[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 30, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H5099-H5123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 233 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 233

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1218) to amend title 
     18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across 
     State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the 
     involvement of parents in abortion decisions. The bill shall 
     be considered as read for amendment. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Walsh). The gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a 
closed rule for H.R. 1218, the Child Custody Protection Act. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It 
provides for consideration of H.R. 1218 in the House with 2 hours of 
debate equally divided and controlled between the chairman and

[[Page H5100]]

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Finally, the 
rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Child Custody Protection Act is important to any 
parent who has a teenage daughter. As we all know, the people of 
several States have recently decided that a parent should know before 
their child has an abortion. We all hope that our teenage daughters 
have the wisdom to avoid pregnancy but if they make a mistake, a parent 
is best able to provide advice, counseling and love. Also, more than 
anyone else, a parent knows their child's medical history.
  For these reasons, my home State of North Carolina requires a parent 
to know before their child checks into an abortion clinic.
  Last month, the House Subcommittee on the Constitution heard chilling 
testimony about how law- breaking citizens risk children's lives by 
taking them from their parents for out-of-State abortions. The 
testimony was chillingly similar to a hearing last year before the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, at which Joyce Farley, a mother from 
Pennsylvania, told the tragic story of her 13-year-old daughter.
  Four years ago this summer, a stranger took Ms. Farley's child out of 
school, provided her with alcohol, transported her out of State to have 
an abortion, falsified medical records at the abortion clinic and 
abandoned her in a town 30 miles away, frightened and bleeding.
  Why? Because this stranger's adult son had raped Joyce Farley's 
teenage daughter, and she was desperate to cover up her son's tracks. 
Even worse, this all may have been legal. It is perfectly legal to 
avoid parental abortion consent and notification laws by driving 
children to another State. This is wrong and it has to be stopped.
  According to the Reproductive Law and Policy Center, a pro-abortion 
group in New York, thousands of adults across the country carry 
children over State lines to get abortions in States without parental 
notification laws. So-called men in their 20s and 30s coerce teenage 
girls to have abortions out of State and without their parents' 
knowledge. The Child Custody Protection Act will put a stop to this 
child abuse. If passed, the law would make it a crime to transport a 
minor across State lines to avoid laws that require parental consent or 
notification before an abortion.
  Right now a parent in Charlotte, North Carolina, must grant 
permission before the school nurse gives their child an aspirin, but a 
parent cannot prevent a stranger from taking their child out of school 
and up to New York City for an abortion.
  Give me a break. This is nonsense and it has to be stopped. Let us do 
something to help thousands of children in this country. Let us pass 
the Child Custody Protection Act and put an end to the absurd notion 
that there is some sort of constitutional right for an adult stranger 
to secretly take someone's teenage child into a different State for an 
abortion.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Myrick), for yielding me the time, and I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this closed rule for H.R. 1218 
offered by my friends in the majority. Efforts on our side of the aisle 
to obtain an open rule to provide consideration of several thoughtful 
and important amendments were rebuffed.
  The objectionable nature of this process is compounded by the 
substance of the underlying bill, the so-called Child Custody 
Protection Act.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation creates more danger than it would ever 
prevent and is an affront to the notion not only of individual liberty 
but to the issue of States' rights which so many of my friends who 
support this bill will champion on every other occasion.
  The decision made by a young woman whether to terminate a pregnancy 
is one we all hope would be made in close consultation with family 
members who love her and care for her, but this is not a perfect world. 
We cannot ignore the fact that there are homes which lack stability, 
where decisions of such gravity are not made by a loving and caring 
environment and, in fact, are often tainted by dread and fear. Often, a 
young woman who is forced to make this most difficult decision has no 
parent with whom to consult and has no viable option other than to 
depend on a trusted figure who is not her mother or father.
  Indeed, we are jeopardizing grandmothers, grandfathers, sisters, 
brothers, spiritual advisors, and anyone from giving this young woman 
comfort.
  For this Congress to attempt to criminalize the actions of the one 
and perhaps the only individual in that young person's life on whom she 
can depend is more than unfortunate and should be soundly rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no stronger advocate than I for measures to 
reduce unwanted pregnancies and to give women every assistance that she 
and the child which she decides to bring into the world will need to be 
nurtured and cared for. Nor, Mr. Speaker, will one find any stronger 
advocate for the protection of the health care, safety and 
confidentiality, nor for the fundamental right of choice which the 
courts have recognized and upheld.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge this Congress not to criminalize the acts of 
other family members in an attempt to help someone that they dearly 
love and who needs them desperately.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, as we know, will make it a Federal 
misdemeanor for a non-parental adult to transport someone else's 
daughter, underage daughter, across State lines for the purposes of 
obtaining an abortion.

                              {time}  1045

  Presently 24 States in our Union have passed parental consent or 
notification laws in order to protect minor girls from irreparable harm 
that can be caused to them. Yet, with complete and total disregard for 
the law, many adults choose to willingly circumvent those State laws, 
placing young, vulnerable girls in serious danger as they undergo 
potentially fatal abortions.
  Without the Child Custody Protection Act, rapists, sexual abusers, 
and other violators can continue to exploit our Nation's underage 
daughters, help them disobey State laws, and then continue to rape and 
abuse them.
  No one knows the medical history of their child better than a parent. 
No one can best detect how a child will react to distress but a parent. 
No one knows how to best provide counsel and comfort but a parent. The 
Child Custody Protection Act will protect a parent's right to parent, 
and it will protect and enforce existing State laws that are being 
violated.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning we will hear from the minority in Congress 
about the ways in which they think this bill violates a constitutional 
right. But what they do not tell us is that by not passing this law, we 
will continue to defend and accept violators of local State laws.
  Opponents of this bill will also let us know how it was misnamed. 
They believe that this should be the Teen Endangerment Act because of 
the supposed risk it places upon young girls, but they will surely not 
tell us about the serious risks that young girls are placed in when 
obtaining secret abortions. They will not tell us of the many, many 
girls who suffer severe complications from abortions or reactions from 
medications they are receiving, and about the girls who, in rare 
instances, actually die.
  They will argue that a 13-year-old minor girl who finds herself with 
an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy is perfectly capable and mature 
enough to make the same decision that her more mature and older 
counterparts are making. This, of course, is absurd. This bill is 
commonsense legislation. The Child Custody Protection Act will

[[Page H5101]]

protect the inherent right of every parent. It will put an end to 
strangers taking someone else's daughter across State boundaries.
  No one is able to temporarily kidnap your daughter to have her 
tonsils removed or for any other simple surgery, not even to have her 
ears pierced. Then why then should a potentially fatal abortion be the 
exception? I urge my colleagues to consider the many girls who, while 
in a confused and vulnerable state, will be exploited by opponents of 
this bill and by the abortion industry today.
  On their behalf and on behalf of their parents, I ask my colleagues 
to seriously consider voting yes to this important pro-family 
commonsense legislation.
  It is true that 85 percent of American families support the Child 
Custody Protection Act. Whether pro-life or pro-choice, Americans 
believe that a parent should be involved in major decisions that can 
have long-lasting consequences on the lives of their daughters. The 
Child Custody Protection Act will provide grounds for stronger family 
ties and for family involvement.
  By enforcing parental consent or notification laws in the 24 States 
where they exist, it will stand to demonstrate that we will not 
tolerate violators of local laws, that we care about the welfare of our 
children, and that we look to foster parental involvement in all 
aspects of the lives of our children.
  The truth is that more than half of the underage girls who will be 
affected by this legislation are typically escorted by boyfriends or 
men who have impregnated the minor.
  I would like to call attention to the posters that I have where out-
of-State abortion clinics are advertising no parental consent required, 
no waiting period, no age restriction, and these are advertisements 
that have appeared in Pennsylvania phone books for an abortion clinic 
in another State, in Delaware.
  There is another abortion clinic that advertises for an abortion 
clinic in Maryland. They put in big capital letters, ``No parental 
consent.''
  We remember the Joyce Farley case in Pennsylvania, where her 13-year-
old daughter was raped. The mother of the rapist, a complete stranger, 
took Joyce Farley's daughter out of school one day without permission, 
drove her to New York City, where she obtained an abortion, and a 
botched abortion, at that. As a result, the Farley daughter of this 
1995 case suffered serious complications, endured many hospital visits, 
and was subjected to incredibly high medical bills.
  The Farley case, Mr. Speaker, is one of many which indicates the 
legislation is needed for cases like this and many others.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to getting support from my colleagues for 
this important bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed this morning because it has always 
been my understanding that the more we can educate both our colleagues 
and, as well, the American public on the principles of our opposition, 
and, as well, the more we can help to enhance legislation to make it a 
responsible legislative initiative in keeping with constitutional 
provisions, the more we should attempt to do so.
  I rise in opposition to the rule because it is a closed rule, and for 
no other reason I can imagine other than a political reason, amendments 
of value were kept out of this legislation.
  This legislation is called the Child Custody Protection Act, which 
gives us the impression that it is to protect children or young people 
or young women. Young women have the same right to choose 
constitutionally as others. The amendments that would have been offered 
to this legislation would have protected children, if that is the name 
of this legislation, but the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Watt) would have emphasized the exception to this 
bill that refuses to allow young women to seek an abortion outside of 
the State in the situation where the life or the serious health of the 
minor is at stake, similar to that that is constitutionally protected.
  It would also have included protection, if we had had an open rule, 
to exempt ministers and rabbis, grandmothers, aunts or uncles, or an 
elder sibling to give that young woman someone else in case she is 
being abused in the home.
  It would have then, of course, provided an opportunity, in the 
Conyers amendment offered as a substitute, it would make it a Federal 
offense to use force or threat to transport a minor across State lines 
for an abortion. The penalty would be a fine and imprisonment of 5 
years.
  None of these amendments were allowed in for an open and full debate, 
and I am disappointed. This is a serious step that this House might 
make today. It would be denying or undermining the constitutional 
privileges of a minor who is in trouble. It would eliminate their 
opportunity to seek counseling from a variety of people.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to do a legislatively positive 
job, we need to be inclusive. We should have had an open rule. I stand 
in opposition to the rule.
   Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to this closed rule for H.R. 
1218, the Child Custody Protection Act of 1999. In its present form, I 
am strongly opposed to this bill because it would criminalize any 
attempt by a caring adult to assist a young woman in obtaining abortion 
services across state lines. By adopting a closed rule, the Committee 
has allowed a potentially dangerous bill to come to the floor for a 
vote.
  It is still the law of the land that minors may obtain abortion 
services. This Child Custody Protection Act is simply another effort to 
undermine the right of choice for a young woman by imposing dangerous 
and unnecessary restriction to abortion services.
  THe people who would help a young woman by offering her transport 
across state lines are those who are there to lend physical support 
during a time of crisis, confusion and emotional pain. Relatives, close 
friends, and even clergy members who offer assistance should not be 
subject to criminal fines and sanctions.
  More than 75% of minors under 16 years old already involve one or 
both parents in their decision to have an abortion. However, there is 
the population of young women (30%) who cannot go to their parents for 
fear of violence or for fear of being turned away.
  I offered several amendments that would have exempted certain people 
from the prohibitions of this Act. These people included religious 
leaders, aunts, uncles, first cousins and godparents. I joined my 
colleague Representative Nadler for an amendment that would have 
exempted grandparents and older siblings from the criminal penalties as 
well.
  Unfortunately, these amendments were not adopted and now, we will 
jail these caring adults like grandparents for helping young women or 
we will see an increase in the number of illegal or unsafe abortions. 
If this bill passes, we will force young women who seek to get an 
abortion out of state to go alone.
  I offered another amendment that would have called for a General 
Accounting Office Study to keep track of the impact of this bill on the 
number of illegal abortions and the casualties that result. This 
amendment was also not made in order.
  This closed rule does not protect any children--this bill should be 
called the ``Teen Endangerment Act.'' This bill isolates minors from 
family members, friends and other responsible adults. I urge my 
Colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, we all know parents would do 
anything to protect their children from harm. Congress should honor 
that commitment and help parents by passing the rule for H.R. 1218, the 
Child Custody Protection Act. This is a good bill and a fair rule. Both 
should be passed.
  H.R. 1218 would make it a Federal offense for an individual to 
knowingly transport a minor girl across State lines for the purpose of 
obtaining an abortion without her parents' consent, and to circumvent 
the 20 States which currently have parental notification consent laws.
  Evidence shows that a majority of school-aged girls who become 
pregnant were impregnated by adult males. This by itself is a form of 
sexual child abuse recognized by statutory rape laws. This child abuse 
is compounded if unrelated adults seek to avoid rape charges or 
accountability by manipulating these girls into having an abortion in 
another State without their parents'

[[Page H5102]]

 knowledge and in violation of State laws.
  This is not a vote about whether we agree with parental consent 
notification laws. This is a vote about whether we respect existing 
State law and want to eliminate a loophole which encourages child 
sexual abuse. It is a good rule. Vote yes on the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I 
yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on 
the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 233, 
I call up the bill (H.R. 1218) to amend title 18, United States Code, 
to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws 
requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of H.R. 1218 is as follows:

                               H.R. 1218

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Child Custody Protection 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. TRANSPORTATION OF MINORS IN CIRCUMVENTION OF 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 IN CIRCUMVENTION OF CERTAIN 
                       LAWS RELATING TO ABORTION

``Sec.
``2431. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws 
              relating to abortion.

     ``Sec. 2431. Transportation of minors in circumvention of 
       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, in force 
     in 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 regularly 
     resides;

     who is designated by the law requiring parental involvement 
     in the minor's abortion decision as a person to whom 
     notification, or from whom consent, is required;
       ``(3) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older 
     than the maximum age requiring parental notification or 
     consent, or proceedings in a State court, under the law 
     requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion 
     decision; and
       ``(4) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of chapters for part I 
     of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting 
     after the item relating to chapter 117 the following new 
     item:

``117A. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws 
  relating to abortion..........................................2431''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) each will control 1 hour.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady).


                             General Leave

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous matter on the legislation under 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the prime 
sponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman 
from Florida, for yielding me the time. He has done an extraordinary 
job in helping to pass this legislation and promoting it, especially in 
the Committee on the Judiciary last year and again this year. I thank 
him for his leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as all of us know, abortion is perhaps one of the most 
life-altering and life-threatening, obviously, of procedures. It leaves 
lasting medical, emotional, and psychological consequences, and, as 
noted by the Supreme Court, particularly when the patient is immature.
  Although Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, it did not legalize 
the right of persons other than a parent or a guardian to decide what 
is best for a child, nor did it legalize the right for strangers to 
take the lives of our children and place them in danger, potentially 
fatal danger.
  Many may be familiar with the Child Custody Protection Act, a bill 
which makes it a Federal misdemeanor to transport an underage girl 
across State lines, because we had this discussion last year, and we 
know that it is commonsense legislation because these people want to 
circumvent State or local parental notification laws for the purposes 
of obtaining an abortion for a minor girl.
  Last year I introduced this legislation. It passed the House with 
almost a two-thirds majority. Unfortunately, the Senate failed to 
consider the bill for a vote. This year the bill is up before us again 
as H.R. 1218. With the support of 130 congressional cosponsors who have 
spoken in favor of the bill, we are very hopeful that once again we 
will be able to pass this bill.
  In our society, Mr. Speaker, there are many rules and regulations 
aimed at ensuring the safety of our Nation's youths through parental 
consent and notification and through parental guidance.
  At my alma mater, Southwest Miami High School, for example, as in 
many of our schools throughout our Nation, a child cannot be given an 
aspirin to relieve a simple headache or cramp unless the school has 
been given consent, signed consent, by at least one parent or guardian. 
In some States a minor cannot operate a vehicle until the age of 18.
  Most schools require parental consent in order to take minors on 
field trips, and in many schools parents have the ability also to 
decide whether or not their children should be enrolled in sex 
education class. Both the field trip and these classes require parental 
notification and consent.
  Every one of these principles emphasizes that parents should be the 
ones

[[Page H5103]]

involved in those decisions because they can seriously affect their 
children. The decision of whether or not to obtain an abortion, a life-
altering, potentially fatal, and at all times serious medical 
procedure, should be no exception to these rules.
  I find it ironic how anti-tobacco groups and Members of Congress are 
outraged over a cigarette ad that entices a young person to smoke, yet 
remain silent on this issue of whether a minor should be taken across 
State lines to have an abortion performed. They call for hearings and 
conferences and they spend millions of dollars on ads and lobbying 
efforts in order to consumer legislation to keep minors from being 
harmed by tobacco. Yet, these very same individuals remain absolutely 
silent when ads such as the ones that I am going to explain in a second 
are placed in our public yellow pages.

