Congressional Record, Volume 148 Issue 43 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)

[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 43 (Wednesday, April 17, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H1345-H1373]
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 388 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 388

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. 476) 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 on
the bill 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. Shimkus). 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 my friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for
purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a
closed rule for H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act. The rule
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It
provides consideration of H.R. 476 in the House with two hours of
debate, equally divided and controlled between the chairman and 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 teenaged daughter. We all hope that our teenaged
daughters have the wisdom to avoid pregnancy, but if they make a
mistake, a parent is best able to provide advice and counseling. Also,
more importantly, the parent knows the child's past medical history.
For these reasons, my home State of North Carolina, along with
several other States, requires a parent to know before their child
checks into an abortion clinic.
This law is needed because of stories chillingly similar to the story
of a Pennsylvania mother and the tragic story of her 13-year-old
daughter.

[[Page H1346]]

Several years ago, a stranger took Joyce 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 teenaged
daughter, and she was desperate to cover up her son's tracks.
Even worse, this may all have been legal. It is perfectly legal to
avoid parental abortion consent and notification laws by driving
children to another State. In fact, many abortion providers in States
where there are no parental consent laws actually advertise in the
yellow pages in States where consent laws have been passed. It is
wrong, and it has to be stopped.
The Child Custody Protection Act would put an end 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. They
have to call and give permission for their child to have an aspirin,
but a parent cannot prevent a stranger from taking their child out of
school and up to Maryland, for instance, for an abortion. It is total
nonsense.
So let us do something to protect the thousands of children in this
country. Let us pass the child custody Protection Act, and put a stop
to the absurd notion that there is some sort of constitutional right
for an adult stranger to be able to secretly take someone's teenaged
child into a different State for an abortion.
I applaud my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen), for continuously fighting this fight. I urge my
colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, 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 and I oppose
the bill that underlies it. The Committee on the Judiciary has handed
us yet once again a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional and will
never see the light of day because the Senate is not going to touch it.
The attempt here today is to interfere with the rights of American
citizens to go from one State line across the other. It is never going
to work. In addition, and the most surprising thing to me, is by a vote
of 16 to 12, the rapist or person who commits incest has the right of
court action if anyone interferes with a pregnancy that he has caused.
I think I need to say that again. A subcommittee of the Committee on
the Judiciary voted 12 to 16 to protect the right of a rapist or
someone committing incest, and give them the right of court action if
anyone interferes with the pregnancy that they have caused, taking away
all the rights of the child.
I want to reiterate again that abortion is legal in the country. To
prohibit anyone's right to across a State line for a legal purpose in
the United States is foolish on the face of it, and flies in the face
of the freedom that we enjoy.
Are we going to put border crossings at the State lines? Are we going
to stop people and check their cars and make sure that no minor is in
there? Are we really willing to put people's grandmother in prison? Are
we really willing to allow a rapist or someone who commits incest to go
to court to sue if a pregnancy caused by their action ensues? Surely
not.
But this bill, again, in addition to it being terribly bad policy and
its flagrant unconstitutionality, is closed, so no one could even amend
it. But frankly, I do not know why anyone would want to. It is hard to
amend an unconstitutional bill in such a way that we could make it
constitutional. But we are talking about a fundamental right here, not
something superficial. This measure tramples that right by imposing
substantial new obstacles and dangers in the path of a minor seeking an
abortion.
It violates the rights of States. And this Congress has gone on
record time after time after time believing States are far more bright
than we are. If they should have the right to pass their own laws, this
tramples on the rights of States to enact and enforce their own laws
that govern conduct within their own State boundaries.
The assaults on the Constitution do not stop there. One fundamental
principle of our Federal system is a State may not project its laws
onto other States. Every citizen has a right to cross a border into
another State, and it has been so since the founding of this Republic.
But we can do it in favor of the laws of the State that we are
visiting, as long as we do not infringe upon those laws.
This bill undermines this fundamental principle, saying that young
women are bound by the laws of their home States, even as they traverse
the Nation. On the face of it, that is absolutely foolish. Because
something is legal in New York and illegal in another State, should all
New Yorkers be allowed to go there and freely fly in the face of a law
of the other State? Absolutely not. The Supreme Court has consistently
held that States cannot prohibit the lawful out-of-State conduct of
their citizens. That is a simple premise simply put, but it is
absolutely one of the basics of our freedoms. Nor may they impose
criminal sanctions on that behavior. That has been the law of this land
for a long, long time, about 200 years, I suspect. This bill does
exactly that, imposing criminal sanctions on what is literally a
freedom for a United States citizen.
As Professor Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School and Peter Rubin of
Georgetown University Center explained, the bill ``. . . amounts to a
statutory attempt to force the most vulnerable class of young women to
carry the restrictive laws of their home States strapped to their
backs, bearing the great weight of those laws like the bars of a prison
that follows them wherever they go.''

