[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 125 (Friday, September 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10564-S10567]
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 clerk will 
report S. 1645.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 1645) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     prohibit taking minors across State lines to avoid laws 
     requiring the involvement of parents in abortive decisions.

  The Senate proceeded to consider the bill, which had been reported 
from the Committee on the Judiciary, with an amendment to strike all 
after the enacting clause and inserting in lieu therof 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.--
       ``(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.
       ``(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 regulatory 
     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.''.

[[Page S10565]]

                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk to 
the substitute amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under 
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
  The 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 committee amendment to S. 1645, the Child 
Custody Protection Act:
  Trent Lott, Orrin G. 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, and Chuck Hagel.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture 
vote occur at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, September 22, and that the 
mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just so Members will know, there is a 
cloture motion that has just been filed. We should note for the record 
that we have been working in good faith with the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee and the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Mr. 
Abraham, on reaching agreement on a unanimous consent agreement. We 
started working on this agreement immediately after the majority 
invoked cloture to proceed to the bill. And in showing our good faith, 
everybody on this side of the aisle voted for that, to proceed to the 
bill. In fact, as I recall, the vote was unanimous in this Chamber.
  S. 1645 is a bill that provokes strong feelings on both sides. A 
number of Members have expressed interest in offering amendments to 
this bill. In fact, on Tuesday, I say to the Senator from Oklahoma, we 
sent the Republican side a fairly limited list of amendments that 
Democrats plan to offer to the bill. Some of these amendments, such as 
those of the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, 
were debated in committee with careful thought and consideration, I 
thought, on both sides of the aisle.
  In fact, I told Senator Abraham later that I believed we had a very 
good debate on this bill in committee, and, as the distinguished 
Senator from Michigan knows, I did my best to move the bill along 
through committee.
  We have not heard back from the Republican side about where we stand 
on the UC with the amendment list we proposed. We are waiting to hear 
back. I think if we work on this we will be able to reach some 
agreement and proceed on this measure with full and fair debate on the 
amendments that Members want to offer.
  I whole-heartedly support the goal of fostering closer familial 
relationships and the notion of encouraging parental involvement in a 
child's decision whether to have an abortion. I believe, however, that 
States should continue to maintain their historically dominant role in 
developing and implementing policies that affect family matters, such 
as marriage, divorce, child custody and policies on parental 
involvement in minors' abortion decisions. That is the nature of our 
federal system, in which the States may, within the common bounds of 
our Constitution, resolve issues consistent with the particular mores 
or practices of the individual State.
  In my view, this bill significantly undermines important federalism 
principles that we have respected--at least since the Civil War. In 
addition, while I know as a parent that most parents hope their 
children would turn to them in times of crisis, no law will make that 
happen. No law will force a young pregnant woman to talk to her parents 
when she is too frightened or too embarrassed to do so. Instead, of 
encouraging a young woman to involve her parents in a decision to have 
an abortion, this bill will drive young women away from their families 
and greatly increase the dangers they face from an unwanted pregnancy. 
For these reasons, I oppose this bill.
  Proponents contend that the bill's ``simple purpose'' is to provide 
assistance to States that have elected to adopt parental consent 
requirements. Yet, the bill would not give federal enforcement 
``assistance'' to all forms of parental consent or notification laws 
adopted in 40 states. Under the definition in the bill, only the most 
restrictive State parental consent or notification laws would get such 
assistance. The bill carefully restricts the parental involvement laws 
that would enjoy the new federal ``assistance'' offered by the bill to 
those that require the consent of or notification to only parents or 
guardians of a pregnant minor. States that have adopted a law that 
allows for the involvement of any other family member, such as a 
grandparent, aunt or adult sibling, in the decision of a minor to 
obtain an abortion would not be covered and not entitled to any Federal 
``assistance.''
  Only 20 States have adopted parental consent or notification laws 
that are currently enforced and meet the bill's definition of a ``law 
requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision.'' Thus, 
the majority of the States either have opted for no such law or are 
enforcing a law that allows for the involvement of adults other than a 
parent or guardian in the minor's abortion decision.
  Proponents are just plain wrong when they argue that this bill ``does 
not supersede, override, or in any way alter existing State laws 
regarding minors' abortions.'' On the contrary, the direct consequence 
of this bill would be to federalize the reach of parental involvement 
laws in place in the minority of States in ways that override policies 
in place in the majority of the States in this country.
  The fact that the bill establishes no new parental consent or 
notification requirements is a mere fig leaf which cannot hide its 
anti-federalism effect. The bill would use federal agency resources to 
enforce the minority--20--States' parental involvement laws wherever 
minors from those States travel and in connection with actions taken in 
other States. Furthermore, it would create a federal crime as a 
mechanism for such federal intervention.
  This is an extraordinary step to extend one State's parental consent 
laws against its residents wherever they may travel throughout the 
Nation. The twenty State parental involvement statutes ``assisted'' by 
S. 1645 were not drafted with this extraterritorial application in 
mind. These statutes do not say that the parental involvement 
provisions hinge on residency but provide restrictions on abortions to 
be performed on minors within the State where the law applies. 
Nevertheless, even if these States have not contemplated and neither 
need nor want Federal intervention to enforce their parental 
involvement laws, this bill would federalize the reach of these laws 
wherever the pregnant minors of those States travel within the country.
  This is not even how these State parental consent laws were drafted: 
They do not say that they do not hinge on residency. They do not say 
that they apply to the residents of the State no matter where those 
residents may travel. These State laws were drafted to apply only to 
conduct occurring within the State's borders and to provide 
restrictions on abortions to be performed on minors within the State.
  Ironically, even if a State does not enforce its own parental 
involvement law, due to a court injunction or determination of a State 
Attorney General, this bill may still make it a federal crime to help a 
minor cross State lines for an abortion without complying with that 
unenforced or unenforceable State law. Despite the sponsors' intention 
that S. 1645 not apply in those circumstances, the language of the bill 
is simply not clear on that issue.