                              {time}  1100

  These ads lure young girls to directly disobey the law. They promote 
civil disobedience and entice vulnerable children with dangerous 
slogans such as the ones that we see here, ``No parental consent 
needed.'' This is a Yellow Page advertisement that appeared in the 
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Yellow Pages for an abortion clinic, not in 
Pennsylvania, but in Maryland. So they placed this ad in another State 
because, in that State, there is a parental consent or notification 
law; and they say, do not worry, no parental consent is needed for 
another State.
  This other advertisement, Mr. Speaker, comes from the Lancaster, 
Pennsylvania, Yellow Pages. Although the ad appears in Pennsylvania, 
the abortion clinic is in Delaware. In big capital letters, in bold, 
they say proudly, ``No age restriction. No parental or spousal consent. 
No waiting period.'' So the first thing they put there is ``No age 
restriction.''
  Well, my legislation, the bill before us, the Child Custody 
Protection Act, would end this exploitation of our Nation's minor girls 
from violators who recklessly disregard the law.
  By making a circumvention of State parental or notification laws a 
Federal misdemeanor, this bill will not only help uphold the laws of 
our country, but it will give back the parents the right to parent. It 
will strengthen family bonds; and, most importantly, it will ensure 
that America's youth have a safer, healthier, and brighter future.
  By ensuring passage of this legislation, we will really prove to the 
American people that Congress does indeed work hard to protect both 
parents and children and protect our families.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 1218, the Child Custody 
Protection Act of 1999. This bill criminalizes any good-faith attempt 
by a caring adult to assist a young woman in obtaining abortion 
services across State lines.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to again acknowledge the passion 
which the proponent of this legislation has come to the floor of the 
House. I think it is important to enunciate the fact that many of us 
who are pro-choice consider ourselves as well pro-life, to encourage 
the life of the living and to ensure that there is a recognition that, 
constitutionally, women have a right to make personal decisions on 
these very sacred and important issues.
  What this legislation does, by calling it the Child Custody 
Protection Act, is simply another effort to undermine the right of 
choice for a young woman by imposing dangerous and unnecessary 
restrictions to abortion services.
  This bill would make it more difficult for minors living in States 
with parental notification or consent laws to obtain an abortion by 
making it a Federal crime to transport minors across State lines. More 
than 75 percent of minors under 16 years old already involve one or 
both parents in this enormous decision, one which they wish they did 
not have to make, to have an abortion.
  In those cases where a young woman cannot involve her parents in the 
decision, there are others who would help by offering physical and 
emotional support during a time of crisis, confusion, and emotional 
pain. A minor should be able to turn to a relative, close friend, and 
even clergy members for assistance.
  Supporters of this bill claim that judicial bypass, a procedure which 
permits teenagers to appear before a judge to request a waiver of the 
parental involvement requirement, is a preferred alternative. However, 
many teens do not make use of it because they do not know how to 
navigate the legal system.
  Let me for a moment, Mr. Speaker, place one in the position of a 
young female teenager going into an enormously challenging and 
frightening circumstance of a courtroom. Mr. Speaker, we have already 
noted several instances where judges have looked on this young woman 
and said that they are too immature to ask for a judicial waiver, a 
bypass. In fact, we have cases where judges repeatedly have denied 
instances where teenagers have had enough courage to come into the 
courtroom. This is not the kind of atmosphere where one is going to get 
the most open decision. Many teens are embarrassed and afraid that an 
unsympathetic or hostile judge might refuse to grant the waiver.
  Also, the confidentiality of the teen is compromised if the bypass 
hearing requires use of the parents' names. In small towns, 
confidentiality may be further compromised if the judge knows the teen 
or her family. This happens frequently.
  There are various reasons why a young woman could not go to her 
parent for guidance. Some family situations are not conducive to open 
communication, and some situations are violent. For a young woman who 
needs to turn to someone other than a parent, this law creates severe 
hardships. In fact, this law may do more damage than it may do helping 
the young person.
  The need to travel across State lines may be necessary in States 
where abortion services are not readily available. This may be because 
of various State restrictions or distance. Some young women may seek 
services outside of their home State because the closest abortion 
provider may be across State lines.
  I have offered or did offer several amendments that would have 
exempted religious leaders, aunts, uncles, first cousins, and 
godparents. I joined the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for an 
amendment that would have exempted grandparents and older siblings from 
the criminal penalties as well, some responsible adult that could 
counsel that young person and provide comfort for them, to give them 
the opportunity to make a reasoned and balanced decision, not to be 
cowering in back alleys using coat hangers of yesteryear and destroying 
their lives.
  For a reason that I hope all of us could understand, these young 
people are frightened. Something has happened to them that may be they 
did not want to happen. For all we know, they could have been abused by 
a parent. This is not unknown that someone in the family has abused 
them, and, therefore, they could not go to a parent.
  Or as in the young woman by the name of Becky, they could have had a 
loving parental situation where they loved the parent very much, and 
the parent loved them. They were too ashamed to go and tell their 
parent that they were pregnant. Because of their shame, they went to a 
back alley abortionist, became infected and died.
  The autopsy report indicated that Becky had died from a botched 
abortion. Becky was about 17 years old. Her parents testified before 
the Committee on the Judiciary begging us not to pass this legislation. 
They would have wanted Becky to have been able to go across State lines 
and to secure a safe abortion because they would have had Becky with 
them today.
  I also offered an amendment that would have called for a General 
Accounting Office study to keep track of the impact of this bill on the 
number of illegal abortions and the casualties that result. What is 
going to be the impact of this bill? Are we going to see an enormous 
increase in aborted or illegal abortions that would bring about the 
loss of life?
  These amendments were not made in order. It is unfortunate because 
family members such as grandparents and siblings should not be jailed 
for assisting a scared grandchild or younger sister in time of need. 
Young women should

[[Page H5104]]

be encouraged to involve an adult in any decision to terminate a 
pregnancy. This is just a federalized chilling effect to inhibit and to 
deny young women the counseling and comfort of someone whom they have 
confidence in.
  This is not going to diminish abortions, Mr. Speaker. This is only 
going to take away the rights of young people, young women who could, 
in fact, start their lives all over again. I hope that my colleagues 
will defeat this bill. This bill would isolate young women from trusted 
adults by placing criminal sanctions for providing basic comfort and 
advice.
  I ask my colleagues to not support this legislation. I would ask them 
to stand on behalf of the young people who are so much involved in this 
crisis all the time and realize that their lives were in jeopardy by 
legislation that is well-intentioned but serves no purpose because it 
takes away from them the very rights that are provided to them by the 
laws of this land.
  I stand in strong opposition to this bill, H.R. 1218, the Child 
Custody Protection Act of 1999. This bill criminalizes any good faith 
attempt by a caring adult to assist a young women in obtaining abortion 
services across state lines. This Child Custody Protection Act is 
simply another effort to undermine the right of choice for a young 
woman by imposing dangerous and unnecessary restrictions to abortion 
services.
  This bill would make it more difficult for minors living in states 
with parental notification or consent laws to obtain an abortion by 
making it a federal crime to transport minors across state lines. More 
than 75 percent of minors under 16 years old already involve one or 
both parents in their decision to have an abortion.
  In those cases where a young woman cannot involve her parents in the 
decision, there are others who would help by offering physical and 
emotional support during a time of crisis, confusion and emotional 
pain. A minor should be able to turn to a relative, close friend, and 
even clergy members for assistance.
  Supporters of this bill claim that judicial bypass, a procedure which 
permits teenagers to appear before a judge to request a waiver of the 
parental involvement requirement, is a preferred alternative. However, 
many teens do not make use of it because they do not know how to 
navigate the legal system.
  Many teens are embarrassed and are afraid that an unsympathetic or 
hostile judge might refuse to grant the waiver. Also, the 
confidentiality of the teen is compromised if the bypass hearing 
requires use of their parents' names. In small towns, confidentiality 
may be further compromised if the judge knows the teen or her family.
  There are various reason why a young woman could not go to her 
parents for guidance. Some family situations are not conducive to open 
communication and some situations are violent. For young women who need 
to turn to someone other than a parent, this law create severe 
hardships.
  The need to travel across state lines may be necessary in states 
where abortion services are not readily available. This may be because 
of various states restrictions or distance. Some young women must seek 
services outside of their home state because the closet abortion 
provider may be across state lines.
  I offered several amendments that would have exempted religious 
leaders, aunts, uncles, first cousins and godparents. I joined Rep. 
Nadler for an amendment that would have exempted grandparents and older 
siblings from the criminal penalties as well. I also offered an 
amendment that would have called for a General Accounting Office Study 
to keep track of the impact of this bill on the number of illegal 
abortions and the casualties that result. These amendments were not 
made in order.
  It is unfortunate because family members such as grandparents and 
siblings should not be jailed for assisting a scared grandchild or 
younger sister in a time of need. Young women should be encouraged to 
involve an adult in any decision to terminate a pregnancy.
  I hope that my colleagues will defeat this bill. This bill would 
isolate young women from trusted adults by placing criminal sanctions 
on providing basic comfort and advice. Please vote against this 
dangerous bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership on this legislation and for her 
thoughtful explanation of the purpose of the bill that is now before 
the House.
  It is important that all the Members of the House understand just how 
this bill will operate and what it will accomplish. Unfortunately, a 
great deal of misinformation has been put forth in opposition to this 
legislation by those who object in principle to any State law providing 
for parental consent or notification when a minor girl seeks to obtain 
an abortion. It is important that we cut through all this 
misinformation and focus on what the bill actually does.
  H.R. 1218 amends Title I of the United States Code by criminalizing 
the knowing transportation across the State line of a girl under 18 
years of age with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in 
abridgement of a parent's right of involvement under the law of the 
State where the child resides.
  Under the bill, a violation of the parental right occurs when an 
abortion is performed on the minor in a State other than the minor's 
residence and without the parental consent or notification or the 
judicial authorization that would have been required had the abortion 
been performed in the minor's State of residence.
  The Child Custody Protection Act gives the parents of the minor girl 
a civil cause of action if they suffer legal harm from a violation of 
the bill.
  The bill ensures that neither the minor herself nor her parents may 
be prosecuted or sued for a violation of this bill. It also provides an 
exception for the life of the mother. In addition, the bill provides an 
affirmative defense to any prosecution or civil action where the 
defendant reasonably believed, based on information obtained directly 
from the girl's parent or other compelling facts, that the requirements 
of the parental involvement laws of the girl's State of residence had 
been satisfied.
  Thus, H.R. 1218 only addresses those who covertly take young girls 
out of their home State for abortions in disregard of protective State 
laws and parental rights. This bill is a reasonable and carefully 
drafted solution to a serious nationwide problem that has been 
carefully documented.
  Now, the House will hear arguments today that this bill will endanger 
the lives of young girls. That is simply false. Indeed, the opposite is 
true. It is when young girls are secretly taken for abortions without 
their parents' knowledge that they face serious risk to their health 
and well-being.
  An abortion is a serious and often dangerous medical procedure. When 
an abortion is performed on a girl without the physician having full 
knowledge of her medical history, which is usually only available from 
a parent, the risk to the young woman greatly increase. Moreover, minor 
girls who do not involve their parents usually do not return for 
follow-up treatment, which can lead to dangerous and indeed deadly 
complications.
  During the subcommittee's hearing on this bill, we heard from one 
mother whose daughter was secretly taken away from an abortion and 
suffered serious complications from the botched procedure. Her daughter 
required additional surgery after the abortion which could only be 
performed with her mother's consent. What an irony. What an irony. The 
law allowed the minor to be taken out of State for an abortion without 
any parental involvement, but scrupulously required parental consent 
for the medical treatment that was necessitated by the botched 
procedure.
  As Dr. Bruce Lucero, a prominent abortionist and abortion rights 
advocate, wrote in a New York Times op-ed piece during the last 
consideration of this bill by the Congress in the last Congress, 
teenage girls who have abortions without consulting their patients face 
greater risk to their health than those who consult with their parents. 
It is the parents who have fullest access to relevant information 
concerning the girl's health, and it is the parent who is in the best 
position to see that any complications are promptly and effectively 
treated.
  The House will also hear arguments that the bill needs a health 
exception. Once again, that is simply wrong. The bill specifically 
provides that it would not apply if the abortion was necessary to safe 
the life of the minor.
  Now, if the concern is about health risk of a non-life-threatening 
nature, then the best course of action is involvement of the parents 
for the reasons I have just expressed. If there is some compelling 
reason why the girl

[[Page H5105]]

cannot tell her parents, then she always has the ability to seek an 
expeditious judicial review which all valid State parental involvement 
laws are required to permit.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, today the House will hear arguments that the 
parents are not really the people who should have the right to consent 
to their minor child's abortion but that such consent ought to be given 
by the parents, someone standing in stead of the parents, the 
grandparents, the aunts and uncles, the cousins, siblings, ministers, 
rabbis, or godparents or anybody else. It is these folks who should 
have the right to take someone else's child out of the State for the 
purpose of obtaining an abortion.
  Now, these types of arguments against the bill are really objections 
to the underlying State parental notice and consent laws and the 
Supreme Court decisions that have upheld those laws. Those who disagree 
with parental notice and consent laws and the Supreme Court decisions 
who have validated them ought to take the matter up with the States and 
the Supreme Court.
  Now, the opponents of this bill seek to analyze it as though it were 
a prohibition on the right of adults to travel to engage in activities 
that are legal in the State to which they travel but not legal in their 
State of residence. This analysis widely misses the mark. This is not a 
bill which is aimed at the right of adults to travel. This is a bill 
which is aimed at the protection of minors.
  It is axiomatic, and the Supreme Court has repeated it time and time 
again, that the power of the State to control the conduct of children 
reaches beyond the scope of its authority over adults. The court has 
also time and again stated that it is, and I quote once more, it ``is 
cardinal with us,'' that is the courts, ``that the custody, care and 
nurture of the child reside first with the parents, whose primary 
function and freedom includes preparation for obligations the States 
can neither supply nor hinder.''

                              {time}  1115

  Thus, as the court has said, constitutional interpretation has 
consistently recognized that the parents' claim to authority in their 
own household to direct the rearing of their child is basic to the 
structure of our society.
  Now, this bill squarely fits within this constitutional tradition 
regarding the rights of parents. It simply seeks to assure effective 
enforcement of State laws designed to protect the right of parents and 
the welfare of children. And the opponents of this bill have a problem 
with those underlying laws. I think it is safe to say that all of those 
who oppose this bill fall among those who do not like any sort of 
parental involvement, parental notice or parental consent law.
  As the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) has noted, across 
the country a child cannot even be given aspirin at school without her 
parent's permission, yet strangers can take children across State lines 
for abortions in circumvention of parental protection statutes. While 
the abortion industry believes anyone should have the right to take 
minor girls across State lines for secret abortions, the American 
public disagrees by a margin of roughly 9 to 1. According to a recent 
national poll, 85 percent of voters questioned said that a person 
should not be able to take a minor girl across State lines for an 
abortion without her parents' knowledge.
  This bill, thus, reflects the strong opinion of the American people, 
and I would suggest that the Members of this House should listen to the 
voice of the American people on this subject, should reject the 
arguments that come forth from those who want to deprive the parents of 
any right to involvement in such a critical decision, and we should 
move forward to pass this important legislation and send it to the 
Senate. I urge the Members to vote in favor of H.R. 1218.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time. I just want to say a few words in opposition to this bill, 
and I do so because it is lacking in some very important qualities that 
we all would hope to see in legislation that deals with this subject.
  First of all, the bill does nothing to prevent young women from 
having abortions. It simply puts them at risk, higher risk, for 
physical harm.
  Secondly, the bill does nothing at all to educate young women about 
teenage pregnancy and about the need for responsible family planning.
  Furthermore, it does nothing to reduce the overall number of 
abortions, a shared goal of everyone in this House and on both sides of 
this debate.
  While we in Congress would like to be able to legislate good parent-
child relationships in every family, we ought to know that that is 
simply beyond our reach. We cannot do it. The truth is most minors do, 
in fact, involve a parent in the difficult decision to end an unplanned 
pregnancy, and they should always be encouraged to involve them. Many 
young women, however, live in households where a parent is absent or, 
in some cases, even abusive. What we are saying to these young women in 
this difficult time and under these difficult circumstances is that 
they are on their own; they are prohibited from enlisting the support 
or counsel of a trusted friend, another adult or relative.
  This legislation sends a terrible message to young women that not 
only is the Congress willing to trample on their constitutional right 
to medical privacy, it wants to make abortion more dangerous for them. 
Since the bill contains no prohibition whatsoever against women 
traveling across State lines to avoid a State's consent requirement, it 
will lead to more women traveling alone to obtain abortions or to seek 
unsafe abortions locally wherever they may live.
  Mr. Speaker, this is simply a bad piece of legislation. The bill's 
intention may be to increase parental involvement in the difficult 
decision to seek an abortion, but in reality it will not do so. It will 
only isolate young women who cannot go to their parents during such a 
difficult time.
  Instead of attempting to legislate good family relationships, we here 
in the House and the Congress should spend more of our time and 
resources on reducing the necessity of abortions through teenage 
pregnancy prevention programs and improving access to information and 
family planning. This is a piece of legislation that is well-
intentioned, I am sure, but the effects of it would be 
counterproductive, dangerous and disastrous to many, many women across 
our country.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, today there are over 20 States that require 
consent or notification of at least one parent before a minor girl can 
obtain an abortion, and my home State of Nebraska is one of those, 
albeit the law is under continuous attack in the courts and our State 
legislature. The American people overwhelmingly support parental 
involvement and condemn the practice of taking young girls out of State 
to get an abortion without informing their parents. This bill is 
designed to help those States enforce their own laws.
  Perhaps it is because of my 8 years as a city councilman on the Omaha 
City Council that I strongly believe in the rights of local governments 
and the States to formulate their own policies and support Federal 
policies that protect State and local rights.
  It is important that we understand what this legislation does not do. 
This bill does not create a new Federal law regulating abortion. This 
is not a Federal consent law. States have the right to require parental 
notification, and we can help them protect young minor girls at a time 
when they most desperately need the help and involvement of their 
parents. These children need attention prior, during, and after this 
serious procedure. Parental notification can help and it should be 
given a chance to work. This bill allows States to protect children, 
promote strong family values and help young girls make wise decisions.
  Yes, I believe in States' rights and the rights of my home State of 
Nebraska to protect young girls in our State, but I am also, as a 
father, protective of parental rights and the sanctity of parents' 
involvement in their children's lives and vice versa. So I urge a 
``yes'' on H.R. 1218.

