[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.

                          ____________________