                         S. 1645 and Dred Scott

  I can think of only one other instance in which the federal 
government applied its resources to enforce one State's policy, absent 
a State judgment or charge, against the residents of that State even 
when the resident found refuge in another State: fugitive slave laws 
before the Civil War. While none of us--and certainly not the sponsors 
of this legislation--would ever condone slavery. I know they would join 
with me and the other opponents of this legislation in condemning that 
heinous part of our country's history. Yet, unfortunately, that is the 
only legislative

[[Page S10566]]

precedent we have for a bill that would use federal law to enforce a 
particular State's laws against its citizens wherever those citizens 
may travel.
  Thankfully, the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution outlawed 
slavery and repealed article IV, section 2, paragraph 3 of the 
Constitution, which authorized return of runaway slaves to their 
owners. That authority, and congressional implementing laws [The 
Fugitive Slave Act of 1793], enabled slave owners to reclaim slaves who 
managed to escape to ``free States or territories.
  In fact, the notorious Dred Scott decision relied on this since-
repealed constitutional provision to decide that slaves were not 
citizens of the United States entitled to the privileges and immunities 
granted to the white citizens of each State. This is why Dred Scott, 
born a slave, was deemed by the Supreme Court to continue to be a 
slave, even when he traveled to a ``free'' territory that prohibited 
slavery.
  In 1858, Abraham Lincoln, who was at the time running for the U.S. 
Senate, criticized the Dred Scott decision, ``because it tends to 
nationalize slavery.'' Indeed, the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott, 
made plain that ``the principle laid down [in the opinion] will enable 
the people of a slave state to introduce slavery into a free State * * 
*; and by returning the slave to the State whence he was brought, by 
force or otherwise, the status of slavery attaches, and protects the 
rights of the master, and defies the sovereignty of the free State.''
  So, too, with S. 1645. It tends to nationalize parental consent laws, 
even in those States that have declined to adopt that policy. Fugitive 
slave laws are no model to emulate with respect to our daughters and 
granddaughters.
  Make no mistake, despite the sponsors' contention that this bill does 
not ``attempt to regulate any purely intrastate activities related to 
the procurement of abortion services,'' the effect of this bill would 
be to impose the parental consent policies in the minority of States on 
the residents of the majority of States. For example, Vermont has no 
parental consent or notification law, though a neighboring State--
Massachusetts--does. In the early 1980's, press reports indicated that 
a two percent increase in abortions in Vermont were attributable to 
minors from Massachusetts coming across the border to avoid telling 
their parents under that State's parental consent law.
  If this bill becomes law, Vermont health care providers could be put 
in the position of enforcing Massachusetts' parental involvement laws 
before any abortion procedures are performed on minors from 
Massachusetts; otherwise these health care providers run the risk of 
criminal or civil liability. In other words, when confronted with a 
nonresident pregnant minor, who may be from Massachusetts, a Vermont 
health care provider would not be able to perform procedures that are 
legal in Vermont and protected by the United States Constitution. 
Instead, that Vermont health care provider would be forced to import 
and enforce another State's law.
  Since it is not always easy to tell where a minor's ``home'' State 
is, health care providers would end up bearing the burden, in terms of 
time, cost and resources, of checking on the residency of every minor 
who comes to them for abortion services. This may be the only way to 
ensure that there are no nonresident minors among them who have not 
complied with their ``home state'' parental involvement laws. This is 
not the policy that the majority of States have chosen for the minors 
within their borders, yet the bill would force the laws and policies of 
the minority of States on them.
  Health care professionals share this concern. Dr. Renee Jenkins, 
testified before the Judiciary Committee about the effect of this bill 
on clinics, doctors and other health care providers. She told us:

       I am concerned about the effect on and responsibilities to 
     the health care providers involved: the doctor's 
     responsibility when providing abortion services to women 