[[Page H5106]]

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), a passionate 
defender of the rights of women.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong opposition to the bill.
  The legislation we are considering today would prohibit anyone, 
anyone, including a step-parent, grandparent, or religious counselor 
from accompanying a young woman across State lines for an abortion. In 
my judgment, my colleagues, this is a dangerous, misguided bill that 
isolates our daughters and puts them at grave risk. That is why the 
President has threatened to veto it.
  Under this legislation, young women who feel they cannot turn to 
their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy will be forced to 
fend for themselves without help from any responsible adult. Some will 
seek dangerous back-alley abortions close to home; others will travel 
to unfamiliar places seeking abortions by themselves.
  Thankfully, my colleagues, most young women, more than 75 percent of 
minors under age 16, already involve their parents in this very 
difficult decision to seek an abortion. That is the good news. And as a 
mother, as a grandmother of four and about 7/8ths, one is arriving in 
August, I hope, as we all hope, that every child can go to her parents 
for advice and support. But, unfortunately, not every child is so 
lucky. Not every child has loving parents. Some have parents who are 
abusive or simply absent.
  Now, I believe that those young women who cannot go to their parents 
should be encouraged. We want to encourage them to go to another 
responsible adult, a grandmother, an aunt, a Rabbi, a minister in what 
can be a very, very difficult decision. Already more than half of all 
young women who do not involve the parent in the decision to terminate 
a pregnancy choose to involve another adult, including 15 percent who 
involve another adult relative. That is a good thing. We should 
encourage the involvement of responsible adults in this decision, be it 
a step-parent, an aunt or an uncle, religious minister or a counselor, 
not criminalize that involvement.
  Unfortunately, what this bill does is impose criminal penalties on 
adults, like grandmothers, who come to the aid of their granddaughters. 
We tried to address this problem at the Committee on Rules by exempting 
close familiar relatives from criminal liability under the bill. But, 
unfortunately, that amendment, much to my amazement, it was hard for me 
to believe, was denied. As a result, this bill will throw grandmothers 
in jail for assisting their granddaughters.
  What will the police do? Are they going to set up granny checkpoints 
to catch grandmothers helping their granddaughters? Will we have dogs 
and search lights at State borders to lock up aunts and uncles? I 
suppose so.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a grandmother of four, and I believe grandparents 
should be able to help their grandchildren without getting thrown in 
jail. As much as we might wish otherwise, family communication, open 
and honest parent-child relationships cannot be legislated. When a 
young woman cannot turn to her parents, she should certainly be able to 
turn to her grandmother or a favorite aunt for help. Unfortunately, 
this legislation criminalizes that involvement.
  And so this bill tells young women who cannot tell their parents, 
just do not tell anyone else. Do not tell a grandparent, do not tell an 
aunt. No one can help them; they are on their own. As a result, young 
women will be forced to travel out of State by themselves or remain in-
State and obtain an illegal abortion.
  Parental consent laws do not force young women to involve their 
parents in an hour of need. We know that it can do just the opposite. 
Indiana's parental consent law drove Becky Bell away from the arms of 
her parents and straight into the back alley. Parental consent laws do 
not protect our daughters, but they can kill them. They do not bring 
families together, but they can tear them apart. And so I ask, why can 
we not do more in this body to bring families together, to keep our 
young people safe?
  Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that we should make abortion less 
necessary for teenagers, not more dangerous and difficult. We need to 
teach teenagers to be abstinent and responsible. We need a 
comprehensive approach to keeping teenagers safe and healthy. We do not 
need a bill that isolates teenagers and puts them at risk.
  That is why, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with the 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and myself on the Teen Pregnancy 
Prevention Task Force. Let us work with our young people. Let us help 
them gain self-esteem. Let us see what works out there and try to 
prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent teen pregnancies. Let us 
reduce the need for abortion. Let us work together on this. We can work 
together, pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat and Republican, to reduce the 
need for abortion. But my colleagues, let us not put our young people 
at risk.

                              {time}  1130

  I want to say again, I would hope that every mother, every mother, 
could have a relationship with her child so, number one, there is no 
need to have an abortion. But if that child should be put in this 
position, I would hope that child would come to me, would come to a 
mother, I would hope my granddaughter would come to me, again, let us 
hope, before it is necessary.
  But if it is, I want to be there to help, not to feel that we 
grandmothers are going to be thrown in jail if we try to help and leave 
these children so isolated that they may make an unwise move and get 
this procedure where it may not be qualified.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).
  (Mrs. EMERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support today of the 
Child Custody Protection Act. I want to thank my colleague the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for reintroducing it again 
this year.
  This is an important bill, and it is an important bill that all 
Members should support regardless of whether they are prochoice or 
whether they are prolife, as I am.
  I will tell my colleagues from a personal experience about my 
daughter, Katharine, who just finished her junior year in high school. 
Quite frankly, I cannot even begin to tell my colleagues how many 
parental consent forms I had to sign even just this year. The most 
recent was for a physics field trip. Then there was the soccer form. 
Probably my worst experience was trying to get permission for my 
daughter, Katharine, and my older daughter, Tori, to use their inhalers 
for their exercised-induced asthma, which comes about simply through 
playing sports. And it was a nightmare. But I will tell my colleagues, 
it was a nightmare that I accepted, and that was very important.
  Nobody can doubt that this constant flood of consent forms is 
bureaucracy at its best. But I do not mind because it is just one more 
way for me to stay involved with my children and involved in their 
lives, which is to me the most important responsibility that I have in 
life.
  So if we, as parents, are involved in those types of decisions 
regarding our children at school, how can anyone even question the need 
for us to be involved in such a potentially life-threatening decision 
like having an abortion?
  The need for this type of legislation is particularly clear, 
particularly in my home State of Missouri, which already has a parental 
consent law.
  A recent article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch focused on the 
problem of teens crossing from Missouri into Illinois to obtain 
abortions without parental consent. I bring the attention of my 
colleagues to this blown-up ad that was recently in the Yellow Pages in 
a phone book in St. Louis. But the article in the Post Dispatch points 
out that one of the larger abortion clinics in Illinois actually does 
advertise on Missouri radio stations and it says ``No parental consent 
required.''
  I even went into the home page last night and pulled out a copy of 
their

[[Page H5107]]

home page, which does say right here ``Parental consent is not required 
for a minor to have an abortion at the Hope Clinic.''
  This is a predatory market, my colleagues, and it targets vulnerable 
young girls, and it really emboldens those who would impress these 
young girls into doing something they might live to regret all of their 
lives.
  I am fortunate that my children talk to me, and I realize the need to 
have support for our young girls. But there is too much pressure from 
boyfriends and the like to just simply go have an abortion.
  It is critical, Mr. Speaker, that we have the Child Custody 
Protection Act. It is common-sense legislation, and it protects 
parental rights. But, more importantly, it safeguards the well-being of 
America's young girls.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this passage.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the example used by my good friend and 
colleague on the idea of clinics' advertisements. But that evidences 
the weaknesses of the legislation.
  I would be happy to target unscrupulous abortion clinics if that is 
the case to narrow their advertising standards and their advertising 
approaches. I frankly believe, as well, that we do not target teenagers 
or entice them to do things they would otherwise not do. But the 
emphasis of this bill is to lock up loving and caring adults who want 
to be loving and caring to a teenager who finds herself in trouble 
under legitimate laws of this land of the right to choose, locking up 
grandmothers, locking up ministers and rabbis, locking up cousins and 
aunts.
  Frankly, this is a cruel scheme to do a back-door curbing of 
abortion. The bill's backers, as the New York Times says, ``can show no 
compelling justification for giving different treatment to State 
residents and nonresidents seeking medical services.''
  We are not promoting unscrupulous abortion clinics. What we are 
trying to do is simply say a young woman who may have been abused by a 
relative in her family, a stepfather, a father, deserves to have a 
private way of counseling with someone or a private way of seeking an 
abortion that does not include going into a cold courtroom and being 
denied on a judicial waiver.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, that we can do many things, but this 
solution is not the best solution.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this sadly misnamed Child 
Custody Protection Act. This bill does not encourage young women to ask 
a trusted adult for much-needed assistance. Instead, this bill will 
cause some young women to face decisions about their pregnancy alone.
  Parental involvement in a minor's decision about her pregnancy is, of 
course, the ideal. For most teens it is the reality. But some 
teenagers, for various reasons, simply cannot or will not confide in a 
parent. This bill will make criminals of some grandmothers, aunts, or 
other relatives that help pregnant teenagers exercise their legal 
rights. This bill would endanger the health and lives of young women 
who, for a variety of reasons, including fear of abuse, are unable to 
involve a parent in their decision-making. This bill is about politics, 
not sound legislation.
  We should be talking today about what we can agree on, how to involve 
adults in the decision-making process. We should look at policies that 
work, like the Adult Involvement Law that exists in my home State of 
Maine.
  The Maine Adult Involvement Law recognizes that parental involvement 
and guidance is the ideal for young women facing decisions regarding a 
pregnancy. However, when parental involvement is not possible, teens 
should not be alone. Maine's Adult Involvement Law allows young women 
to turn to a trusted adult for advice and counsel. A young woman 
considering an abortion may turn to a parent or another family member, 
such as an aunt or grandmother or a judge or a counselor. And a 
counselor would cover a number of different types of people: A 
physician, a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a social worker, a member of 
the clergy, physicians' assistants, nurse practitioners, a guidance 
counselor, registered nurse, or a licensed practical nurse.
  The counselor must discuss with the young woman all of her options, 
including adoption, parenting, and abortion. In Maine, all minors 
seeking an abortion must receive counseling even if that young woman 
has the consent of another adult. This provides the maximum guidance 
and support for the young woman.
  The Child Custody Protection Act is designed to restrict the young 
woman's access to abortion, not to ensure the involvement of an adult 
in her decision-making process. I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposing the so-called Child Custody Protection Act.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond briefly to the point that has 
been made about the assistance that young women might receive from 
people other than their parents.
  Any grandmother, any friend, any cousin, any godparent who wishes to 
help a young woman in a situation such as has been described where it 
is impossible to talk with the parents, for whatever reason, can help 
that young lady go through the constitutionally required judicial 
bypass process.
  That is something the Supreme Court has established. The Supreme 
Court has required that all parental involvement laws contain a 
judicial bypass mechanism that must be made available. That is the way 
they can render assistance within the framework of the law that 
provides for the respect for parents and the family unit. That bypass 
is there; and that is the route that they should follow, rather than 
taking a girl, without her parents' knowledge, across State lines for 
an abortion in a State other than her State of residence.
  There is a solution to the problem that opponents of this bill keep 
raising. They want to deny the reality of that solution. But that does 
not make it go away.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in strong support of 
the Child Custody Protection Act and commend the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her leadership and the other 130 Members 
who have cosponsored this legislation. It is time that we speak up for 
the safety of our young daughters, as well as the rights of their 
parents.
  I served in the Pennsylvania Legislature when we passed the Parental 
Consent Law. There are about 20 States that have parental involvement 
laws. Some parental notice, some parental consent. In Pennsylvania, we 
require consent of one of the two parents. And in case there is a 
breakdown between the parents and the child, we have a judicial bypass 
where the child can go before, in a confidential setting, a judge to 
get a decision.
  This law was designed because of a case that happened in Pennsylvania 
in 1995 where a 12-year-old young girl was impregnated by an 18-year-
old male and then the mother of that male took that 12-year-old girl to 
a neighboring State, New York, without her parents' knowledge or 
consent, for a secret abortion.
  Now, my colleagues, this is outrageous where, in America, a stranger 
can take a minor child whose parents who know the medical history, know 
the psychological make-up of their child, without their knowledge or 
consent.
  There was a study in California of 46,500 teenage school-age moms. 
Guess what they found? Two-thirds of them were impregnated by adult 
males. The median age was 22 years old. In many cases, it is these 
males who are taking the young girls across State lines for abortions, 
not grandmothers. It is adult males who are exploiting young women so 
that people will not know what happened.
  In Pennsylvania, I went to the capital phone books and pulled out a 
couple of Yellow Pages. Here is one entitled ``abortion.'' Here is a 
clinic in Maryland advertising, ``no parental consent,'' to get around 
our State law. Here is one from my district in Lancaster. ``Age 
restriction, parental or

[[Page H5108]]

spousal consent, none.'' That is in Delaware, this abortion clinic.
  I say to the people who are outraged about these ads to teens about 
smoking, where is their outrage about these ads for teens for abortion? 
This is a medical procedure that could be life-threatening. We cannot 
even have a child get their ears pierced or an aspirin from a nurse or 
a field trip without parental consent. Where is the logic?
  Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General of Pennsylvania said, ``by 
supporting and protecting the rights of parents across the Nation, 
those of us in law enforcement will be able to protect vulnerable 
children.'' Let us protect them with this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, let me again emphasize that I am willing to join my 
colleagues in legislating initiatives against unscrupulous abortion 
clinics advertising and, as well, any enticement to young people to do 
something that they would not want to do. This is not this kind of 
legislation. This is a legislation that undermines a young woman's 
right to choose and the ability to counsel with someone other than her 
family for this terribly, terribly important and tragic decision that 
she may have to make.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the American 
Academy of Pediatrics that includes the Society for Adolescent 
Medicine, dated June 14, 1999, that opposes this legislation. I think 
these two entities certainly have great involvement with our children.

