, I believe
it is important that this is debated by the entire body, not just the
Judiciary Committee.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask
unanimous consent that the time be taken out of the minority side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the chairman of the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Hatch, and also my good friend from
Michigan, Mr. Abraham, have said that the majority is prepared to
debate and vote on amendments to this bill. I know that a number of my
colleagues want to bring amendments that are also important for the
health and safety of American families and children.
I have some concerns, as I have expressed to the Senator from
Michigan, on the overall bill. But with the assurances that we are
going to have debate--I am not talking about dilatory debate, I am
talking about real debate and amendments--I am prepared to take Senator
Hatch and others at their word and proceed to this bill and work
through it.
Having said that, I have some difficulties with aspects of the bill.
I note for my colleagues that those difficulties go to particular
constitutional and legal issues, not to the underlying concerns the
Senator from Michigan has expressed.
The Senator from Michigan has expressed some very real concerns, many
of which I share. He has done it in a way that shows a deep, heartfelt
concern, a concern of conscience, and I applaud him for that. We will
work through these particular things in the same way. As the Senator
from Michigan knows, I did not take steps to delay this bill from
coming out of committee. This bill deserves to have a vote. We deserve,
some of us, and probably both sides, to have a vote on some of the
amendments. We will do that.
I will urge my colleagues to vote to move forward with this bill.
I yield the floor.
I see nobody on our side looking for further time. I will yield, if
this will help the Senator from Michigan, the remainder of my time to
him, with the understanding that if somebody comes up I am sure he will
take care of their time.
Mr. ABRAHAM. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, first, I thank the Senator from Vermont
for his remarks both here as well as in the committee when we dealt
with this issue. I think he and other members of the other side on this
debated in a very thoughtful fashion some of the issues at stake.
In light of his comments, it is my hope, obviously, that we will
agree to this cloture motion this morning overwhelmingly, and then
hopefully the Senate can begin to discuss a list of potential
amendments that might be debated on it for whatever time and we would
then call the bill up.
If there are others here who would like to speak at this point, I
yield to them some time. I see there is one request.
Let me yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania for 1 minute to comment
on the legislation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President. Now that the Senator from
Vermont has agreed to support the motion to proceed--that is
heartening--we can now get to this.
I came here to plead that we at least be given the opportunity to
discuss this issue. On this bill, while it is obviously important to
the entire country, the case which has been highlighted, which is the
one that is the most disturbing, is the case from Pennsylvania of a
horrible situation where a young girl 12 years old was raped by a boy
18, was given alcohol, and was impregnated while she was unconscious.
The stepmother of the boy, without the knowledge of the little girl's
mother, took her across the State line to have an abortion.
In fact, there are a series of false pretenses, which I will outline
in the debate that we hope now to have on the full bill. It shows how
this law is necessary to protect the rights of parents, and the State
of Pennsylvania wants to protect them. The State of Pennsylvania has a
law in place that says you need parental consent. Parents in the State
believe they should be able to rely upon the law, that they should be
able to have that right that the State of Pennsylvania suggested that
we have, that the people of Pennsylvania should have their laws
honored, and that people, by crossing State lines, should not be able
to evade what is the law within Pennsylvania. This is less an abortion
issue than it is a State rights issue.
As Senator DeWine mentioned in his debate, we have done things just
recently with child support to get better enforcement of State
decisions across State lines to protect children and to protect
families. This is just another instance where we should do that--
protect the rights of parents and protect the rights of children within
the borders of the State, as the State legislatures and Governors have
enacted laws to do so.
I commend the Senator from Michigan for his work to fight through the
Judiciary Committee and to get this bill to the floor, and to now get
it to a point where hopefully we can begin the debate and we can begin
to move forward with the debate of these amendments.
I understand States rights and enforcing State laws is an important
issue that we debate here often in the Congress. But there is none more
important, as far as I am concerned, than to protect the lives and
health of children and the rights of parents. That is exactly at the
heart of this legislation.
I congratulate the Senator.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania for
his support as well as for his work on a number of other related
issues, including the one we will be debating here soon for the Senate.