     of any age from out-of-state. . . . I am very concerned 
     that Congress may put health care providers in the 
     position where they must violate their state's 
     confidentiality statutes in order to meet the obligations 
     of a neighboring state.

  Moreover, the Federal Government would be in the unfortunate position 
of prosecuting people differently, depending on the State in which that 
person has established residence. This disparate treatment would result 
from the non-uniformity of State parental involvement laws. State 
statutes on parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision vary 
widely and, as noted, a number of States have no such requirement at 
all. Thus, under the bill, whether a person is subject to Federal 
prosecution would depend upon the vagaries of State law.
  Just because some in Congress may prefer the policies of some States 
over those in the majority of the States does not mean we should give 
those policies federal enforcement authority across the nation. Doing 
so sets a dangerous precedent.
  We should think about how this policy might impact additional 
settings. For example, some states, such as Vermont, allow the carrying 
of concealed weapons without a permit, while other States bar that 
practice. Should Congress authorize federal intervention that would 
allow residents of States, like Vermont, to enjoy the privilege of 
carrying their concealed weapons into States, like Massachusetts, with 
more restrictive concealed weapons laws?
  Or what about State laws governing the sale of fireworks? Vermont 
bars the sale of all kinds of consumer fireworks, including roman 
candles and sky rockets. These fireworks are perfectly legal in other 
States, including New Hampshire. What would we think about making it a 
federal crime for a Vermonter to go to New Hampshire to buy consumer 
fireworks because they are illegal in Vermont? I believe we would view 
such a law--even if it were constitutional and even if it would promote 
the ``safer'' State fireworks law--as overreaching in the exercise of 
our federal power.
  It is the nature of our Federal system that when residents of a State 
travel to neighboring States or across the Nation, they must conform 
their behavior to the laws of the States they visit. When residents of 
each State are forced to carry with then only the laws of their own 
State, they may be advantaged or disadvantaged but one thing is clear: 
We will have turned our federal system on its ear.
  Significantly, the Department of Justice, in a July 8 letter to me, 
has described the myriad of practical enforcement problems with this 
bill. According to the Department, this bill would be ``notably 
difficult to investigate and prosecute, and would involve significant, 
and largely unnecessary, outlays of federal resources.''
  For example, the Department points out that since this bill is 
predicated on conduct that may be perfectly lawful under the law of the 
State where the conduct occurred, local law enforcement may be unable 
to assist. This will leave the detection and investigation of 
violations of S.1645 entirely to the FBI and ``place a great burden on 
the FBI.''
  Practically speaking, if this bill becomes law, FBI agents may have 
to serve as ``State Border Patrols'' to ensure that pregnant minors 
crossing State lines with another person is not doing so to have an 
abortion without complying with her home State's parental consent law.
  Just last week, we held a hearing on counter-terrorism policies and 
heard from the FBI Director about the challenges the Bureau is already 
facing both here and abroad to protect the safety of Americans. They 
are currently investigating the deaths of 19 U.S. servicemen in Khoban 
Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the deaths of over 250 people, 
including 12 Americans, caused by the recent bombings in Kenya and 
Tanzania. If this bill becomes law, how much of the FBI's attention 
will be diverted to help enforce the parental consent laws of 20 
States? I think the FBI already has a full plate of duties that should 
not be diverted by this new federal enforcement authority called for in 
this bill.
  In addition, the bill would sweep into its criminal and civil 
liability reach family members, including grandparents or aunts and 
uncles, who respond to a cry for help from a young relative by helping 
her travel across State lines to get an abortion, without telling her 
parents as required by the laws of her home State. Even the sponsors of 
this bill acknowledged the over-broad reach of the criminal liability 
provision in the original bill and took steps, with a substitute 
amendment