                               American Academy of Pediatrics,

                                                    June 14, 1999,
     Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Hyde: On behalf of the American Academy of 
     Pediatrics (AAP), representing 55,000 pediatricians 
     nationally, and the Society for Adolescent Medicine (SAM), 
     representing 1,400 adolescent health professionals, we are 
     writing in opposition of H.R. 1218, the Child Custody 
     Protection Act. Assuring adolescent access to health care, 
     including reproductive health care, has been a long-standing 
     objective of the Academy. The problematic nature of this bill 
     is in it's potential to restrict a patient's access to care 
     by making it a federal offense to transport a minor across 
     state lines if this circumvents the state's parental 
     involvement laws.
       The AAP and SAM firmly believe that parents should be 
     involved in and responsible for assuring medical care for 
     their children. While parental involvement is desirable and 
     should be encouraged, it may not always be feasible, and the 
     Academy and SAM believe it should not be legislated. 
     Adolescents who cannot rely on a parent to help them through 
     the trauma of a pregnancy and who may need to go to an 
     adjoining state for termination are precluded from receiving 
     supportive care during a traumatic time in their lives. It is 
     in these situations that adolescents would be limited in 
     their options for receiving care.
       Our ultimate goal is to provide access to health care that 
     is in the best interest of the adolescent. Pediatricians hope 
     and strongly encourage adolescents to communicate with and 
     involve their parents or other trusted adults in important 
     health care decisions affecting their lives, including those 
     regarding pregnancy or pregnancy termination. Studies show 
     that a majority of adolescents voluntarily do so. However, 
     studies also indicate that legislation mandating parental 
     involvement does not achieve the intended benefit of 
     promoting family communication. It may increase the risk of 
     harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate 
     medical care.
       The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Society for 
     Adolescent Medicine urge you to oppose the Child Custody 
     Protection Act.
           Sincerely,


                                     Joel J. Alpert, MD, FAAP,

                        President, American Academy of Pediatrics,
                                         Lawrence S. Neistein, MD,
                       President, Society for Adolescent Medicine.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, this bill would make the tragic situation 
of teen pregnancy even worse.
  I believe that adolescents should be encouraged to seek their 
parent's advice when facing difficult circumstances. And when young 
people do go to their parents in trying times, most often their parents 
offer love, support, direction and compassion. Most young women do turn 
to their parents even when faced with something as emotional and 
private as pregnancy. Even with States without parental consent laws, 
the majority of all pregnant teenagers do tell their parents.
  Unfortunately, though, there are times when a pregnant teenager 
cannot go to her parents. This is precisely the time when they most 
need the involvement of a trusted adult. But under this bill, if an 
adult tries to assist a young woman by traveling with her across State 
lines, that adult becomes a criminal. It does not matter if the adult 
is her sister, brother, grandmother, minister, rabbi, they would still 
be criminals in the eyes of Federal prosecutors. In my home State of 
Wisconsin, we take into account the fact that young people sometimes 
cannot turn to a parent and must turn to another trusted adult in 
trying times. In Wisconsin, young women may obtain consent from 
grandparents, adult siblings or another trusted adult.
  Crossing State lines to obtain an abortion is not uncommon. Women 
usually seek the medical facility that is closest to their home, but 
due to a lack of facilities in many areas, the closest facility may be 
across a nearby State border. Eighty-six percent of all counties in the 
United States do not have any health care facility at all that provides 
abortion services. Congress has not made it illegal to cross State 
lines to buy guns, to gamble or to participate in any other legal 
activity. Why should we make an exception here?
  What if the teenager has been subject to physical or sexual abuse by 
one of her parents? What if the pregnancy is the result of incest? 
There is no exception in this bill for minors who have experienced 
physical or sexual abuse in their own homes, nor is there an exception 
for a young woman who might be subject to grave physical abuse if she 
were to confide in her parent or parents.
  Mr. Speaker, we want all children to confide in their parents, we 
want a society with strong families, but let us not forget those 
children in our society who are victims of incest or child physical 
abuse. Let us encourage those children, too, to reach out to an adult 
rather than deal with a crisis pregnancy without anyone to talk to.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, many, many States--I am particularly proud of 
my own State of Texas--have laws that protect the children, as they 
should have. And they have laws that honor the parents' rights with 
respect to the children.
  When mom and dad come home from the hospital and they have got that 
precious baby in their hands, they bring the baby home, they accept the 
lifetime commitment, they care for the baby, they hold the baby, they 
kiss and hug, treat the baby's little wounds, counsel the baby, advise 
the baby, instruct the baby, pray over the baby and sometimes 
discipline the baby. And if grandma and auntie, uncle, sister and 
brother want to visit, honor, enjoy, play with the baby, it is a 
wonderful experience in a family. But if grandma colludes with the baby 
to tell mom and dad a lie when the baby has broken mom and dad's rules, 
grandma is out of line. Grandma should honor the mother and the father 
as they accept their responsibilities for the baby. If grandma finds 
the baby in a serious state of distress at the age of 15 because of 
some foolishness with that pretty boy down the block, grandma has got a 
responsibility to the baby and to the mom and dad to honor the mom and 
dad's devotion to that child and to help that child be in the company, 
honestly confessing their hurt and their wrong to the people who love 
and care most. Grandma has no right to take that child across the State 
line, circumvent the State laws and dishonor her own children. No, 
grandma does not get a dispensation here. Grandma should have the 
decency to love that baby and honor her own children as that baby's 
parents. It is wrong. It is wrong to believe that I have the right to 
intercede against mom and dad's love and devotion because I want to get 
the child off the hook.
  We have taught our children, ``You will do wrong, you will make 
mistakes, you will put yourself in harm's way, you will bring harm to 
yourself. Bring your hurts to me. I will care for you.''
  In my own case when my little baby Kathy was born, my dad looked on 
me and said, ``Dick, when you start that

[[Page H5109]]

 parenting, you'll do it all your life.'' I do that. Most of us do. 
Some parents unhappily are not kind to their children. Incest does 
occur. There are laws about that and grandma would have the decency to 
take the child and the errant parent to the proper authorities within 
the State and get it corrected and protected. Do you think grandma 
taking her across State lines to abort that wrong is going to protect 
that child in the future?
  It is not right to love yourself or love somebody more or love some 
abstract devotion to abortion rights more than the safety and security 
of that child and the honor of the parents. This is a good bill. It is 
a good bill that keeps the only commandment with a promise, that 
commandment that says honor your father and your mother so your lives 
may be good on this earth.
  Let us vote this bill up and let us honor the parents and let us 
protect the babies.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just 
to emphasize that this country has many familial situations and many of 
our young people live with their grandparents.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Millender-McDonald).
  Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my 
colleague for her leadership on this critical issue. Mr. Speaker, I 
rise in strong opposition to the Child Custody Protection Act. Last 
year we addressed this bill. And although it passed this House, it died 
in the Senate. Further, the President has made his position very clear. 
He will veto this legislation if it crosses his desk.
  There are so many other issues that we could be working on to truly 
help children and strengthen America's families. I urge my colleagues 
to work together to make a real difference in the lives of our youth 
instead of focusing on this bill which is not needed and would only 
serve to weaken the child-parent relationship.
  This bill as we know it, the Child Custody Protection Act, would make 
it a Federal crime for anyone other than the parent to transport a 
minor across State lines with the intent to obtain an abortion. It also 
punishes the so-called violators of this bill with a fine of up to 
$100,000 and 1 year in prison. With almost 50 States already requiring 
parental notification or adult notification through the legal system, 
if a minor seeks an abortion, there is no need for H.R. 1218.
  Regardless of whether the parent-child relationship is abusive or 
not, most States have already required that a child tells a parent if 
she wants to obtain an abortion. H.R. 1218 does not improve the parent-
child communication. It only serves to create a greater divide between 
the parent and children and that child on an incredibly personal and 
difficult decision that remains legal in this country.
  H.R. 1218 also ignores the blended and nontraditional families that 
have become the norm in America today. More than half of all marriages 
today are remarriages. Children with different parents are often a part 
of that mix. We are seeing more and more minority children being raised 
by grandparents. In fact, when I hold district events for parents, the 
room is filled with grandparents.
  This legislation offers no language recognizing the important 
parental role that grandparents are playing in the absence of parents. 
It would punish grandparents and members of the clergy who often serve 
as an invaluable counselor for young adults faced with such important 
decisions.
  H.R. 1218 would isolate these young women during a period when the 
advice and kind understanding of an adult is most needed. As a mother 
and grandmother who cares deeply about strengthening families through 
good communication and loving support of children regardless of the 
mistakes that they make in their effort to grow into mature and 
independent adults, I ask my colleagues to vote against this piece of 
legislation. It will not help women, it will not help families, and 
most certainly it will not help anyone to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in favor of the Child Custody 
Protection Act. This bill would make it unlawful to transport a minor 
across State lines to circumvent a State law requiring parental 
involvement in a minor's abortion decision.
  South Carolina is one of several States that have laws requiring one 
parent to approve an abortion of a minor. Let me make it clear that 
this law does include any legal guardian. It is not excluding 
grandparents who are legal guardians. The Child Custody Protection Act 
would not impose a similar parental consent law on States neighboring 
my State but, rather, would simply ensure that the laws of my State 
would be respected.
  Laws requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision 
confirm the essential role of parents in key decisions for our 
children. For the sake of children, these laws should not be 
circumvented. The Supreme Court has observed, ``The medical, emotional 
and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be 
lasting. This is particularly true when the patient is immature.''
  All across this country our children cannot take an aspirin at school 
without parental notification or authorization. They have to have a 
signed permission slip to go on a simple field trip. Yet in many places 
in our Nation, a young girl does not have to tell a family member 
before she has an abortion. Some States have rightfully acted to give 
parents the responsibility for decision-making for their minor 
children. The parental consent notification laws of States like South 
Carolina should not be bypassed. This bill would simply enforce our 
laws and reassert the importance of children.
  Mr. Speaker, I have two daughters. It is very hard for me to believe 
that some in this room think that they should have the right to 
secretly take one of my daughters across the State line to get an 
abortion without telling me. We cannot tolerate that in this country. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote for the Child Custody Protection Act.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yielding myself 30 seconds, I 
listened to the previous proponent on the floor. I just raise the 
question that we have often been chastised for federalizing laws in 
this country. He has already argued that States have laws. That is why 
I find the folly in this legislation. It is not helping; it is hurting.
  Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gilman), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
International Relations.
  (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Child Custody 
Protection Act, making it a Federal offense for anyone other than a 
minor's parents to transport that minor to another State so that that 
minor may obtain an abortion. This legislation prohibits anyone, 
including grandparents, stepparents, religious counselors or any other 
family member from accompanying a young woman across State lines for 
such a procedure.
  Parental involvement is obviously ideal and currently some 75 percent 
of minors under age 16 seek the advice and help of their parents when 
faced with an unintended pregnancy and the prospect of obtaining an 
abortion. These young ladies are fortunate enough to have loving, 
understanding parents that they can talk to. But not all teenagers are 
that fortunate.
  For those teenagers who believe they cannot involve their parents, 
they are left with no one else to turn to, no one to counsel them, 
including consideration of alternatives to an abortion. Should this 
bill pass, young women would be forced to make such a difficult 
decision alone, for fear of putting a family member or a trusted adult 
in danger of committing a Federal crime. We owe it to these young women 
to allow them the opportunity to involve someone they can trust in in 
making that important decision.

                              {time}  1200

  Most teenagers who do not involve their parents do involve an adult 
in such a decision, with some 15 percent talking with a stepparent, 
grandparent or sibling. It is far more preferable to

[[Page H5110]]

teach our young people to practice abstinence and to be responsible, 
making abortions unnecessary. That would be far better than passing 
legislation which holds concerned family members and trusted adults 
criminally responsible for helping these young women who are confronted 
with a very difficult decision.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this 
legislation, and I thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
for having yielded this time to me.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the 
argument by my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle in 
opposition to this bill. They use words like: ``Let's get together.'' 
However ``let's'' never includes parents. And, ``We need to help young 
ladies.'' However ``we'' never includes parents. Clearly, this is not 
about adult women, it is about young girls and, in some cases, 
children.
  As my colleague said, it is illegal for a school nurse to give a high 
school student two aspirin without parental consent. Schools obtain 
permission slips for parents to take students on field trips. It is 
even illegal for high school students to participate in many high 
school sports without parental permission, but it is not illegal for a 
complete stranger to transport a teenaged girl or even a 12-year-old 
girl across State lines to circumvent State laws so that she can have 
an abortion without her parents' knowledge.
  There has been a lot of talk about loopholes over the last weeks. If 
this is not a loophole, there is no such thing as a loophole. The Child 
Custody Protection Act will close a Mack-truck-sized loophole by 
prohibiting anyone from transporting someone else's daughter across 
State lines for the purpose of circumventing a State parental consent 
notification law.
  Many want us to believe this is about a nice little grandmother. This 
is not. It is about an employee of an abortion industry or a sexual 
predator who wants to cover up the rape of a young girl under the age 
of 18. No one should be able to make mockery of legal State parental 
consent laws.
  This is not whether or not a woman has a right to choose. This is 
about a young girl's rights to be involved with her parents and the 
parents' rights to be involved with their children.
  Anyone who opposes this loophole I believe is an extremist, and 
anyone who does not support this is out of touch with the American 
people. If my colleagues do not like parental consent laws, they should 
go to the State capitals where they live and fight to repeal them, but 
do not oppose a common-sense measure such as this. I urge all my 
colleagues to support families, to support children and to support 
women in fighting this measure.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), a member of our leadership.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this 
time to me.
  I rise today in strong opposition to this bill. We all believe that 
young women should turn to their parents for guidance and for support, 
and do my colleagues know what? Most do. Unfortunately, Congress is 
unable to legislate strong and healthy family relationships, and there 
are times in some families where a young person cannot turn to her 
parents for fear of physical abuse, and the so-called Child Custody 
Protection Act would leave those young women with nowhere to turn.
  The Republicans claim that they want to protect young women from 
sexual predators forcing them across State lines. This is a worthy 
goal. We all share this goal. But nowhere in this legislation does it 
specify that it is illegal to use force or threat of force to transport 
a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion and avoid parental 
consent laws. This is a key omission, and without that distinction the 
bill would make it illegal for any adult other than a parent from 
taking a young woman out of State for an abortion, which I would like 
to point out is a legal medical procedure.
  It means that a young woman who is in a time of tremendous emotional 
need would be unable to turn to a stepparent, a grandmother, an aunt, 
an older sister, or even a trusted member of the clergy, without 
placing that person at risk for breaking the law.
  I might add that the Republicans in the committee would not make an 
exception for the case of incest. They voted down a waiver or an 
exception for incest. Now do my colleagues want to tell me that an 
incestual relationship is one with a loving parent and that is the 
person that a young woman ought to turn to? My God, what are we trying 
to do here? The Child Custody Protection Act would only isolate a young 
woman in time of greatest need.
  Let me just say that do not play out, and I say this to some of my 
colleagues, do not play out your own personal philosophies which people 
respect, but do not do that at the risk of jeopardizing the health, the 
safety of young women. This is not our job. Do not turn grandmothers, 
trusted adults into criminals in this country. I urge my colleagues to 
reject this misguided bill.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Weldon).
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, as a practicing physician for 
many years, I have always been aware of the fact that if a minor child 
came to see me in the emergency room with an illness or a injury, I 
could not treat that child without the consent of a parent, I could not 
give pain relieving medications, I could not stitch a laceration. 
Indeed, I could be prosecuted for assault by treating a child without 
the consent of a parent.
  But, amazingly, in many States those same minor children, a minor 
female who cannot get basic medical care without their parents' 
consent, can have an invasive surgical procedure legally, an abortion, 
a surgical procedure with the attendant risks of hemorrhage, infection, 
sterility and, yes, even death can legally be obtained in some States. 
What is even more disturbing is that in the majority of cases these 
minor children have been impregnated by men over the age of 18, a crime 
called statutory rape in most States.
  Now many States have correctly addressed this problem by passing 
legislation requiring the consent of a parent, and those laws have been 
upheld in the courts, but, unfortunately, many States have not passed 
these types of legislation, and what has developed is the 
unconscionable situation where minor females are being carried across 
State lines without the knowledge or consent of their parents for the 
purpose of obtaining an abortion. This bill correctly addresses this 
problem by making it illegal to circumvent State laws by carrying a 
minor child across State lines, and I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support this legislation and vote for its passage.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this 
so-called Child Custody Protection Act. Last year, the far right 
majority here in this Congress wanted to make it a crime to help a 
pregnant young woman, and now it is the same story over again. What we 
really should be doing is helping our teens. Teens need people that 
they can count on when they are really in a serious situation. In 
situations where parents are abusive or absent this bill would make it 
criminal for a young woman to turn to a trusted adult, a family member, 
for help.
  Let us face it. Some teenagers will have sex without parental 
consent, and we all know that teenagers can continue a pregnancy, 
receive prenatal care and deliver a baby without parental consent. 
Teens can also give the baby up for adoption without parental consent.
  The only thing that is prevented from doing is deciding to end a 
pregnancy. This bill does one thing. It seeks only to further isolate 
young women who dare not or cannot involve their parents. Remember, 
one-third of our young women who do not notify their parents of a 
pregnancy have been victims of family abuse and violence. This bill is 
all wrong. Instead of criminalizing freedom of choice, we should be 
providing our teens with better education, better health care and 
support services.

