[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 22, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10701-S10704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT
Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1645
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the only
amendments in order to S. 1645, the child custody bill, other than the
substitute, be the previously filed amendments which are at the desk
and limited to the following:
Senator Feinstein: to exempt adult family members of a minor from
prosecution;
Senator Boxer: to allow consent of a parent after a minor's abortion;
Senator Kennedy: to require deference to State authorities;
Senator Kennedy: to provide an exception for State laws that have
been enjoined or held unconstitutional or that State enforcement
authorities have declined to enforce;
Senator Harkin: to provide an exception in the case of rape or
incest;
Senator Leahy: to provide a complete substitute, which makes the
offense the use of force or threats of force to transport a minor;
And a relevant amendment by Senator Abraham.
I further ask unanimous consent that there be no other amendments in
order, including second degrees; that following the disposition of the
above-listed amendments, the bill be read a third time and the Senate
proceed to vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or
debate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. TORRICELLI. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am advised there is an objection, so I,
therefore, object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I rise today to engage my colleague from
Michigan, the sponsor of the Child Custody Protection Act, in a
colloquy to clarify the legislation's intent with regard to existing
State parental notification laws.
The State of Maine has a carefully constructed adult consent
requirement. In my state, a minor under 18 may obtain an abortion with
the informed consent of either one parent, a guardian or an adult
family member. Absent that consent, she may obtain an abortion if she
receives counseling from a physician, psychiatrist, ordained member of
the clergy, nurse, physician's assistant or qualified counselor. She
may also obtain an abortion without parental or adult family member
consent by securing a court order.
Will the legislation we are considering today in any way override or
supersede Maine State law?
Mr. ABRAHAM. I want to thank my colleague from Maine for this
opportunity to answer important questions on the Child Custody
Protection Act. The intent of this legislation is to protect state-
passed parental involvement laws. Residents of the states have
supported and passed parental involvement laws and they deserve to have
their will protected. The Child Custody Protection Act would have no
effect on Maine's parental consent law as it applies to minors who
reside in Maine. It would in no way override or supersede that law with
respect to Maine minors, families, or others. The only effect of
legislation would be to restrict a non-parent, non-guardian from
transporting a minor from another state where the minor resides to
Maine in order for the out-of-state minor to obtain an abortion in
Maine and avoid the minor's home state parental involvement law.
Ms. COLLINS. Opponents of this bill contend that health care
providers in states like Maine that do not have a law requiring
parental involvement could still be liable for conspiracy or as
accomplices under this legislation. The liability would presumably
apply when they perform or participate in performing an abortion on a
minor brought into Maine in violation of the proposed statute. Is this
analysis correct? Are there any circumstances under which Maine's
health care providers performing or participating in the performance of
what, under Maine state law, would be legal abortion on a minor, could
be held liable under your bill? Would these providers have any new
legal responsibilities as a consequence of the enactment of this
legislation?
Mr. ABRAHAM. This is an important point to clarify. The violation of
this act is not the performance of an abortion. The violation of this
act is the transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an
abortion without involving that minor's parent as required by the law
of her home state. The abortion provider would only be in violation of
this act if the provider actually conspired to transport or assisted in
transporting the minor across state lines to obtain an abortion without
the parental involvement that the minor's home state required.
Providers who had not engaged in any such activities related to the
transport of a minor would not incur any criminal liability or face any
new legal responsibilities under this legislation.
Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong support
for the Child Custody Protection Act of 1998, which would make it a
crime to transport a child across state lines to circumvent a state law
requiring parental involvement or a judicial waiver for a minor to
obtain an abortion.
Twenty-two states have laws saying a parent or guardian has to be
notified or their consent given if a child is trying to get an
abortion. What's happening now--far too often--is that people who
aren't parents or guardians are taking the children across state lines,
secretly, to get abortions in another state where parental notification
isn't required.
It is my hope that this bill will achieve two important goals--to
protect the health of children and to protect the rights of parents. In
fact, Mr. President, I believe that empowering parents is the single
biggest investment we can make in ensuring the health of our children.
Parents have the right and duty to be involved in the moral and
medical decisions that affect their children's welfare.
When it comes to parental notification on abortion, the American
people have reached a clear consensus. By a huge majority--80 percent--
they favor parental notification. And 74 percent favor not just
parental notification, but parental consent. This is a clear expression
of the national wisdom. This legislation is an effort to make that kind
of informed decision possible.