[[Page S10567]]

adopted during the Committee's consideration of the bill, to exclude 
parents, but only parents, from the threat of criminal prosecution and 
civil suit.
  The purported goal of this bill, to foster closer familial 
relationships, will not be served by threatening to throw into jail any 
grandmother or aunt or sibling who helps a young relative travel out-
of-State to obtain an abortion without telling her parents, as required 
by her home State law. The real result of this bill will be to 
discourage young women from turning to a trusted adult for advice and 
assistance. Instead, these young women may be forced then into the 
hands of strangers or into isolation. In fact, a 1996 report by the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, cites surveys showing that pregnant 
minors who do not involve a parent in their decision to have an 
abortion, often involve other responsible adults, including other 
relatives.
  Keep in mind what this bill does not do: it does not prohibit 
pregnant minors from traveling across State lines to have an abortion, 
even if their purpose is to avoid telling their parents as required by 
their home State law. Thus, this bill would merely lead to more young 
women traveling alone to obtain abortions or seeking illegal ``back 
alley'' abortions locally, hardly a desirable policy result. Young 
pregnant women who seek the counsel and involvement of close family 
members when they cannot confide in their parents--for example where a 
parent has committed incest or there is a history of child abuse--would 
subject those same close relatives to the risk of criminal prosecution 
and civil suit, if the young woman subsequently travels across State 
lines for an abortion.
  Threatening an FBI investigation and a criminal prosecution of any 
loving family member who helps a young pregnant relative in distress to 
go out of state to obtain an abortion, would be a short-sighted and 
drastic mistake.
  In addition to close family members, any other person to whom a young 
pregnant woman may turn for help, including her minor friends, health 
care providers, and counselors, could be dragged into court on criminal 
charges or in a civil suit. The criminal law's broad definitions of 
conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and accomplice liability, in 
conjunction with the bill's strict liability, could have the result of 
indiscriminately sweeping within the bill's criminal prohibition a 
number of unsuspecting persons having only peripheral involvement in a 
minor's abortion--even if they were unaware of the fact that a minor 
was crossing state lines to seek an abortion without complying with her 
home State's parental involvement law. As a result, the law could apply 
to clinic employees, bus drivers, and emergency medical personnel.
  I also fear that the bill may have the unintended consequence of 
encouraging young women in trouble to abandon their family, friends and 
homes. If they are willing to travel across State lines to obtain an 
abortion, will this bill effectively force them to move their domicile 
across State lines to avoid engendering criminal and civil liability? 
If becoming a resident of another State will eviscerate the hold of a 
home State's restrictive parental consent law, moving, or running away 
from home may be the only choice that passage of this bill may leave to 
them if a young woman is determined not to tell her parents. And, what 
of those young woman who intend to move or those who tell others that 
they intend to move, does that defeat the claims the bill is intended 
to create to deter abortions?
  No law--and certainly not this bill--will force a young pregnant 
woman to involve her parents in her abortion decision if she is 
determined to keep that fact secret from her parents. Indeed, according 
to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the percentages of minors who 
inform parents about their intent to have abortions are essentially the 
same in States with and without notification laws. Yet, while doing 
nothing to achieve the goal of protecting parental rights to be 
involved in the actions of their minor children, S. 1645 would isolate 