[[Page H5111]]

  Mr. Speaker, this bad legislation died in the Congress last year 
because it was not good for young women. Once again, I urge my 
colleagues to vote against the Child Custody Protection Act.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. DeLay) in support of the legislation.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama; and I am 
proud to stand here today with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) and my other colleagues who have done an admirable job 
promoting the Child Custody Protection Act.
  There is a great injustice taking place as we speak. In 28 States 
minor girls are being taken across State lines for abortions just so 
parental consent or notification laws can be avoided. For a child to 
receive an aspirin at school or to be involved in a class field trip, 
they must gain prior consent from a parent. But for a dangerous and 
sometimes fatal procedure a child, yes, a child, can be transported 
across State lines without a simple notification of their parent.
  This is criminal, and this practice has to stop. We must remedy this 
injustice against States who have decided that parents have a right to 
know when their child's health is threatened. To add insult to injury, 
literally, the abortion industry actually encourages such interstate 
activity and most definitely profits by it. In many States, abortion 
clinics even advertise in the phone book of these nearby States, and 
they advertise no parental consent required. If that is not a criminal 
act, then I do not know what is.
  So I urge my colleagues today to vote for the Child Custody 
Protection Act. A vote for this bill is a vote to respect State law. A 
vote for this bill is a vote to ensure that parents living in those 22 
States get to maintain their right to know about their child's welfare; 
and, most importantly, a vote for this bill is a vote for the safety of 
our children.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Let me just say to my good friend from Texas, Becky Bell is dead. 
Becky Bell is dead because Indiana had a parental consent law, and 
Becky Bell did not have the resources and the nuturing, comforting 
familial situation, a loving family and loving parents, did not have 
the resources to go and get a safe abortion. She is dead.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 
1218, the Child Custody Protection Act which could more appropriately 
be called: The Teen Endangerment Act.
  Specifically, I rise to speak against the criminal sanctions this 
bill would impose on grandmothers, aunts and clergy, responsible adults 
a child might turn to if they feel uncomfortable talking to their 
parents or they have a reason they cannot talk to their parents. This 
law punishes the 1 million American teenagers who become pregnant each 
year, and it punishes the adults who seek to assist these children in 
their time of need.
  Proponents of this bill would say these teens could go to a judge for 
a judicial bypass. To this I say, if they cannot tell their parents, 
how can they tell a judge? Can my colleagues imagine how intimidating 
this would be to a young woman? How would she even know where to find a 
judge?
  The fact is, young women who do not and cannot tell their parents 
have important reasons such as their parents are alcoholics, they are 
emotionally or physically abusive, or the pregnancy is the result of 
incest. If we pass this bill, what do we tell people like Keishawn, an 
11-year-old who was raped by her father? What do we tell the family of 
Becky Bell, who died from an illegal abortion because a State law 
prevented her receiving the help? I know what we can tell Keishawn's 
Aunt Vicky: ``We should have sent you to jail for helping this child.'' 
And we should tell Becky Bell's family: ``We know that a similar law 
killed your child, but we are going to make it Federal anyway.''

                              {time}  1215

  We who oppose this bill encourage young women to involve their 
parents when they face this monumental crisis, when we consider the 
fact that most young people will talk to their parents but then there 
are those who cannot. So if we pass this law, what we are doing is 
making the most difficult decision that a young person would ever have 
to make more painful, more lonely and more difficult for them.
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Bryant).
  (Mr. BRYANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BRYANT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Bachus) for yielding the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank most especially the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) who has brought forth this bill, which I 
think is a very good one. I think it is one that we ought to pass, and 
I urge my colleagues to support it.
  It seems like we can agree on an awful lot of things today. We all 
want more education, better health care for our young people and we all 
want to make sure that there are fewer abortions out there, but yet we 
cannot agree on this, I think, very simple issue.
  Frankly, I have sat here and listened to the debate and I hear a lot 
of talking around in circles and I still cannot understand why we do 
not agree on this amendment.
  We have a problem here. We have State laws that set higher standards 
in some cases than other States on abortions. They require parental 
consent. Right now we have a problem situation where there are older 
people taking school-aged children, girls that are 12, 13, 14 years 
old, across the State lines into those other States and having those 
abortions done, all without parental consent.
  I think for the most part we agree that should not happen, but we are 
hearing this circle talk today that well, maybe in some cases it is 
appropriate that we can take these young teenagers across State lines 
because they are involved in an incestuous relationship.
  Let me get this straight. There is a parent in an incestuous 
relationship with a young girl. So their answer is they want to be able 
to secretly take that young girl across the State line and get an 
abortion and act like nothing happened. They do not go to a parent but 
they go to a trusted friend, an aunt, somebody in the religious area; 
but nothing happens.
  That does not make sense. What should occur in that case is that they 
ought to go to that trusted friend, that grandmother, that aunt and 
then follow the law, follow the process, go to court and get a bypass, 
get a court to approve that, go to a judge that that person would know 
about. If they know enough to get across State lines, they would know 
enough to go to a judge and go in the private chambers, not in public 
court and get that bypass.
  By the way, while there, tell that judge that the father is abusing 
that child in a sexual relationship so that that will not happen again. 
To me, that makes a lot of sense here.
  We hear about grandmothers and aunts and trusted friends going to 
jail. We hear terms like spotlights and roadblocks and back alley 
abortions, things that really are not appropriate to this level in this 
debate, I hope. Those trusted friends, those grandparents and those 
aunts and uncles are protected under this law by that bypass procedure. 
The grandparents, even if they are occupying the status of a parent, if 
they are a guardian or standing in the status of loco parentis under 
the law, they serve as a parent. So a parent is a much broader 
definition than just simply mother and dad. If there is no mother and 
dad, there is the guardian out there that has this ability under the 
law to take that child across State lines to obtain that abortion, if 
that is necessary.
  It just seems to me we agree on most of the issues that we are 
talking about today and it is just this one issue of incest or a parent 
that someone cannot talk to, but the bypass procedure very clearly 
provides a regular order or process to have this done.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

[[Page H5112]]

  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this deceptively 
titled Child Custody Protection Act. This bill pits desperate young 
women against responsible, caring adults. This bill drives young women 
into isolation at a time when they are most in need of help. This bill 
not only violates teens' constitutional rights but also seriously 
endangers their lives.
  The last speaker said that it would not really be true that we would 
have back alley abortions, and people could simply go to a friendly 
judge.
  I submit most of the speakers on the other side of this aisle have 
never stood in the shoes of being a vulnerable and scared young woman 
who is the victim of incest or who is the victim of child abuse. I 
submit that that is a decision that is very, very hard for them and it 
is a decision that has led many young women like Becky Bell, who we 
have heard of, like Spring Adams who we have heard of, and others to go 
to back alley abortions because they are scared.
  We want them to go to trusted adults. We want them to report incest 
and we want that to be prosecuted, but in the meantime we do not want 
to deny safe and legal abortions to young women who for whatever 
reason, we may not even know it, cannot go to the adult. We do not want 
to criminalize bus drivers or grandmothers or others who have 
legitimate reasons for taking these young women across State lines.
  Many of us ran for Congress on platforms of States' rights, and we 
are all in favor of States' rights all the time here in Congress, 
unless, of course, they violate our personal social agendas and then we 
are all for the Federal Government usurping those States' rights.
  This bill is unconstitutional. It removes the rights of States to 
legislate around a safe and legal procedure, and that is abortion. 
Lawrence Tribe, the preeminent legal scholar, has opined that this bill 
is unconstitutional, and here is what he has said. This amounts to a 
statutory attempt to force this most vulnerable class of young women to 
carry the restrictive laws of their home State like the bars of a 
prison that follow them wherever they go. Such a law violates the basic 
premises upon which our Federal system is constructed and therefore 
violates the Constitution of the United States.
  I urge a no vote on this ill-conceived legislation and I urge 
everyone in this chamber not to put their own values and views on these 
vulnerable young women. Have some compassion. Understand some of them 
may not, for whatever reason, be able to go and do what we would all 
hope they would do, which is to talk to their parents and talk to their 
parents before they undertake a decision like this. Please vote no.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 22 minutes remaining. The gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 18\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Graham).
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Canady) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, there was an emotional plea to have some compassion and 
understanding for the young ladies who find themselves in this horrible 
spot. I would also encourage my colleagues to have that same compassion 
and understanding for those young ladies, but also for the parents and 
for the law because the best way to handle hard problems in society is 
to have laws that make some sense and have a procedure.
  Every State law that requires parental notification has a procedure 
to have the young ladies' needs addressed and that people can, in fact, 
go to a judge and seek relief.
  I have stood with victims, I have not been in their shoes, of people 
who have been raped by their parents, who have been abused by their 
parents, and as a prosecutor I felt a real desire and need to prosecute 
those people. As a Congressman, I feel a real desire and need to uphold 
the law where the law has been passed in a duly constitutional fashion.
  What the other side is doing is they do not like parental 
notification statutes. Well, just go back home and lobby the 
legislature. If they do not like the law back home, go home and change 
it; but when a law that is passed by a State that affects a minor's 
interest, whether it is abortion or anything else, do not let people 
conspire, regardless of the family relationship or the business 
interest, to cheat the State out of a law that they duly passed. If we 
do it here, where is it going to stop? Because someone has a view of 
abortion different than the State in question, do not allow people to 
go around and cheat the States out of the laws that were duly passed. 
If one does not like it as a Member of Congress, go home and talk about 
it.
  This statute addresses a real problem. There are ads being run in 
this country to lure people across State lines to perform abortions, 
and they talk about the fact that a person does not have to get 
parental notification. Avoid that State law; go find somebody to bring 
them over here and we will do something that the State has a different 
view of across the border.
  For those of us in Congress who really do respect the role of the 
States and really do respect State rights and parental rights, we need 
to come to the aid of the people who find themselves in this dilemma. 
What good does it do for a State legislature to pass a law if people 
can avoid it and Congress remains silent?
  Stand up for people who are trying to follow the law.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) for yielding me this time, and also for her consistent 
leadership on behalf of America's families.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1218. This bill, as 
we have heard, makes it a Federal crime for anyone, other than a parent 
or a guardian, to transport a minor across State lines. This is another 
attempt to limit the choices available to young people in crises. This 
bill closes doors rather than opens doors of opportunities for young 
people and their families, a general support system.
  Also, it closes the opportunity to consider possible options. Of 
course it makes sense for a child, a girl, to consult with her parents 
about something as momentous as sexual activity and the surprising 
pregnancy that sometimes follows. In States that have no mandatory 
parental involvement, 60 percent of the parents know about their 
daughters pregnancy. We could only wish that all parents had the trust 
of their children and that the remaining 40 percent could turn to their 
parents for counsel. However, we know that sadly not all children feel 
that they can safely turn to a parent, especially where sexual activity 
is concerned.
  Many young girls are being raised by their grandparents, their aunts 
and their uncles. Why should we criminalize extended family members or 
members of the clergy or a trusted adult when they try to help young 
women facing crisis pregnancies? Under this legislation, grandparents, 
aunts and uncles and members of the clergy could be prosecuted and 
jailed for traveling across State lines to obtain reproductive health 
services for young women. This is wrong.
  The fact is, many young girls do not have a mother or a father at 
home to talk to. Those who support this bill do not value extended 
families which so many girls are part of. Why do the supporters of this 
bill feel that it is right to discriminate against such a large number 
of young girls in this country?
  It is amazing to me that the majority of those speaking on behalf of 
this bill are men who really do not have the experience of a young 
girl's trauma.
  This legislation really does limit reasonable options. It would force 
young people in a period of turmoil, with the clock relentlessly 
ticking, to turn to illegal or self-induced abortions or to pretend or 
wish away their pregnancies with sometimes horrendous results, as we 
constantly learn from news reports.
  So I urge my colleagues not to legislate relationships, not to 
legislate personal behavior. Please vote against this Child Custody 
Protection Act. It is bad policy and it is discriminatory.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

[[Page H5113]]

  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Bachus) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all struggling to do the right thing, and we are 
confronted with a case where we have a 14- or a 15-year-old girl. She 
is pregnant, unwanted pregnancy, as she would say, as we would say, and 
she is considering an abortion.
  Who do we involve? Well, the First Lady of the United States has said 
it takes a village to raise these young ladies. But do we go out and 
choose anyone in the village? That is what the critics seem to be 
saying: Anyone will do. It does not have to be the parents. It can just 
be anyone that happens along.
  We have heard that a compassionate bus driver might be the person.

                              {time}  1230

  We have been told that the grandmother is usually the person. We are 
told about these aunts. But in fact, who is this so-called trusting 
adult that is taking this young 14- or 15-year-old girl across lines? 
What member of the village is it that we are substituting for the 
parent and their involvement and their love?
  Quite simply, it is the boyfriend. We do not have to speculate on 
that. The Department of Health and Human Services reported to this very 
Congress in 1995 and said in two-thirds of the cases when 15- and 16-
year-old girls are pregnant it is a male adult, and the medium age of 
that male adult is 22 years old. It is not the grandmother that is 
impregnating them, it is not the loving aunt, and it is not the 
compassionate priest, it is the boyfriend.
  There is a study of 46,000 schoolchildren in California. Two-thirds 
of them were impregnated by adults; again, average age 22. Let me tell 
the Members what that study said. It said the differences in ages 
between the young girl and the father who impregnated her at the very 
least suggest very different life experiences, and bring into question 
issues of pressure and abuse.
  Another study a year earlier said, ``Obviously, these males are 
vulnerable to statutory rape charges and have a strong incentive to 
pressure the young girl into obtaining an abortion.'' That is what the 
California study said. That is what our own Health and Human Services 
study said. It is not about the grandmother, it is about the boyfriend.
  Finally, the study said that 58 percent of these so-called trusting 
adults who we are all concerned about today, 58 percent of them who 
take the young girl across State lines, who are they? Who in the 
village are they? They are the boyfriend. We have a choice to make. Do 
we choose the parents or the boyfriend?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a senior member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. NADLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I do not for one moment grant what one of 
the speakers said a few moments ago, that we are agreed on most things, 
that we are only disagreeing on incest. I do not grant that the real 
purpose of this bill is to help anybody.
  The real purpose of this bill is to make it as difficult as possible 
for young women to get an abortion. The real purpose is to make it as 
impossible for young women to exercise their legal rights as we can 
possibly make it. That is the real motivation. It is what is driving 
this bill, and not any supposed concern about parental involvement.
  As the New York Times this morning said, the bill is ``a cold-hearted 
piece of legislation that would jeopardize the health of desperate 
young women seeking abortions, and potentially imprison adults who help 
them.'' Realize what this bill would do. A 19-year-old sister who 
helped her 17-year-old sister to an abortion clinic or to a hospital 
across the State line could go to jail.
  The bill is clearly unconstitutional because it violates the 
constitutional principles of federalism. The bill violates the rights 
of States to enact and enforce their own laws governing conduct within 
their own boundaries, and it violates the rights of residents of each 
of the United States to travel to and from any State of the Union for 
lawful purposes, a right strongly reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 
its recent landmark decision in Saenz versus Roe only last month.
  The fact of the matter is that each State is free, notwithstanding 
Article IV, to make certain benefits available to its own citizens. A 
State's criminal laws may not be replaced with stricter ones for the 
visiting citizen from another State, whether by that State's own choice 
or by virtue of the law of the visitor State, or by virtue of a 
congressional enactment.
  This bill seeks to export the laws of one State to another. We cannot 
constitutionally make it a crime to do something that is legal in the 
State where you do it because it is illegal in a different State.
  I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) will cite a 1978 cases 
in which a Mann Act prosecution for transporting a woman across State 
lines for the purpose of prostitution was upheld, despite the fact that 
prostitution is legal in the State to which she was transported.
  But all that case says is that of course there can be a Federal law 
and a Federal crime without a State law. The Federal government can 
prosecute a spy in New Jersey, even if New Jersey has no laws against 
espionage.
  But this bill is very different. It would only be a crime to 
transport a young woman to another State for the purpose of obtaining 
an abortion if she had not met the legal requirements to get an 
abortion in her own State, in the State she left. In other words, the 
bill would, in effect, for purposes of abortion, imprison her within 
the laws of the State that she left, and this we cannot 
constitutionally do.
  So the bill is clearly unconstitutional, and the bill is cruel. It 
would force a young woman to drive by herself for long distances both 
before and after an abortion, greatly increasing her own health risks, 
rather than allow a responsible adult to accompany her to and from the 
clinic. This is dangerous, it is unnecessary, it will cause deaths.
  The American Medical Association has noted that women who feel they 
cannot involve a parent often take drastic steps to maintain the 
confidentiality of their pregnancies, including running away from home, 
obtaining unsafe back alley abortions, or resorting to dangerous and 
sometimes fatal self-induced abortions.
  The AMA has reported that ``the desire to maintain secrecy has been 
one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths since 1973.'' 
This bill is a death sentence for many young women. Actually, it is 
not, because the Supreme Court will throw it out. But if it were ever 
enacted into law, until the Supreme Court throws it out, it is a death 
sentence for young women. Like all parental consent laws and required 
waiting period laws, the bill further risks women's health because of 
delayed abortions. We should be taking actions to ensure that abortions 
are as safe as possible, rather than delaying it to make it as 
difficult as possible.
  The bill also invites family members to sue one another for damages. 
Who gets to sue? Parents, even parents who have been abusive or have 
abandoned their children; fathers who have raped their daughters are 
allow to sued for damages from the prison cell. Whom can they sue? The 
bill entitles parents to sue doctors, clinics, relatives.
  The litigation could bankrupt clinics just by the discovery process, 
which I am sure delights the supporters of this bill. If the intent is 
only to sue the transporter, the bill should be amended to say so.
  What about the criminal penalties? The bill would force a grandmother 
to go to jail for coming to the aid of a grandchild, or a 19-year-old 
sister for coming to the aid of her 17-year-old sister.
  I offered an amendment which would exempt grandparents and adult 
brothers and sisters of the minors, but the Committee on Rules would 
not even allow the amendment to be considered on the floor. It would 
criminalize almost any adult relative of a child who tries to help a 
young women.
  Proponents of the bill ignore these concerns and wave around a 
judicial bypass as a panacea, but we know the judicial bypass option of 
many parental consent laws have been ineffective. Again, my amendment 
to improve this bill by allowing individuals subject to prosecution to 
appeal to a Federal court