{time} 1045

Why is this body singling out young women for this treatment? I want
to urge my colleagues to stop for a moment and think what are we doing
here. We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution, but instead we are
abandoning it, and indeed we are trashing it to satisfy some of the
most extreme elements of the majority party.
Moreover, I want my colleagues to take a close look at this bill. As
noted, it would criminalize the act to bring in the minor across State
lines to obtain an abortion without parental consent, but the bill does
not stop there. It goes on to provide prison time for grandparents or
an adult sibling or members of the clergy who may have tried to help a
minor obtain medical care and subjects them to civil action by a parent
who may have raped and impregnated the minor. Even a cab driver, even a
cab driver who drove this minor is subject to criminal penalty.
We had one amendment trying to remove that in the Committee on Rules
and it was not allowed.
Let me put this another way: The bill allows the father who rapes or
anybody who is carting this child, rapes or impregnates his minor
daughter, to sue, to sue for damages. Can my colleagues imagine that?
Do my colleagues want to go back home and tell people that that is what
they voted for in the House of Representatives? It locks the victim of
incest into requiring consent from an incestuous parent. That is the
quality of the legislation we are considering today and the leadership
ought to be ashamed.
Several amendments were offered in the Committee on Rules to address
some of these egregious provisions, but none were allowed. The closed
rule is a final slap in the face of our colleagues, and the victims of
these crimes.
Vulnerable young women, deserve better. We all want active and
supportive parents involved in their children's major decisions, but
many young women have a justifiable fear that they will be physically
abused if they are forced to disclose their pregnancy to their parent.
Nearly one-third of minors who choose not to consult their parents have
experienced violence in the family. Forcing young women in these
circumstances to notify the parent of their pregnancies may only
exacerbate the dangerous cycle of violence in these families.

[[Page H1347]]