[[Page S10702]]
Earlier this year, we worked on another bill, one that is now law. In
that bill, the Administration and the Congress mandated that the flight
of a parent to another state to avoid paying child support is 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 zealously 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. There are those living among us 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. I thank Senator Abraham for his
strong leadership in bringing this legislation forward.
I am sorry that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
rejected our unanimous consent agreement. It was a fair agreement that
provided unlimited debate on germane amendments to this bill.
Unfortunately, the vote that we will take shortly to invoke cloture to
end debate on the bill, may really be a vote to kill the bill if it
fails. Let's be frank those voting to continue debate are really voting
against the health of our children and the rights of parents. I would
implore my colleagues on the other side to vote for cloture--for our
kids.
Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, Mark Twain was right on target with his
comment that everybody was talking about the weather but nobody was
doing anything about it.
Well, in our time almost everybody is indeed talking about family
values but, thank goodness, many voices are being lifted in a concerted
effort to do whatever is necessary to reverse a dangerous trend in
America.
It's a trend that has been leading America down the slippery slope to
self destruction.
The remedy? The preservation and restoration of the moral and
spiritual principles and priorities laid down by our Founding Fathers a
couple of centuries ago.
Given the time, I could identify hundreds of souls across this land
who are hard at work in this massive restoration project--Bill and
Elaine Bennett, for example. And in this Senate there are many who
speak out with some regularity on the subject.
I am proud of them, and in today's special frame of reference, I am
specially proud of the distinguished Senator from Michigan, Spence
Abraham, and all the cosponsors of S. 1645, The Child Custody
Protection Act which is the pending business.
Mr. President, like, I pray, the majority of Americans, I was
outraged by news reports that a 13-year old Pennsylvania girl was taken
by a non-relative to another state to have an abortion without her
parents' knowledge. Not knowing the whereabouts of a child, is surely a
parent's worst nightmare. But, Mr. President, how much more frightening
would it be for parents, if federal law permitted a stranger to perform
an abortion on their child. Abortion is a medical procedure,
potentially, which may cause psychological and physical complications.
But this frightening scenario happened, and it will continue to happen
if Congress does not pass the ``Child Custody Protection Act''. This
pending legislation ensures that state laws requiring parental
notification before an abortion can be performed on a minor will not be
circumvented by crossing a state line. In other words, the parents in
Pennsylvania will have their rights protected, so that, in turn, they
can protect their 13-year old daughters from this traumatic experience.
Of course, if we were talking today about a medical procedure, other
than abortion, there would be no need to defend a parent's right to be
informed. But, this major money-making industry is worrying its
pocketbook will be affected if parents are able to discourage their
daughters from having an abortion. Abortion advocates are once more
pulling out their deceitful tricks and desperately trying to defeat
this bill.
Even Senators who disagree on the legality of abortion should feel
comfortable with this legislation, because the vast majority of
Americans agree that parental notification laws need to be protected. A
recent poll conducted by Baselice & Assoc. shows that 78% of Americans
strongly believe that it should be unlawful to take a minor across
state lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge.
It comes down to this: Congress has an obligation to protect parental
rights. Congress needs to protect states, like Pennsylvania, that have
decided that parents have a right to be notified about their daughters'
intent to destroy an unborn child--a decision, by the way, that even
the Supreme Court has deemed constitutional in Planned Parenthood vs.
Casey.
The parents in Pennsylvania are courageous, and they have not minced
their words. They state unequivocally that they will not be pushed
aside when it comes to being involved with their daughters' well-being.
It is up to those of us in Congress to stand by the parents in
Pennsylvania and the other states which have passed laws protecting
parental authority.
To be precise, twenty-two other states have passed laws similar to
Pennsylvania's--North Carolina being one of them. The parents of North
Carolina have exercised their rights as voters and have also said that
no abortion shall be performed on their daughter without their
knowledge.
The question Congress needs to ask itself is this: Whose rights are
we going to protect, those of abortionists--or parents? Are we going to
tolerate that abortionists, who desire nothing more than to make a
pretty penny off of young girls who are in a vulnerable state of mind,
have more rights than the parents who love and care for their daughters
more than anyone else in the world. Congress needs to be unmistakably
clear that the job of deciding what is best for a teenager belongs to
parents, not abortionists.
Simply put, America cannot afford to allow parental authority to be
undermined. With the breakdown of so many families, it is absolutely
critical that nothing further be done to weaken the relationship
between parents and their children. While there are numerous
contributory factors to society's ills today--the disintegration of the
American family is, in my judgement, the primary culprit.
By passing the ``Child Custody Protection Act,'' we are saying that
the custody of children both rightfully and fundamentally belongs to
responsible parents.