[[Page H5114]]

for a judicial bypass was blocked from consideration by the Committee 
on Rules.
  We know that many local judges refused to hold hearings or are widely 
known to be anti-choice, and refuse to grant bypasses, despite rulings 
of the Supreme Court that they cannot withhold the bypass.
  This bill further limits the options of young women who, for whatever 
reason, cannot obtain parental consent. Mr. Speaker, I urge my 
colleagues to reject this unconstitutional and cruel bill.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank my good friend for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for this excellent human rights pro-woman pro-family 
legislation, and thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the 
chairman of the subcommittee, for his expert guiding of this 
legislation through committee and for his commitment.
  Mr. Speaker, a majority of Americans now more fully understand that 
abortion is violence against children, that it is a horrible 
dismemberment or perhaps poisoning, one of the other methods frequently 
employed. It is an execution of children before birth. Americans want 
it stopped. The polls clearly show that.
  A recent survey by the Center for Reproductive Gender Equality, which 
is run by Faye Wattleton, the former president of Planned Parenthood, 
found that 70 percent of women want more restrictions on abortion; just 
women, that was their only universe, their only population polled, 70 
percent want more restrictions.
  A recent CNN-Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans want most 
abortions made illegal. That is not what we are dealing with today, but 
a majority of Americans want to protect the lives of unborn children 
from this violence, dismemberment, poisoning, and partial birth 
abortion.
  In 1998 in the New York Times a survey was issued on point on what we 
are talking about today, parental consent. This would apply, of course, 
and provide integrity for the laws of States on both parental 
notification and parental consent, but on parental consent, the 
stronger of the two, it found that a whopping 78 percent of Americans 
want parental consent laws in their States.
  I think Americans adopt a reasonable standard when they say and when 
they report back with this. They understand that this legislation is 
very, very reasonable. Secretly transporting teenagers across State 
lines to procure abortions in a State with no parental notification or 
consent compounds the violence of abortion by exploiting the vulnerable 
minor.
  Mr. Speaker, when the partial birth abortion ban was debated in the 
last few years, many pro-abortion organizations said there were ``fewer 
than 500 partial birth abortions per year in the entire country.'' We 
now know that was an outright lie. It was repeated on this floor by one 
speaker after another. We know it is a lie now.
  That statement, like other statements, was proven to be false, and 
interestingly, it was a New Jersey newspaper, the Bergen Record, which 
has a very strong editorial slant in favor of abortion, that broke the 
story that one clinic, Metropolitan Medical Associates in Engelwood, 
did about 1,500 partial birth abortions every year. That is three times 
the number in the entire country in this one clinic.
  Now we also know that Metropolitan Medical Associates and other 
abortion mills in New Jersey advertise and market their business in 
Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and use the fact that until just a couple 
of days ago, and that has changed, thankfully, we just got a parental 
notification law in New Jersey, but for many years they used the fact 
that we did not have such a thing to say, look, young teenagers, come 
across the State line and get your secret abortion.
  If Members look at this ad, abortions up to 24 weeks on demand, these 
are not rape abortions, these are on demand, because the baby is 
construed to be unwanted. These ads are telling young teens, we can end 
your baby's life and your parents need never know. It is a secret 
abortion.
  What happens when the complications set in, Mr. Speaker? There is a 
group called Mothers Against Minors' Abortions. It is not unlike MADD, 
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a group of women who have come together 
to say, enough is enough. We need to protect our daughters from those 
who would exploit, this so-called trusted adult who can exploit their 
young daughter.
  A woman by the name of Eileen Roberts who testified, and perhaps 
members of the committee might remember her testimony, pointed out 
that, and this is her quote, ``Wondering why my daughter had become 
depressed, over the next 2 weeks my husband and I thought perhaps her 
boyfriend had introduced her to drugs, so we searched for answers.'' 
She goes on to say, ``Words cannot adequately communicate the Orwellian 
nightmare of discovering that your child has undergone an abortion.''
  She said her daughter was depressed, and there were all kinds of 
consequences. Interestingly enough, as she points out in her testimony, 
when she went to get reparative surgery because of what happened in 
this legal abortion, but there were complications, she had to sign on 
the bottom line and give her permission. But when the baby was 
destroyed and when this intrusive surgery was done, she did not have to 
give either her consent and she was not notified.
  She asked no more secret abortions in her testimony. This legislation 
again does not impose, although perhaps it should, but it does not, a 
nationwide or Federal parental notification or consent. It just 
preserves the integrity of those State laws that say we want to protect 
our children from the exploitation of those who would do them harm. 
Please vote in favor of this legislation. Again I want to thank the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her courageous 
leadership in offering this bill today.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a 
member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to 
me.
  A 15-year-old pregnant girl, perhaps with no parents to care for her, 
perhaps even worse, parents that harm her, what crime has she 
committed? Why do we seek to punish her more by making a criminal out 
of someone that would try to help that girl? She is already a victim, 
and this bill would victimize her a second time.
  I understand the passion of my colleagues, and the previous speaker 
in particular, in their opposition to abortion. But what purpose do we 
serve by forcing an exquisitely lonely young girl to go it alone? What 
is the political gain that my colleagues see in forcing her into an 
unsafe abortion? What crime has she committed that is so egregious that 
she would then be forced to turn away or not turn to someone that might 
help her?
  As we posture about our love and respect for America's parents, I 
would hope in our zeal we are tempered a little bit by love and 
understanding for the young victims that we also represent.

                              {time}  1245

  I do not ask my colleagues, any of my colleagues, who oppose a 
woman's right to choose to abandon their principles. But I do wish that 
supporters of this measure would not use the plight of the most 
helpless to make their points.
  I dare say that no one who speaks today and perhaps no one in this 
Chamber wants there to be even a single abortion. But this bill, all it 
does is make sure that someone who is in that unfortunate position is 
forced to be in that position all alone.
  Some who have spoken here today have said, oh, this is an issue of 
federalism; this is an issue of due process; this is an issue of 
respect for local courts. But someone in a position faced with these 
excruciating choices, is it not also an issue of compassion? Should we 
not also remember that?
  Why do my colleagues insist on mocking the idea that perhaps a 
grandmother is a person who can show great love for that victim? Why do 
we scoff at the notion that all families are not like those we are 
blessed to come from? Why do we celebrate our churches, our

[[Page H5115]]

synagogues, and our mosques, yet we would make criminals out of a 
pastor who would help a young victim?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this measure.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 1218. I have listened to this type of testimony for a long, long 
time. I rise without any ill will toward those who differ with me.
  I have heard testimony on abortion for the last 50 years. I started 
my public service in 1951. I have listened to fathers, and I have 
listened to mothers. I have listened to girls in trouble, to pastors. I 
have listened to medical testimony.
  I am not among those who want to push anybody off on a sidewalk or 
fire on anyone who is trying to enter into an abortion clinic. I hope I 
am not a part of the far right or the far left. I believe I am a part 
of what they might call the far middle, because the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith) testified from the record that 78 percent of the 
people want parental rights. I have listened to all that testimony.
  I voted many, many times. While I have compassion for those who 
differ with me, I come down on the side of life. I can come down on no 
other side. By voting in favor of this bill, I think I am not just 
voting to protect young women. I think I am voting in support of 
States' rights, and I am voting in support of parental rights.
  All of us want the best for our children. We want to help them make 
very difficult decisions. We want to be there to support them through 
this process. This bill allows parents to be a part of that very trying 
time physically and emotionally by enforcing State laws which require 
parental involvement in a decision bearing serious consequences for our 
daughters.
  In a time when our children cannot even, as has been testified to 
here time and time again, so much as even receive an asprin at school 
without parental permission, it certainly seems illogical to allow our 
minor daughters to travel across State lines to have an illegal 
abortion.
  This bill gives us the chance to tell our daughters that we care 
about their health and well-being and we want to prevent other adults 
from taking our place.
  I thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her 
leadership, and I am pleased to vote in support of States, of our 
parents, and of our children.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), a long-time 
advocate for protecting children.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas for yielding me this time and for her leadership on the 
Children's Caucus and so many other important issues.
  This bill sounds like a good idea. In an ideal world, parents would 
always be the first person that teenagers would go to with their 
problems. But, unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Some 
parents abuse their kids. Some parents kick them out of the house. Some 
parents are not capable of taking care of their own children.
  This bill is not about protecting young women. It is about antichoice 
politics. I would like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 
121st vote against a woman's right to choose since the beginning of the 
Republican-led 104th Congress. I have documented each and every one of 
those antichoice votes in a Choice Report which is available on my web 
site.
  The Republican-led Congress has acted again and again to eliminate 
the right to choose, procedure by procedure, restriction by 
restriction. Today we are debating a bill to criminalize the act of 
taking a minor across State lines for an abortion without parental 
consent if the State in which the person resides requires it.
  As the mother of two daughters, I know that this is not a simple 
issue. Of course, I would hope that my daughters would include me in 
making such an important decision. Unfortunately, many young women do 
not live in normal families. They are in severely dysfunctional 
families.
  I would hope that any young woman who refuses or cannot involve her 
parents would have another trusted adult from whom to seek guidance and 
support. However, this bill would make criminals out of such adults. It 
would make criminals out of loving grandparents, siblings, counselors, 
friends, aunts and uncles who have nothing but the safety and well-
being of the young woman in mind.
  If a young woman refuses to involve her family and the law prohibits 
her from looking to another responsible adult for support, then 
essential parental support and adult support is stripped away from this 
young person.
  This bill does not protect young women from undue influence. On the 
contrary, it strips them of essential support. This bill is not about 
protecting our young women. It is driven solely by the divisive nature 
of abortion politics.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill and put the safety and well-
being of America's young women before the political agenda of 
antichoice legislators. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  It sure sounds like a good idea. In an ideal world, parents would 
always be the first person their teenagers would go to with their 
problems.
  Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world.
  Unfortunately, some parents abuse their kids.
  Unfortunately, some parents kick their kids out of the home.
  Unfortunately, some parents are not capable of taking care of their 
kids.
  I'd like to put this vote in perspective. This is the 121st vote on 
choice since the beginning of the 104th Republican Congress.
  I have documented each of these votes in a Choice Report, which is 
available on my website: www.house.gov/maloney/choicereport.htm
  Congress has acted again and again to eliminate procedure by 
procedure, restriction by restriction.
  I find it particularly ironic that at the same time when some are 
trying to restrict access to contraception for young people through 
Title X--which will prevent unwanted pregnancies--they are also 
restricting access to abortion.
  Today we are debating a bill to criminalize the act taking a minor 
across state lines for an abortion without parental consent, if the 
state in which the person resides requires it.
  As a mother of two daughters, I know that this is not a simple issue. 
Of course, I would hope that my children would include me when making 
such an important decision.
  Unfortunately, many teens live in severely dysfunctional families.
  I would hope that any young women who refuses to involve her parents 
would have another trusted adult from which to seek guidance and 
support.
  However, this bill will make criminals of those loving grandparents, 
siblings, counselors and friends who have nothing but the safety and 
well-being of the young woman in mind.
  It sends the message to young women that an abortion is something 
they must go through alone.
  This is a dangerous bill, and should perhaps be called the Teen 
Endangerment Act.
  It will succeed only in making it more difficult for a young woman to 
get a safe, legal abortion. If she refuses to involve her family and 
the law prohibits her from looking to another responsible adult for 
help, then essential support is not there.
  This is also an unnecessary bill. For those who worry about young 
women being forced or coerced by an adult into having an abortion 
against their will, let me remind them that we already have laws, such 
as informed consent laws or prohibitions against kidnaping and 
statutory rape, which protect against this.
  This bill doesn't protect young women from undue influence. On the 
contrary, it strips them of essential support.
  This bill is not about protecting our young women. It is driven 
solely by the divisive nature of abortion politics. I urge you to 
oppose this bill and put the safety and well-being of America's young 
women before the political agenda of anti-choice legislators.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1218, 
the Child Custody Protection Act. I would like to add my voice of 
thanks to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her 
excellent leadership on the issue and to the gentleman from

[[Page H5116]]

Florida (Mr. Canady) for his strong work on the subcommittee and for 
yielding me this time.
  Involving parents in a child's life is crucial in the healthy 
development of a child. Sometimes, however, a decision comes up in a 
child's life that seems too large for that child to handle. Sometimes 
it seems like no one, not even parents, would be a good person to help 
with their decision. Whether it is a problem at school, with friends or 
even the complicated decisions surrounding an abortion, children, I 
acknowledge, sometimes feel that relatives, even parents, cannot be 
relied upon.
  But the fact is the parents are often, if not always, the best place 
to turn for a child in times of crisis. Parents loving and nurturing is 
complemented by their wisdom and their experience. This bill simply 
ensures that State laws requiring parental involvement will continue 
and that no one will be able to short-circuit or circumvent the 
productive and healthy system of communication that these laws lay out 
between the parent and their child.
  Because of what this bill represents and protects at its core, a 
strong family bond, I am proud to stand up here today and show my 
support for the Child Custody Protection Act.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill on its merits, and I again 
thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for introducing 
this bill and showing America how important the family bond really must 
be.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding 
me this time.
  Most teenagers do involve their parents when making major life 
decisions like the one we debate today. However, in situations where 
the young woman cannot share her decision with a parent, she should not 
be isolated from other sources of counsel and support. Whether it is a 
grandparent, clergy member, or some other trusted adult, young women 
are better served by talking through the decision and having someone to 
lean on rather than being all alone.
  While most young women do involve a parent in their decision, not 
every young woman has that choice. Whether a parent is absent or 
abusive or worse, we know that not every family is a model family.
  This law would endanger some young women who have the misfortune of 
difficult family circumstance. This law would make criminals out of 
people whose only crime is to help a young person in distress. H.R. 
1218 isolates young women, puts them at risk, and restricts access to 
reproductive choice.
  Let us stop building walls and barriers around our children and let 
us start having a real discussion about how we can best nurture them, 
educate them, and raise them to be responsible and productive citizens.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I inquire once again of the Chair 
concerning the amount of time remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Canady) has 8\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia).
  Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1218, the Child Custody 
Protection Act.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) 
for her tireless efforts to bring this important legislative effort to 
the floor for consideration.
  In light of all that has happened over the past few months, our 
Nation has had a growing concern about the moral fabric of our society. 
We have felt an increasing need to do everything that we can to protect 
our children, as they are our most precious resource. We must provide 
them with a safe environment so that they may thrive as they move into 
adulthood.
  One of life's harsh realities is that some young women become 
pregnant at too early an age. H.R. 1218 does not terminate a person's 
right to an abortion but does provide important protections for young 
children who become pregnant.
  This legislation will make it illegal for any person to transport a 
minor across State lines to obtain an abortion without first consulting 
a parent or a judge. It will make it a Federal crime if an individual 
knowingly circumvents the laws of their State to seek an abortion for 
any mother under the age of 17.
  It is most often an older male who preys on a young girl, impregnates 
her, and then takes her illegally across State lines to have an 
abortion without the knowledge and consent of the parents. We should 
all find this manipulative behavior disgusting and disheartening.
  Not only is this a crime for an older male to be sexually active with 
a young girl, but it can be dangerous for that child to receive an 
abortion. Only a parent knows that child's health history, including 
allergies to medication. A parent should be informed, and the older 
male should be prosecuted.
  Laws in an increasing number of States, now numbering more than 20, 
including my home State of Michigan, require parental notification or 
consent by at least one parent or authorization by a judge before an 
abortion can be performed.
  This legislation will not mandate parental consent in the States 
which do not currently have parental consent laws but will protect 
those in States which do require parental consent.
  Many of my colleagues are concerned that this bill will prohibit 
young girls from confiding in a close family member or a friend if they 
feel they cannot talk to their parents. This is absolutely wrong. There 
is a provision in the legislature which will allow a judge to relieve 
the parental notification requirement in certain circumstances. I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1218.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  (Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 121, the 
Child Custody Protection Act. Let me tell my colleagues a story about a 
functional family, in many ways a picture-perfect family.
  A few years ago, I had lunch with Karen and Bill Bell, who had a 17-
year-old daughter named Becky, and a son that lived in a suburb. They 
had a wonderful life, they were a close family, and they supported, 
Bill and Karen did, parental notification requirements. That is until 
Becky lay dying in the hospital.
  As Karen sat next to her, holding her hand, she said, ``Becky, tell 
mommy what happened.'' Well, what happened to Becky is that she had an 
illegal abortion in a State that required parental notification, and 
she did not want to disappoint her loving parents.
  Bill and Karen took a year out of their lives and went State to State 
to try to oppose parental notification laws. Not because they do not 
want close families but because they do not want young women like 
Becky, beautiful young women with their full lives ahead of them, to 
die.
  And so I submit to my colleagues, who in all good faith support this 
legislation, that the consequences of this law will be that young women 
will die. It will be women from dysfunctional families and women from 
middle class and functional families alike, young women who have their 
entire lives ahead of them, and I would suggest that this should be 
soundly defeated.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding me this time and I wish to add my voice of congratulations to 
the others for the good work of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen).
  Mr. Speaker, there are lots of reasons to support this legislation. 
Let me focus on just two. Number one, it reinforces existing State 
laws; number two, it helps parents play a more active role in their 
children's lives.
  More than 20 States have laws requiring the consent of one parent 
before a minor can have an abortion. Nonetheless, too many 
organizations and too