This is the cruel lesson of one young Idaho teenager who was shot to
death by her father after he learned she was planning to terminate a
pregnancy caused by his act of incest. Shot to death by the man who had
raped her. Despite our noblest intentions, Congress cannot legislate
health and family communications.
The political cynicism this rule embraces today would be comical if
young women's lives were not at stake. Congress once again is placing
its political agenda ahead of a woman's ability to have access to safe
and appropriate medical care.
As a Member of Congress and mother of three daughters and long-time
advocate of women's health, I strongly believe that the health of
American women matter, and I urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule
and on the underlying bill. Please do not go home and say that we put
the rights of the rapist or the perpetrator of incest above other
citizens of the United States and tried to restrict their right to move
across State lines.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), who also serves on the Committee on Rules.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The Chair would ask the
visitors in the gallery to desist from conversations.
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend, first of all, the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick) for yielding me the time
and my dear colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen)
for introducing and shepherding and leading the effort on this
important legislation.
When I was listening to my distinguished friend on the other side of
the aisle, I thought that at times she was referring to another piece
of legislation. Twenty-seven States require parental notification,
recognizing the need for parental involvement when daughters face the
confusing and sometimes frightening reality of an unexpected pregnancy.
Strangers should not be allowed to deprive parents from the right to at
least try to protect their daughters from harm by taking these children
to another State in violation precisely of the State laws that have
been passed to protect the parents' rights and to try to protect the
rights of their daughters.
What this legislation tries to do is to punish those who smuggle
children across State lines to, in effect, dodge the home State laws
which are designed to protect the health and safety of children and the
rights of the parents. In essence, what we are trying to do today with
this legislation is to protect as much as possible the States' rights
to have their wishes, as made law by their legislatures, enforced. That
is, in essence, what we are trying to do.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Harman).
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter) for yielding the time to me, and I want to commend her on
her extraordinary testimony. I think no one could have addressed more
carefully and better the issues underlying this bill than she did. I do
not want to repeat what she said. I just strongly endorse it and hope
that our colleagues are listening and will oppose this bill.
I want to speak personally for just about a minute, Mr. Speaker. I am
the mother of a 26-year-old daughter and a 17-year-old daughter. I am
also the mother of a 28-year-old son and a 19-year-old son. I work very
hard to earn their trust, and I try very hard to provide for them a
moral framework in which they will make wise choices for their lives.
When I first learned about this issue some years back, my immediate
instinct was to oppose the notion that parents could not or should not
be consulted when a daughter makes a decision about an abortion, not
just across State lines but in a State. I then consulted my own
daughters and they said, Mom, we would talk to you, but think about all
the kids who cannot talk to their parents.
Our colleague from New York has spelled out those circumstances. They
are dreadful and shameful, and my view after consulting my own children
is that for the children of others, we must stop this vicious
legislation. For children of others, to make sure that in safety they
can seek out their constitutional right to an abortion in an emergency,
for the children of others who will seek adult consultation but
possibly not from dysfunctional or evil parents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the position of the gentlewoman from
New York. I urge us to think about the children of others. I urge a no
vote on this legislation.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 476, the Child
Custody Protection Act.
Unfortunately, we are hearing lots of dramatic stories about young
women who may be victims of incest and young women who may be victims
of other terrible crimes as a motivator for us to prevent what so many
States think is important and what so many people think is important,
and that is, that children and their medical care and their guidance be
in the hands of their parents.
This bill would simply respect that. It would respect what 43 States
have already done in requiring parental consent or notification before
a young woman can receive an abortion. So this is not a dramatic change
of any kind. In fact, this is something that would respect States'
rights.
This bill has nothing to do with consenting adults who have made a
decision about what to do with a pregnancy. It solely focuses on young
girls who are the most susceptible to confusion and difficulty of
making a decision on their own health care and decision about ending a
pregnancy.
Most of these young women are not in situations that have been
presented dramatically to us. As a State senator, I worked on
legislation in Pennsylvania where parental consent requirements gained
wide support, and I know that they have obviously gained wide support
throughout the Nation because of those 43 States with such laws.
The Child Custody Protection Act would make it a criminal offense to
transport a child across a State line to avoid parental consent for the
purpose of having an abortion. That means a person who is not the
parent is taking a child that is a minor across a State line to violate
the law basically. I am not sure why anyone would support that, but
unfortunately, many here today are.
It is important for us to stand up for families in the United States.
It is important for us to stand up also for the rights of parents to be
counselors to their children.
Some of the opponents have argued that our approach is wrong and
these young girls who are involved in these tremendous life-altering
decisions should be taken away from their parents, transported across
State lines for a very serious medical procedure, without their parents
notification consent, without any necessarily records of their health
in the past. This defies all logic. It usurps parents' vital role, and
I think it is playing a dangerous game with the lives of young girls.
These girls should not be whisked away from their problems. We should
not be finding more ways for them to avoid getting help from their
families. We should be focused on finding ways where we can help them
and their families.
This bill would certainly lead us in that direction as 43 of our 50
States have already gone. It is not for the Federal Government to
change that.
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 distinguished
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) for yielding me the time, and
let me add my appreciation as well for her very eloquent defense and
advocacy for issues of choice and particularly her work in the
Committee on Rules.
It is interesting that my colleagues speak about States' rights and
are very apt to involve themselves in the rights of Oregonites who have
supported euthanasia through State law, but yet the Federal Government
and Republicans want to intrude upon those State rights.
On the other hand, in this instance, dealing with an individual's
probably

[[Page H1348]]