I pray that the Senate will follow the overwhelming decision of the
House of Representatives and protect a parent's right to decide what is
best for their daughter.
Mr. KOHL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote
against the cloture motion on S. 1645, the Child Custody Protection
Act. I do so as a supporter of the bill and as one who supported
cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1645.
Let me be very clear. I support a family's involvement in a minor's
very grave decision to have an abortion. I also support the rights of
States to protect minors in their borders by passing constitutional
consent measures. In my State of Wisconsin, there is a law that
requires minors seeking an abortion to get the permission of a parent,
a grandparent, an adult sibling, or a judge in cases where family
support is unlikely.
The reports of adults driving unrelated minors across state lines to
avoid state consent laws are very disturbing. It is bad enough that a
minor would make such a large decision and have such a serious
procedure without the support of a family member. It is worse that the
procedure might be performed far from home and away from the child's
family doctor. It is because of these concerns that I supported S.
1645.
However, S. 1645 as written is very narrow, and currently would cover
only those few states that have strict parental consent laws. It would
not cover Wisconsin where the law allows other family members to grant
the required consent. In voting in Judiciary Committee to send S. 1645
to the floor, I had assumed that we would be able to
[[Page S10703]]
address this shortcoming, as well as other technical difficulties with
the bill.
Unfortunately, the Majority decided to file cloture immediately on
the bill before any perfecting amendments could be offered. Under the
strict rules of cloture, virtually no amendments to S. 1645 would be in
order. Of most concern to me, it would have be out of order to consider
an amendment protecting from criminal prosection a grandparent who
drove a minor across state lines for an abortion. I supported such an
amendment in Committee and think it is a necessary, wise, and humane
addition to this legislation.
I am sorry that final consideration of this important measure will be
pushed aside by partisan procedural wrangling. Consent laws may be one
aspect of the highly charged abortion debate on which a majority of the
Congress and a majority of the American people can agree. Sadly, we
won't have a chance to find out as the rush to the campaign shoves
consensus and sound policy off the agenda.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am opposed to S. 1645, the so-called
Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation would prohibit and set
penalties for transporting an individual under the age of 18 across a
state line to obtain an abortion even though the abortion is legal in
the state that individual is taken to. It would subject close relatives
such as grandmothers, aunts, and siblings to criminal prosecution for
an action totally legal where taken. In fact, an amendment that would
have excluded grandmothers and other close adult relatives from federal
prosecution was defeated in Committee by proponents of this bill.
Invoking cloture at this time would preclude this amendment on the
Senate floor.
When faced with difficult choices regarding abortion and reproductive
health, young women should be encouraged to seek counsel from their
parents or other trusted adults. In many cases, even in states without
mandatory parental consent laws, young women involve one or both
parents. However, if a young woman feels that she cannot involve her
parents for whatever reason, such as her fear it would put her in
danger of abuse or if the pregnancy is the result of incest, she should
not be discouraged from seeking the counsel of a trusted adult. I
support adult involvement in this very difficult decision, but we must
recognize that in some cases it is not always possible for the adult to
be a parent. This bill would make it a federal misdemeanor for a
grandmother to take her granddaughter to another state for an abortion
even if the mother is dead and the father is in jail for incest.
Without question, we should encourage parents, educators and
counselors to help prevent teenage pregnancy within their state and
communities. Teenagers need to be informed of the responsibility that
comes with sexuality and parenthood. But making it more difficult for
young women to turn to a trusted adult, be it an older sister, aunt, or
grandmother, is clearly not the way to do this.
This legislation also raises some unusual federalism questions that
concern me. Under this bill, state laws would follow the people who
live in those states when they travel to other states. The legislation
would require the federal government to prosecute people for an
activity that is lawful in the states in which the activity takes place
(if that activity is not lawful in the state in which they reside). The
Federal government does not impose this same restriction on crossing
state lines in any other case that I can think of such as to gamble or
buy liquor, cigarettes or guns. For the first time since slavery this
legislation would make it criminal to go to a state to act in a way
that is legal in that state. This is a terrible precedent.
This legislation would impose federal penalties in states that have
opted not to implement parental involvement requirements. I believe
such decisions should be made by the citizens of each state, not by the
residents of a neighboring state.
People who act legally in Michigan should not be prosecuted because
acts are illegal in another state and Michigan citizens should not be
prosecuted for acts which are legal in the state in which they are
performed.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I rise today to reiterate my support for
S. 1645, the Child Custody Protection Act. I have long supported the
right of states to enact and enforce parental notification laws with
respect to a minor's access to abortion services, and I believe steps
should be taken to prevent individuals from circumventing such laws.