[[Page H5117]]

many businesses seek to avoid those laws. Now, each speaker today has 
been talking about his or her own experience back in their home State. 
Every one of those speakers should support this bill because this bill 
reinforces the laws back in their home State.
  Let us also be very clear about something. This bill does not punish 
a grandparent or an aunt if a pregnant child turns to them for 
counseling or support. It does, it does, when that adult seeks to evade 
the existing law of their home State.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we all understand how great the need is for the 
other goal of this bill, helping parents to be more actively involved 
in their children's lives. This bill does so by reinforcing State 
requirements of parental consent. And I know my colleagues have heard 
it before, but it is worth repeating. Under current law it is easier 
for a child to get an abortion than it is for that child to get an 
aspirin.
  Today, children need a parental consent waiver to attend a field 
trip, to join the basketball team or to get an aspirin. For goodness 
sakes, why should a child not be required to receive parental consent 
before they undergo major surgery for abortion?
  Once again I want to congratulate and thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida for her work. We need to allow parents to have this opportunity 
to parent their children.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of 
debate about the merits or lack of merits of abortions. I want to turn 
the attention of the Members to another issue, and that is the legal 
issue that resulted in this matter coming to the Committee on the 
Judiciary, not the policy issue of abortion versus nonabortion. We deal 
with legal issues in the Committee on the Judiciary, and I would submit 
to this body that this is an unprecedented legal maneuver that is 
taking place here.
  There are a number of States that allow lotteries, but we do not 
prosecute somebody who goes from a State that does not allow a lottery 
to a State that does allow a lottery for doing that. There are a number 
of States that allow gambling. We do not prosecute a person that goes 
from one State that does not allow gambling to a State that allows 
gambling to engage in that legal activity in that particular State. 
This proposal would prosecute somebody for going to a State to engage 
in conduct that is legal in that State.
  So I do not think we need to be misled about this protection of 
States' rights. The States' rights that the proponents of this 
legislation are protecting are the rights of the States who have 
parental consent laws, not the rights of the States who do not have 
parental consent laws. We ought to be free to exercise the legal rights 
in the State in which those rights are available.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).
  Mr. TANCREDO. Mr. Speaker, the opponents of this bill, I have heard 
often during the debate on this particular piece of legislation, refer 
to the procedure that we call abortion as being both safe and legal. I 
have heard this now two or three times. It is indeed legal, but it is 
anything but safe, for inevitably in this procedure one person ends up 
dead and another oftentimes wounded emotionally and/or physically 
harmed. It is anything but a safe procedure.
  It is for that reason that I rise in support of the Child Custody and 
Protection Act and in support of the rights of parents across this 
country. Because these decisions that a girl will make in this regard 
will live with her for the rest of her life and they are the ones with 
which parents should be involved.
  Just 2 weeks ago, we stood in this chamber talking about the 
importance of family and the need for parents to play a greater role in 
the lives of their children. A vote for this bill today is a step in 
that direction.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleagues what 
we are talking about are young girls, young girls in trouble, young 
girls who are unmarried, young girls who invariably, according to the 
statistics, have been impregnated by older men exploiting them. We are 
talking about situations that are not common. It is common for parents 
to be responsible, to be nurturing, not to be punitive, but that is not 
always the case.
  I do not think we should be legislating morals when we do not know 
the individual circumstances that may apply. I think we should leave 
this to the States. We should not have legislation that is as punitive 
as this. I think it is regressive, and I would hope we would vote 
against it.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this minute to talk 
about two things that are very near and dear to my heart, child 
protection and parental rights. As a mother of two sons, I think I know 
a lot about both of those things.
  This bill and those issues come together on the floor of the United 
States House today in the form of the Child Custody Protection Act.
  I think it is a frightening reality that thousands of adults of every 
year take minor girls across State lines for the purpose of getting an 
abortion, in secret, behind the backs of their parents, in direct 
violation of parental involvement laws of a minor girl's home State.
  Eighty-five percent of Americans agree it is wrong to take a minor 
across State lines for an abortion without their parents' knowledge. No 
one, not friends, not relatives, not a counselor at a clinic should be 
allowed to take our children across State lines for an abortion.
  Let us support laws that bring families together, not tear them 
apart. We must do what the American people want and what is best for 
our children, and that is pass the Child Custody and Protection Act.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to clear up any misconceptions. This bill is not 
about partial birth abortions, this bill is not about advertising of 
unscrupulous abortion clinics or anyone else. This bill is about 
endangering the lives of teenagers, teenagers who may be suffering from 
a different kind of family life than most of us would like.
  My colleagues on the other side kept using the example that we seek 
parental consent forms to take aspirin in schools. I beg to differ with 
them. We seek consent forms. Grandmothers and aunts and those who may 
have custody of the child can do so. And when I say custody, I am 
stretching the word. It may not be a legal term.
  This act, perceived to be protecting a child, endangers a young 
woman's life, because it denies her the opportunity for a nurturing 
person to help her make a terribly important decision.
  This country's laws give us the right to choose. This endangers the 
lives of young women just because they are teenagers. It eliminates the 
privacy right. It throws them into a courtroom that is cold and 
impersonal. And if they cannot tell their parents and they cannot tell 
others, how can they go into a courtroom and ask for a waiver.
  I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that we not politicize this issue; that we 
think about the lives of our children; and that we stand for educating 
young women; we stand for stopping the numbers of abortions in young 
women by educating them and preparing them for adult life; and we stand 
away from this kind of legislation that endangers the lives of innocent 
young women who seek only, seek only, to be able to live their lives 
and to not continue the mistake that they may have thought that they 
have made and they do that seeking the nurturing and loving and caring 
attitudes of those who may want to help them.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Canady) for his leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, my 13-year-old daughter had a slight head wound that 
required

[[Page H5118]]

stitches. My husband and I were in D.C., so my parents took Amanda to 
the hospital. But because the injury was not life-threatening, the 
hospital refused to give her stitches until Dexter and I gave 
permission. Yet, incredibly enough, Amanda could be taken to another 
State and undergo an abortion without my husband and me knowing about 
it. Would the abortionist know what medicines Amanda is allergic to? Of 
course not. Parents know, parents can help.
  Mr. Speaker, let us take a moment to ponder on the infamous Joyce 
Farley case. Let us remember the way in which her underage daughter was 
taken advantage of and raped. Let us not forget about the pain and the 
suffering she endured, the severe complications, the bleeding, the 
multiple hospital visits and the astronomical medical bills that her 
parents were forced to pay, all because one stranger, the mother of the 
rapist, who is now a litigant in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 
thought that she could take the life of Joyce Farley's daughter into 
her own hands.
  Joyce's 12-year-old was raped then later driven to another State by 
the rapist's mother. She underwent a botched abortion and was dropped 
off 30 miles from her home. And, of course, she had to have another 
hospital visit to correct the damage done by the abortionist.
  Cases such as Joyce Farley's must not be repeated. Now more than ever 
it is evident that children need their parents. Society needs to do 
everything within our power to help parents assume responsibility for 
our children. We need to try to secure the right of parents to become 
involved in the lives of our children and to help them, not to pull 
families apart.
  The opponents of this legislation have sought ways in which to defy 
this child-parent relationship. They have tried to place grandparents, 
brothers, sisters on par with the parents. But let me ask my 
colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what well-meaning sweet old grandmother would 
not feel the need to let a child's parent know? What well-meaning 
minister would drive a child to an abortion clinic and advise the child 
to keep the pregnancy and the abortion a secret from her parent?
  Mr. Speaker, the American people have expressed support for more 
parental involvement. They support a parent's right to know, and they 
support the Child Custody Protection Act.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of The 
Child Custody Protection Act. This bill will help to enforce parental 
involvement laws that are implemented to protect the physical and 
emotional health of children.
  Parents know their child's medical history, as well as other health 
factors that a minor child might not even know about themselves. When 
parents aren't involved in major medical decisions, such as abortion, 
risks to the minor's health increase dramatically. In fact, in it's 
H.L. versus Matheson decision (1981), the Supreme Court expressed it's 
concern that abortion can be harmful to minors, ``The medical, 
emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious 
and can be lasting; this is particularly so when the patient is 
immature.''
  Why in the world would we not want parents to be involved in these 
decisions? Parents have to sign permission slips for their kids to go 
on field trips at school, and they have to sign a medical slop that 
allows them to take over the counter medication at school. But abortion 
advocates would have you believe that parents shouldn't have to sign 
off on major decisions like abortion. That just doesn't make sense.
  This bill does not in any way require states to create new parental 
consent or notification laws, nor does it interfere with existing state 
laws regarding abortions for minors.
  This bill would make it a federal misdemeanor to transport a minor 
across a state line for an abortion, if that action circumvents state 
law requiring parental or judicial involvement in that minor child's 
abortion decision. This legislation ensures the rights of parents, 
protects the health of minors, and enforces state law.
  Mr. PACKARD. Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend my strong support 
for H.R. 1218, The Child Custody Protection Act. As a father of seven 
and a grandfather to 34, the thought of a stranger taking one of my 
grandchildren to another state to receive an abortion absolutely 
sickens me.
  The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a federal offense for 
someone who is not the parent or guardian, to knowingly transport a 
minor across state lines so that she can receive an abortion.
  H.R. 1218 is plainly an issue of parental knowledge and state laws. 
It is alarming to think that our children are required to receive 
parental consent to take aspirin at school, yet a stranger can make 
critical decisions about their health and well-being.
  Mr. Speaker, more than twenty states currently require parental 
consent or notification as a precondition to receive an abortion. In 
supporting this legislation we are respecting state rights, and 
upholding the family relationship as the center for moral values and 
guidance. I urge all my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of the Transportation 
Committee, I am concerned about the broad impact H.R. 1218 could have 
on our citizens' right to travel safely. We are considering taking away 
the right of young women to move freely between states with family or 
friends to seek legal medical care.
  Now, suppose citizens were locked into the laws of their home state 
as they travel across country. This would mean that the speed limits, 
marriage regulations, restrictions on adoption, and all other controls 
over behavior would in fact follow the citizens.
  This would be absurd. In fact, the premise of ``federalism,'' is our 
entitlement to travel and be subject to the laws of the state we are 
in.
  The principles of this bill obliterate that right. The strict 
provisions--with no exceptions for travel with family or clergy--
discourage free interstate travel and subject young women to perilous 
travel alone. This violates our federal system, is unconstititional, 
and frankly, unacceptable.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1218. There 
is nothing more important in parent-child relationships than for 
parents to be involved in the healthcare decisions of their children.
  The basic parental right and responsibility is perhaps most critical 
in the case of pregnancies of young woman.
  In most American homes, no one cares more about the welfare, health, 
and safety of a child than her parents.
  Although a young woman may be frightened or feel or ashamed to share 
with her parents, parents are usually best able to provide support for 
these most personal decisions.
  Unfortunately, not all young women are able to confide in their 
parents should they become pregnant. A victim of family violence or 
incest is often not in a position to share her pregnancy with her 
parents for fear of further abuse.
  This bill, although laudable for its intention to encourage 
communication between parents and children, does not provide 
alternatives for a young woman who is unable, for fear of physical or 
emotional abuse, to involve her parents in her decision.
  In addition, the bill would criminalize the actions of close family 
members who might seek to assist a young woman who is struggling with 
this monumental decision. For troubled American households, 
grandparents, estranged parents, aunts, uncles, or siblings often serve 
in the parental role.
  The bill unfortunately does not make provisions for such 
circumstances. In fact, it may put these young women in a more 
dangerous situation should they feel compelled to turn to illicit 
providers of abortion services or travel alone.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the need for more parental involvement in 
their children's lives, but for these reasons, I must vote ``no'' on 
H.R. 1218.
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to give my support to 
the Child Custody Protection Act and I commend Representative Ros-
Lehtinen for working so diligently to protect children and the rights 
of their parents.
  Today we live in a nation bitterly divided over the debate of 
abortion. As horrifying as abortion is, this bill really deals with 
another issue, that of States rights. Two weeks ago, you joined me to 
pass the Ten Commandants Defense Act, another piece of legislation 
securing the rights of States to establish their own laws. Both of 
these pieces of legislation protect the Tenth Amendment of States 
rights.
  Representative Ros-Lehtinen's act argues that citizens and businesses 
of one state should respect the laws of another state. If the people of 
Alabama have voted for the rights of the parents to know if their 
children want an abortion, this is the law within the borders of 
Alabama. No one, not even a well-meaning friend, has the right to break 
this law by taking a child away from their home and into another state 
for what could be the most terrifying and traumatic experience of their 
life.
  Abortion clinics are enticing people to break the law by advertising 
in the phone books of neighboring states with parental notification 
laws. We are constantly hearing of the tobacco industry being sued for 
illegally targeting minors in advertising. Using the same logic, these 
abortion clinics may be setting themselves up for a few lawsuits.

[[Page H5119]]