He has given leadership in a variety of areas--especially in the area
of abortion rights, which has been, I think, a source of great strength
to people who care deeply about this topic. We look forward to working
with him later this week on a related matter that will come before the
Senate.
In light of the current floor situation, I don't think there will be
other speakers joining us. I intend to make a few remarks now, and, at
the end of that time, if no one else has come to the floor to speak, I
will yield back the remainder of the time that has been afforded me by
the minority and seek unanimous consent that we vote as originally
planned.
In light of Senator Leahy's comments, it seems that probably the
motion to proceed will receive enough votes for cloture and then we can
begin moving forward.
As I said in my remarks to the Senate yesterday, this is an issue
that would seem to me to be one that people, regardless of their view
on the underlying issue of abortion rights, could agree on; that is,
that the Supreme Court of the United States has deemed it to be
constitutional for States to enact parental involvement statutes--
parental consent or parental notification statutes. Based on that
decision,
[[Page S10230]]
about 22 States have enacted such laws. The families in those States,
the parents in those States, and the children in those States have a
right to rely on those laws. Those laws have been enacted to protect
young women who are minors who might consider an abortion. The reason
for that is very simple.
The abortion procedure is a serious medical procedure. The
consequences of that procedure are very serious. There is no one in a
better position, particularly with extremely young women, to know about
their health considerations better than the parents. Of course, there
are certain instances where parents may not be appropriate because of
abusive situations. The States have addressed that. And the courts have
permitted States to address that with bypass procedures and other
mechanisms to allow young women to have options in those rare
instances. But other than in those rare instances, these laws make
sense. I think an overwhelming percentage of Americans support them.
The problem is that these laws lack forcefulness. It is possible to
circumvent them very easily by simply transporting the child across a
State line for an abortion. Our legislation is simply an effort to
clarify which laws would apply in the new jurisdiction where that
abortion might be performed. This legislation says that the laws of the
States which have enacted parental consent laws still have meaning,
still have consequence, and the families in those States still have the
ability to rely on those laws.
I cited yesterday on the floor the case that was presented in our
hearings of Joyce Farley who was victimized by just such a situation--
the Senator from Pennsylvania just alluded to it--where her 12-year-old
daughter was raped by a neighbor, became pregnant, and then, in an
effort to try to cover up that act, the neighbor's parent drove the
child out of Pennsylvania, where parental consent laws are required, to
the State of New York, where they had the abortion performed, falsified
documents pretending she was the mother, brought the child back to
Pennsylvania, and left her 30 miles from home in a very, very serious
state of health. The child became very sick, finally got home, and
finally told her mother what had happened. Only because her mother was
a nurse was proper medical attention at that point applied and the
little child's life saved.
This doesn't, in my judgment, seem to me to be a situation where we
can simply allow this to continue. For that reason, our legislation is
aimed not at changing the underlying abortion laws of States, not at
changing or in any way enhancing the parental notification laws, but
simply saying that where the laws exist, they have to be enforced
regardless of where the child is taken for an abortion. That is what
the purpose of the legislation is.
I hope today we can move forward on this motion to proceed. Then I
hope we can work together, regardless of what people's position might
be on the abortion question and the underlying question, to say that
parents and families in these situations should be protected and shall
be protected by this Congress.
Mr. President, I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I would like to speak in support of S.
1645, The Child Custody Protection Act.
The purpose of this act is to prohibit the transportation of minors
across state lines with intent to avoid application of a state law
requiring parental involvement in a minor obtaining an elective
abortion.
As I imagine the fear, confusion, and perceived isolation of a minor
child who learns that she is pregnant, I can think of few situations
where the support and security of family is more desperately needed.
Many states have enacted laws to assure that parents are involved. This
bill would assure that these state laws are not easily circumvented by
crossing state lines.
There is an even more sobering aspect to this issue. A significant
reason behind evasion of the State's parental involvement law can be an
effort to cover up statutory rape violations.
In a study of 46,000 pregnancies by school-age girls in California,
researchers found that seventy-one percent, or over 33,000, were
fathered by adult post-high-school men. Another study reports that 58
percent of the time it is the girl's boyfriend who accompanies a girl
for an abortion when her parents have not been informed of the
pregnancy.