However, I voted against cloture on this bill today because such a vote
would have had the effect of denying my Senate colleagues on both sides
of the aisle an opportunity to offer amendments. While I do not
necessarily support all of the amendments which might have been
offered, I cannot in good conscience vote to circumvent what should be
an open and fair debate on this important issue. The White House has
threatened to veto this bill in its current form and I believe a vote
for cloture today would have sealed the fate of this bill without
consideration of compromise language toward the shared goal of
preventing abortions.
Every parent has the right to be involved in their minor's decision
to terminate a pregnancy. The Child Custody Protection Act would
promote parental participation in what must be the most difficult
decision a young girl might face. The federal government can play a
roll in protecting states rights in this regard, and should support
minor and adult women in alternatives to abortion. I always have
supported efforts to promote adoption to ensure that children grow up
in a loving environment with a supportive family. I believe the federal
government should promote adoption assistance and should encourage
moving children from foster care into adoptive homes. I remain hopeful
that my colleagues in both political parties and I can work together to
create a system that reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortions,
encourages adoption, and results in strong families.
Mr. President, I will continue to work with the Senate leadership in
an effort to move the Child Custody Protection Act forward so that the
rights of parents are protected in the face of this most difficult
decision, and that minor and adult women continue to be provided with
alternatives to terminating a pregnancy.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion,
which the clerk will state.
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 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.
Call Of The Roll
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
Vote
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate
that debate on the committee substitute amendment to S. 1645, a bill 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, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are
required under the rules. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is
necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 54, nays 45, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 282 Leg.]
YEAS--54
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Burns
Campbell
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coverdell
Craig
D'Amato
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Faircloth
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kempthorne
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Reid
Roberts
[[Page S10704]]
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Warner
NAYS--45
Akaka
Baucus
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Bumpers
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Ford
Graham
Harkin
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Mikulski
Moseley-Braun
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Glenn
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 54, the nays are
45. Three-fifths of the Senators not having voted in the affirmative,
the motion is rejected.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up
to 5 minutes with respect to the vote which just transpired.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise to comment on the vote which has
just occurred on the effort to bring cloture on the Child Custody
Protection Act. Obviously, as the sponsor of the legislation, I am
disappointed we will not be moving forward at this time.
As I think the Presiding Officer is aware, as our fellow Members are
aware, we have been trying to work with the interested parties on both
sides since the bill came out of committee to try to limit the number
of amendments so we might have a piece of legislation that could move
through here in a reasonable period of time. Unfortunately, we could
not get to that point. Our hope had been to limit, through the
unanimous consent offer that was made earlier today, the amendments to
those that have been filed that were germane. That was not agreed to.
Unfortunately, as is certainly every Member's prerogative here, there
was the desire for people to bring amendments that were wholly
unconnected to the child custody protection issue.
Obviously, given the calendar of the Senate as we look forward to the
next few weeks, much business remains for us to complete, so the
likelihood we will be able to continue with respect to this legislation
during this Senate session seems very unlikely.
I certainly remain receptive to any counteroffers from the minority
with regard to the possibility of limiting amendments and time.
Realistically, that does not seem like it is potentially going to occur
this year.
I think this is very important legislation. Across this country,
every day families who live in States that have enacted parental
consent laws are finding that those laws mean nothing because minor
children are being transported across State lines without parental
involvement or consent for the purpose of abortions being committed.
This is wrong. People in my State, where we have enacted such
legislation, have the right to rely on this legislation, to believe
that their children will be safe and protected, and that they will
participate in the important decisions of their children's lives.
I hope if we can't resolve this issue and bring this bill back to the
floor this year that our colleagues will work together with me next
year so that we might be able, early in the session, to move ahead. The
House passed this legislation overwhelmingly. I believe if it came to a
final vote of passage in the Senate it would likewise pass
overwhelmingly. I believe it would move legislatively in a direction
that is good not only for the young children affected by this
legislation, but for our families, as well.
I want to thank the people who voted for cloture today. I want to
encourage those who wish to bring amendments that are not germane to
this legislation to consider other vehicles to possibly include those
amendments so that we might still have a chance this year to move ahead
on this legislation and do so in an expeditious timeframe.
If not, I certainly want to send out a welcome to anybody who wants
to work with me because I do not intend to end this effort this year. I
intend to continue until we pass the legislation.
I yield the floor.
____________________