  We convict and sentence adults for engaging in sexual relations with 
a minor, yet we don't even slap the hand of an adult who aids a minor 
in destroying their unborn child. Unfortunately, right now, without 
this law in place, a statutory rapist can conceal the evidence of his 
crime by taking his young victim across state lines to abort the child 
he fathered.
  As a parent and a defender of the Constitution, I am calling on you, 
my fellow lawmakers, to respect the autonomous powers of States to 
allow parents to parent.
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Custody 
Protection Act. This legislation will make it a federal misdemeanor for 
a person to transport a minor across state lines in order to circumvent 
state law so that the minor may obtain an abortion.
  In North Carolina--Parental consent is required. A Physician cannot 
perform an abortion on a minor unless they have the consent of a parent 
or legal guardian. The Child Custody Protection Act is designed to give 
parents input in one of the most serious and lasting decision a child 
could make. While North Carolina parents are guaranteed a voice in our 
state, there is still an enormous federal loophole in this effort. The 
fact that someone else could transport that same young woman to another 
state with more lenient parental laws completely undermines this common 
sense measure.
  I hope that we will work for policies that keep young women from 
having to make this type of decision in the first place. Abortion 
should not be a decision that a school aged girl has to make. The 
pressures in our society are so great on young women to have sexual 
relations before marriage. We need to go one step further in our 
schools and communities by teaching abstinence until marriage as the 
correct and healthy method of sex education. This would be a life saver 
for our children--keeping them from ever having to make the decision of 
whether or not to have an abortion.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Speaker, for the record I 
strenuously object to H.R. 1218, the Child Custody Protection Act. This 
bill would make it illegal for a trusted adult who is not a parent to 
bring a minor to another state for an abortion.
  Although I think young women should be encouraged to seek their 
parents' guidance when facing difficult choices regarding abortion and 
other reproductive health issues, it is not appropriate or possible for 
the government to legislate family involvement in this important and 
highly personal decision.
  Many minors do not seek advice from their parents because they have 
experienced violence in their family or fear violence if they tell a 
parent of their abortion. H.R. 1218 presumes incorrectly that most 
young women are part of a loving, supportive and healthy home, but in 
reality it will force many young women to face this situation in 
isolation rather than trusting a close adult, such as a grandparent, 
clergy member or sibling.
  It is my fear that this measure will force young women to seek 
illegal dangerous medical treatment rather than tell their parents of 
their pregnancy. As a result, this would completely undermine a woman's 
right to choose guaranteed by Roe v. Wade.
  In fact, I can argue that this legislation is irresponsible because 
it does nothing to address the need for education. It is critical that 
we emphasize the importance of educating our youth about family 
planning in order to reduce the number of abortions in this country.
  Finally we must remember that most young women go to their parents 
for guidance, but we have an obligation to protect young women who 
cannot turn to a supportive parent by voting against H.R. 1218.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Child 
Custody Protection Act. I believe this legislation takes the wrong 
approach to the problem of teen pregnancy and could turn a young 
woman's fear into desperation.
  Minors should consult their parents before seeking an abortion, and 
more than 75 percent of young women already involve one or both parents 
in their decision, but some teens fear family violence if they talk to 
their parents; other teens are deeply afraid of disappointing their 
parents. This bill does not address the reality of dysfunctional 
families in which so many children exist.
  Instead of increasing parental involvement, this bill could harm 
young women by further isolating them at a time when they are already 
facing the crisis of an unwanted pregnancy, leading them to turn to 
illegal or unsafe abortions or to travel alone to other states. As 
drafted, even a step-parent, aunt, or grandmother could not accompany a 
minor unless the parent had been notified or had consented, depending 
on the state law. The Supreme Court has decided that the Constitutional 
right to privacy includes a minor's right to terminate a pregnancy. 
Although states are given the option of enacting their own laws on this 
issue, H.R. 1218 would federalize a process that many states have 
chosen not to enact.
  The Child Custody Protection Act intends to make it a federal crime 
to assist a minor by crossing state lines to obtain a legal abortion. 
The desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for 
illegal abortion deaths. Building roadblocks for a pregnant teenager 
can cause her to feel more alone and alienated in a fearful situation. 
I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1218, the ``Child 
Custody Protection Act'' which would make it a federal offense to 
transport a minor across a state line for an abortion if this action 
circumvents a state law requiring parental involvement in that minor's 
abortion or circumvents a requirement of a judicial waiver. This 
legislaiton does not manate parental involvement but requires obedience 
to state law. This bill deals with the narrow but important question of 
the interstate transportation of minors to circumvent existing state 
laws which places pregnant girls at risk and ignores parental rights.
  In a widely publicized 1995 case, a 12-year-old Pennsylvania girl 
became pregnant after involvement with an 18-year-old man. Pennsylvania 
law requires parental consent or judicial bypass for an abortion to be 
performed on a minor. However, the man's mother took the pregnant girl 
for an abortion in New York, which has no parental involvement law. The 
girl's mother did not even know that she was pregnant. When 
Pennsylvania authorities prosecuted the woman for interfering with the 
custody of a child, she was defended by a pro abortion group which 
argued that the woman's action were like those of ``thousands of adults 
who each year aid young women in exercising their constitutional right 
to an abortion''. The fact is that many abortion advocates advertise 
and refer young girls to neighboring states to avoid these laws. This 
reality is not in the best interests of these children.
  Exceptions already exist when the pregnant girl's health is genuinely 
at risk and judicial bypass procedures exist for situations where 
abusive parents or guardians are involved. The fact is that for the 
vast majority of cases it is the parents or legal guardians--not the 
boyfriends, strangers, or meddling in-laws--who are generally best able 
to weigh the risks of various courses of action in the light of their 
often unique knowledge of the girl's medical history, psychological 
makeup, and other crucial factors.
  Schools require parental involvement for field trips, medications, 
early school release, and academic decisions such as sexual education 
classes, yet with reckless disregard for state laws, a stranger can 
legally transport a minor across state lines and have her undergo a 
potentially life-threatening procedure.
  Parental notification laws were signed into law this month in both 
Florida and Texas. Twenty other states already have these laws on the 
books. The Child Custody Protection Act is supported by a vast majority 
of Americans since it works to strengthen the rights of parents to 
raise their children as they see fit by enforcing state laws which 
require parental involvement in a decision bearing serious medical and 
emotional consequences to their daughters. The legislation passed the 
House with a vote of 276-150 last year.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this critical legislation and request 
that the President sign it into law.
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Speaker, I don't think there is a member in this House 
who is against supporting and reinforcing family values. We all know 
that the family is under assault in this country. Efforts to counter 
this assault and foster good public policy, have occurred in 34 states 
that currently have laws requiring consent or notification of at least 
one parent or court authorization before a child can obtain an 
abortion. These states have expressed their public policy that when a 
child is going to have an abortion, the parents of the child, the 
mother who bore her, the father who supports the family unit, know 
about it, know that their daughter is going to be treated by an 
abortionist who is going to perform a very serious surgical procedure 
with potentially serious consequences.
  These states have decided by passing these laws that parents are 
entitled to be part of that decision. This bill reinforces those state 
laws. It is good legislation, designed to support the family and 
prevent the evasion of state laws that require parental consent before 
a child can have an abortion.
  I can think of nothing more destructive to the family unit than back 
door efforts to evade the inclusion of a parent in a child's decision 
to have an abortion. Some have said grandparents, siblings or others 
should have the right to take a minor child for an abortion without 
parent's knowledge. This would create a situation where the 
grandparents are pulling in one direction and the parents, who have the 
primary responsibility for the child's well-being and her unborn child, 
are pulling in another. I say, leave it to the parents. Yes, you can 
have parents who are intolerant, absent, abusive, or involved with 
drugs, but the law recognizes these situations and provides for a 
judicial by-

[[Page H5120]]

pass of a parental consent requirement. This bill recognizes the 
humanity of the unborn and reinforces the structure of the family. I 
urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 1218, the ``Child Custody 
Protection Act of 1999.''

                              {time}  1315

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). All time for 
debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 233, the bill is considered as having 
been read for amendment and the previous question is ordered.
  The question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


         Motion to Recommit Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker, in its present 
form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     1218 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Page 4, after line 11 insert the following:
       ``(3) The prohibitions of this section do not apply with 
     respect to conduct by an adult sibling or grandparent, or by 
     a minister, rabbi, pastor, priest, or other religious leader 
     of the minor.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) 
is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her motion to recommit.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor with a 
very heavy heart, because I had hoped that in deliberations on dealing 
with something as, if you will, sacred and challenging as the very 
private and terrible decision of having to decide whether to terminate 
a pregnancy could be done in a bipartisan manner.
  I indicated earlier in my remarks, we are not debating partial-birth 
abortion; we are not talking about advertising that may be too 
solicitous and too open; we are really talking about a life that, 
unfortunately in America, may be somewhat different than we would like.
  I loved to watch the T.V. Show Ozzie and Harriet, and I really 
enjoyed the fact that children lived in two-parent families in a loving 
and nurturing environment. I enjoyed those television programs. But, 
Mr. Speaker, that is just not today's reality.
  We live in a different time. We come from mixed and different 
cultures. So many Americans have had to grow up without parents or 
without the traditional family structure. This is a day, Mr. Speaker, 
when many young people have to live with their grandparents. I 
represent communities who have extended families and who have to reach 
out to take care of someone who may have been abandoned.
  Poverty strikes in this Nation, and sometimes parents go off because 
they are frustrated and cannot take care of their family. This 
overemphasis on parents, Mr. Speaker, is unfair. The motion to recommit 
responds to the dire circumstances of young people who do not have 
parents who are there to nurture and care for them.
  We offered this amendment in committee. We offered it in the 
Committee on Rules, and we were denied. So that means that a young 
woman who has been raped, who has been involved in incest or child 
abuse through the family situation cannot seek to have their 
grandparent, their grandmother, their adult siblings, their aunts, 
their religious advisors like ministers and rabbis to provide them the 
guidance that would help them to make the right decision. These loving 
people under this bill will now be put in jail if they attempt to help 
and counsel this young female teen-ager who has nowhere else to go.
  I am confused as to why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
keep talking about States' rights and then we want to alter States' 
rights by federalizing this particular activity. States already have 
these provisions and yet now we want to take away the rights of those 
who are in States who do not have them. This bill endangers the lives 
of teens who may have to make the worse decision in their life.
  Let me share with my colleagues the story of Keishawn, 11 years old, 
and her Aunt Vicky. Keishawn, 11 years old, was raped by her father. 
Mr. Speaker, is that the parent that Keishawn should have gone and 
gotten consent from? Therefore she sought help from her aunt, her aunt 
under this bill would be jailed under this legislation.
  And what about Becky Bell, who was dating her older brother's 
boyfriend, who had loving parents, who was in a State with parental 
consent, who was frightened to go to the courts and ask for a judicial 
bypass or waiver and went to a back-room abortionist, where her young 
life was snuffed out because of the inadequate medical care. And, yes, 
she died due to a terrible infection of which the medical examiner 
confirmed that she died due to a botched abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, this is something that we should be able to resolve. We 
should leave it to the States. But, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, if 
we are going to put this bill on the floor, how can we deny 
grandparents the right to counsel these young teens, where no viable 
parent is involved.
  We are not asking for grandparents to intrude into the relationship 
of loving families who can talk and generate the decisions that need to 
be made within the privacy of their home. But, Mr. Speaker, are we here 
so blinded by the fact that we do not realize what kind of world we 
live in, that we are living in a world with broken homes? Are we to 
indict those families who are doing the best they can to raise their 
children by grandparents or aunts--are they now to go to jail? Are our 
minister and rabbis to go to jail too?
  I just heard on this floor yesterday how important it is to turn our 
eyes toward our heavenly Father. But yet we want to deny religious 
leaders the right to give counsel to these suffering teens.
  Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my colleagues support a motion to 
recommit that recognizes the world in which we live has changed and we 
all don't come from two-parent families. We live in a Nation that has a 
diverse population that finds many different family structures to guide 
a teen-ager. Although we should encourage families to stay together we 
must also accept the fact that young girls can be raped, there is 
incest, there is child abuse. Sometimes families are not the kind of 
families that we would like.
  I understand the reality of Keishawn and Becky Bell. Becky Bell is 
now dead. She is dead because we forced upon her the laws of parental 
consent, and we denied her the right to counsel with other family 
members to help her in her terrible time of need.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote down the bill and to vote 
for the motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a motion to recommit to exclude 
grandparents, older siblings, trusted relatives, and the clergy from 
H.R. 1218, the Child Custody Protection Act of 1999.
  Although many young women would involve their parents when seeking an 
abortion, not every young person can do so. Parents may be abusive, or 
even absent. In those cases where a young woman cannot involve her 
parents in the decision, there are others who would help by offering 
physical and emotional support during a time of crisis, confusion and 
emotional pain. A minor should be able to turn to a relative, close 
friend, and even clergy members for assistance.
  In those cases, this law would endanger minors who cannot talk with 
their parents and would make criminals of those people the minor turns 
to for people help.
  Supporters of this bill claim that judicial bypass, a procedure which 
permits teenagers to appear before a judge to request a waiver of the 
parental involvement requirement, is a preferred alternative. However, 
many teens do not make use of it because they do not know how to 
navigate the legal system.
  Many teens are embarrassed and are afraid that an unsympathetic or 
hostile judge might refuse to grant the waiver. Also, the 
confidentiality of the teen is compromised if the bypass hearing 
requires use of the parents' names. In small towns, confidentiality may 
be further compromised if the judge knows the teen or her family.

[[Page H5121]]

  The need to travel across state lines may be necessary in states 
where abortion services are not readily available. This may be because 
of various state restrictions or distance. Some young women must seek 
services outside of their home state because the closest abortion 
provider may be across state lines.
  When a young woman must travel these distances, we do not want her 
taking this difficult and tumultuous step alone. Therefore, I offer 
this motion to recommit to exclude grandparents, older siblings, 
trusted relatives, and the clergy, so an adult can assist a young woman 
who is facing an arduous choice.
  Grandparents play an important role in the lives of young people. 
Grandparents act as counselors for children who cannot speak with their 
parents. In many cases, grandparents act as parents to children who are 
abandoned or neglected by their own parents. The relationship between a 
child and a grandparent should be viewed just as sacred as the 
relationship between a parent and a child.
  Older brothers and sisters also form a unique bond with children who 
cannot communicate with their parents. There are so many instances 
where an older brother or sister acts as the parents. We should reward 
these outstanding members of the family who have taken on such 
responsibility; we should not punish them with threats of criminal 
sanctions.
  This motion to recommit also would exclude aunts, uncles, first 
cousins and godparents from the prohibitions of this bill. We should 
not punish caring relatives for providing support to a scared young 
woman.
  In a time of crisis, a member of the clergy is an important 
counselor. The advice and assistance of the clergy should not be 
compromised for fear of criminal sanctions. In its present form, this 
bill would criminalize any efforts by a religious leader to assist a 
young woman in her efforts to obtain an abortion.
  I hope that my colleagues will accept this motion to recommit. It is 
vital that we allow our young people to turn to responsible adults when 
facing abortion. We want trusted members of society bonding with the 
young woman seeking their help; we do not want these members taken away 
in bonds.
  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to urge all the Members of the House to oppose 
this motion to recommit for the simple reason that in its four lines it 
sweeps aside the whole concept of parental involvement. It sweeps aside 
the notion that it is the parent who should have the primary 
responsibility for the nurture of children.
  Now, this is a concept that has been recognized time and time again 
by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a concept that has 
been recognized by the Supreme Court in the very cases where the 
Supreme Court has dealt with the various State laws calling for 
parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision.
  Now, what does the amendment provide for? The amendment says that a 
grandparent can substitute for the parent, an adult sibling, a 
minister, a rabbi, a pastor, a priest, or other religious leader of the 
minor.
  Now, I love my in-laws and my parents, but they have no business 
taking my daughter across State lines for the purpose of having an 
abortion. And I have a great deal of respect for my pastor, but I will 
guarantee my colleagues that he has no business taking my daughter 
across State lines for the purpose of having an abortion. It is the 
parents who have the primary responsibility, and we should recognize 
that along with the States who have passed laws which recognize that 
and along with the Supreme Court, which has recognized that in opinion 
after opinion.
  Now, the truth of the matter is, if there are difficult circumstances 
such as we have heard about in the debate where it is not possible for 
a young girl to go to her parents concerning such a decision, the 
courts have required that there be made available a judicial bypass 
procedure. That is there. In all the laws that are in effect across the 
land, there is a judicial bypass procedure.
  We have heard an example of a child that was raped by the father and 
an effort was made to take the child for an abortion without the 
knowledge of the authorities. Well, that is exactly the kind of case 
where the judicial bypass should most certainly be utilized so there 
will be a certainty that the authorities are aware of this parental 
abuse that is taking place.
  Why that sort of thing should be handled in some other manner 
secretly makes no sense to me. I do not think the child's interest is 
being protected unless the authorities are involved. That is how the 
child is going to be protected against future abuse by a father who 
would commit such a heinous crime.
  The opponents of the bill and the supporters of this motion to 
recommit contend that judicial bypass procedure is not meaningful, that 
it does not work. Well, I would suggest to the Members of the House 
that that is a fallacious argument. In case after case, the Supreme 
Court of the United States has imposed requirements on the judicial 
bypass procedures to make certain that they do work in a way that 
protects the interest that the court has found must be protected.
  The Supreme Court said that the judicial bypass must allow for 
consideration with sufficient expedition to provide an effective 
opportunity for abortion to be obtained. That is what the Supreme Court 
said back in 1979.
  In subsequent cases, they have struck down laws where it has been 
shown that there was a systematic failure to provide a judicial bypass 
option in the most expeditious practical manner. The cases are there. 
The judicial bypass mechanism works as the Supreme Court intended it to 
work.
  The problem that the opponents of this bill have is that they do not 
like any parental involvement law. They do not believe that there 
should ever be a requirement for parental involvement. They believe 
that the decision to have an abortion is a decision that the minor 
should be able to make on her own, without any input from anybody other 
than from the abortionist. That is the bottom-line position of the 
people who oppose this bill.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that that is the wrong position. 
That is the position that is overwhelmingly rejected by the American 
people. It is a position that has been rejected by the Supreme Court. 
And it is a position that this House should, once again, reject as we 
reject the motion to recommit and move forward to the passage of this 
important legislation.
  Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) for her outstanding leadership on this. I urge the Members of 
the House to vote against the motion to recommit and in favor of this 
important legislation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a 
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of 
passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 164, 
nays 268, not voting 2, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 260]

                               YEAS--164

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)

[[Page H5122]]


     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--268

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Brown (CA)
     Martinez
       

                              {time}  1347

  Mr. BISHOP changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burr of North Carolina). The question is 
on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. CANADY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 270, 
noes 159, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 261]

                               AYES--270

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clement
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vento
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--159

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pickett
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

[[Page H5123]]



                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (CA)
     Ford
     Lewis (CA)
     Lucas (OK)
     Martinez

                              {time}  1355

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, I missed rollcall vote No. 261, and, if I had 
been present on final passage H.R. 1218, the Child Custody Protection 
Act, I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________