Obviously, many of these men are vulnerable to statutory rape
charges. This vulnerability provides these men with a strong incentive
to pressure the much younger girl to agree to an abortion without
revealing the pregnancy to the parents. Currently, a man seeking to do
so can evade the law and hide his crime by driving his victim across
State lines.
Opponents of this legislation argue that in some families, ideal
relationship may not exist with the parents--that in families where
abuse is present, for example, parental involvement would be
detrimental. This concern is addressed in that judicial bypass
provisions exist in every state with a parental notification
requirement. These judicial bypass procedures are not onerous. A recent
study of Massachusetts bypass procedure published in the American
Journal of Public Health reported that only 1 out of 477 girls was
refused a judicial authorization. Furthermore, the average hearing
lasted less than 13 minutes.
Passing this bill will not force parental disclosure in instances
where abuse exists within a family. Conversely, failure to pass this
legislation could compromise parental support from the majority of
families where good counsel and loving support would be provided.
Americans support the concept of parental involvement. In a 1996
Gallup poll seventy-six percent of those polled favored laws requiring
the girls under the age of 18 get either parental consent or at least
inform their parents before obtaining an abortion. This conviction is
reflected at a legislative level by the 22 states that have enacted
laws requiring parental notification.
This is not a broad piece of legislation, it has in fact been
described by the media as ``narrowly tailored to address a specific
problem.'' The act does not establish a national requirement of
parental consent or notification prior to the performance of an
abortion on a minor under 18. Nor does it attempt to regulate any
purely intrastate activities related to the procurement of abortion
services. S. 1645 simply helps effectuate the policies of States that
have decided to provide a layer of protection of their own residents
against these dangers to children's health and safety by requiring
parental involvement in the abortion decision.
Minors must not be left alone to make these crucial decisions.
Abortion is a major medical procedure, highly invasive and often
emotionally traumatic. There are hundreds of accounts of women who as
adults, decide to undergo an elective abortion and are then plagued by
profound regret, health complications and emotional trauma for having
made that decision.
How much greater is the potential for a hasty and regrettable
decision when the mother is herself a child who may not fully
understand her options and the consequences of her choices?
I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture to proceed to this bill and
to support this important legislation, and I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I know Members are anxious to get to this cloture
vote. I strongly support the efforts of the Senator from Michigan and
the Senator from Pennsylvania and others to deal with this important
item. I commend them for their perseverance in pursuing this. I think
it is important that we move forward with this and support it.
It is designed in a way to protect the rights of children, the rights
of parents, and the rights of States. I urge my colleagues to support
it.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I note there are no other individuals on
either side of the aisle here to speak at this point, and so in that
the hour of 10 o'clock, which was the original time that this vote was
slated to occur, has arrived and there are no other speakers, I ask
unanimous consent to withdraw the most recent unanimous consent
agreement that was entered into, yield back all remaining time, and
proceed at this point to a vote on the motion to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
[[Page S10231]]
CLOTURE MOTION
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the clerk will
report the motion to invoke cloture.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provision of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
proceed to S. 1645, the Child Custody Protection Act:
Trent Lott, Orrin Hatch, Spencer Abraham, Charles
Grassley, Slade Gorton, Judd Gregg, Wayne Allard, Pat
Roberts, Bob Smith, Paul Coverdell, Craig Thomas, James
Jeffords, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, Mitch
McConnell, Chuck Hagel.
Call of the Roll
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
under the rule is waived.
Vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration of S. 1645,
the Child Custody Protection Act? The yeas and nays are required under
the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), the
Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun), and the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Inhofe). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber who desire to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 97, nays 0, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 265 Leg.]
YEAS--97
Abraham
Akaka
Allard
Ashcroft
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Breaux
Brownback
Bryan
Bumpers
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cleland
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Enzi
Faircloth
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Frist
Glenn
Gorton
Graham
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kempthorne
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murkowski
Murray
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Robb
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sarbanes
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--3
Kerrey
Moseley-Braun
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 97, the nays are 0.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, having voted in the
affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The question is on the motion to proceed.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). Without
objection, it is so ordered.
____________________