young pregnant women forcing them to run away from home or drive them 
into the hands of strangers at a time of crisis, and do damage to 
important federalism and constitutional principles.
  Finally, because the bill imposes significant new burdens on a 
woman's right to choose and impinges on the right to travel and the 
privileges and immunities due under the Constitution to every citizen, 
constitutional scholars who have examined the proposal have concluded 
that it is unconstitutional.
  I am particularly struck by Harvard University Law School Professor 
Laurence Tribe's statement that that ``the Constitution protects the 
right of each citizen of the United States to travel freely from state 
to state for the very purpose of taking advantage of the laws in those 
states that he or she prefers.'' He concluded.
  A vote against this bill is a vote for preserving a young woman's 
ability to turn to a close relative or friend, in what may be the 
toughest decision she has ever faced, without fear that her trusted 
grandmother, stepparent, or best friend would be fined or jailed. A 
vote against this bill is a vote for preserving the important 
federalism principles.
  Mr. ABRAHAM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. I want to acknowledge that the Senator from Vermont and 
others on the Judiciary Committee, who are on the minority side, have 
worked with us. I think we did have, as the Presiding Officer knows, a 
very fair and I think thoughtful debate about the Child Custody 
Protection Act in committee. Let me just make a couple of points as to 
where, it seems to me, the situation currently stands.
  First of all, we have had a list of potential amendments submitted. 
We have not seen language for any of those that are new. Some were in 
fact offered in committee. But the new ones we have not seen, and it 
would be very helpful, from the standpoint of moving the process 
forward, if we could get a better sense of what those are and how many, 
therefore, might be acceptable.
  Second, I point out to all Members that amendments that were offered 
in committee, a number of which constitute the list we have seen, would 
remain relevant amendments postcloture on the bill because in fact they 
would stay in play. So even if cloture were invoked on the bill, it 
would not preclude those amendments from being considered and voted on 
here.
  The fundamental problem is the Presiding Officer and, frankly, all 
Members are aware that what we confront now is a time problem. And if 
we can come up with an agreed upon list of amendments with reasonable 
time limits, I think we can move forward on this bill in the same 
productive way here in the full Senate that we did in the committee. 
But I think to get there we really require a couple of things. One is a 
little more information about some of the amendments that have been 
offered, particularly those that do not appear to be relevant 
amendments, and then some cooperation with respect to reaching an 
agreement on time limits for the amendments.
  I do not think this is a situation that has to go to a cloture vote 
if we can resolve some of this. I again urge my colleagues to note, to 
the extent of the amendments that have been proposed, at least the ones 
we do know about because of they having been offered in committee, they 
will remain relevant amendments postcloture.
  I think the majority leader and the full Senate understand the 
limited time we have. We cannot have this legislation on the floor for 
too long a period of time given all the other important pieces of 
legislation that demand our attention. But if we can limit the time and 
move to the amendments, I think it is possible to move forward. But 
even if we were to invoke cloture, it would not preclude many of these 
amendments. It would presumably eliminate some that truly are not 
relevant to the bill. And this is, I think, where we find ourselves.
  So our staff, certainly on the majority side, is anxious to continue 
working with the ranking member and his staff to see if we can come to 
some agreement, hopefully, by the end of the day on Tuesday.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________