necessity to secure assistance somewhere, the child who may happen to
be 16 or 17, this legislation that we have today undermines the very
sense of privacy and the rights of a child to secure help from a
grandparent, an uncle, an aunt or a sibling who is that child's
confidante, who is able to take them somewhere to assist them in a
choice that is intelligently made.
This has nothing to do with programs that deal with abstinence or
deal with the issues of not engaging in premarital sex. This is not
what this legislation is about, and I am very disappointed that the
Committee on Rules would argue for a closed rule so that those of us
who had amendments dealing with others who would give advice to our
young people so that we would not have a murderous condition, a child
losing their life because of a back room botched circumstance and
procedure.
This is absolutely, I believe, without mercy because what it says is
that if a child has someone that they are able to confide in and they
can assist them in a very troubling time of their life, to make a
choice about their body, an intelligent choice, comforted with the
counsel of their religious person, and that particular individual that
they have confidence in, they cannot do it.
This is a bad rule. I hope my colleagues will support the motion to
recommit, and I would hope that we would be a consistent Congress. If
we are fighting the Oregonites, and we are overlooking their State
laws, then why are we now making a Federal law or insisting that we
have to affirm Federal laws or State laws that intrude on the right to
privacy?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). She is the author of
this legislation and we thank her for that.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, abortion is perhaps one of the most
life altering and life threatening of procedures. It leaves lasting
medical, emotional and psychological consequences and is so noted by
the Supreme Court, particularly so when the patient is immature.
Although Roe v. Wade legalized abortion in 1973, it did not legalize
the right for persons other than the parent or a guardian to decide
what is best for our child nor did it legalize the right of strangers
to place our children in a dangerous situation that is often described
as being potentially fatal.

{time} 1100

Mr. Speaker, my legislation, the Child Custody Protection Act, will
make it a Federal misdemeanor to transport an underaged child across
State lines in circumvention of State local parental notification or
consent laws for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. It is very
simple.
Last year in the 106th Congress, I introduced this legislation; and
it passed the House with a vote of 270 to 159, almost a two-thirds
majority.
In the 105th Congress, this legislation also passed with a vote of
276 to only 150 against. Significant support for this legislation is
not surprising because according to Zogby International, 66 percent of
people surveyed believe that doctors should be legally required to
notify the parents of a girl under the legal age who requests an
abortion.
In addition, a 1999 fact sheet created by the Planned Parenthood
Federation of America, one of the most adamant opponents of my bill
entitled, ``Teenagers, Abortion, and Government Intrusion Laws'' cites:
``Few would deny that most teenagers, especially younger ones, would
benefit from adult guidance when faced with an unwanted pregnancy.''
Mr. Speaker, few would deny that such guidance ideally should come
from the teenagers' parents. Parental consent or parental notification
laws may vary from State to State, but they are all made with the same
purpose in mind, to protect frightened and confused adolescent girls
from harm. This historical legislation will put an end to the abortion
clinics and family planning organizations like Planned Parenthood that
exploit young, vulnerable, frightened girls by luring them to
recklessly disobey State laws with advertisements such as the ones that
we will show later today which shout: ``No parental consent, no waiting
period.'' The translation: do not worry about your parents. You are a
mature 13-year-old, and you know best.
Our society is filled with rules and regulations aimed at ensuring
the safety of our Nation's youth through parental guidance. At my alma
mater, Southwest Miami High School, and in many of our schools, a child
cannot be given an aspirin unless the school has been given 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 permission to take
minors on field trips; and in many schools, parents have the ability to
decide whether or not to enroll their children in sex education
classes.
In fact, a student cannot play football, soccer and even a noncontact
sport such as chess without parental consent. Every one of these
principles emphasizes that parents should be involved in decisions that
can seriously affect our children. And the decision of whether or not
to obtain an abortion, a life-altering, potentially fatal and serious
medical procedure, should be no exception to these rules. Safety of our
Nation's youth is precisely why over 20 States in our Nation have
parental consent or notification laws on their books.
Most would agree that the violation or circumventing of any law
should be punished. But by making the circumvention of State parental
consent and notification laws a Federal misdemeanor, this legislation
will do more than just uphold the laws of our country. It will give
back to parents the right to be a parent. It will strengthen family
bonds; and most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it will ensure that America's
youth have a safer, healthier and brighter future.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as well as the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick), for their hard work on
this legislation; and I thank the prolife caucus, the bill's 98
cosponsors, and all of the organizations which have supported H.R. 476
and have worked tirelessly to secure consideration today.
Today, as the House once again votes on this bill, I am hopeful that
in reflection of the views of most Americans, the Child Custody
Protection Act will pass once again. Passage of this bill will
demonstrate our commitment, Congress' commitment to protecting both
parents and children, and I ask that my colleagues vote in favor of
this rule and later on for the bill itself.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, passage of this bill once again by this
House, which we do every Congress, knowing the Senate will not even
look at it, will once again demonstrate the conviction of the
Republican leadership that this is a good subject to exploit
politically; and that is all it will demonstrate.
Mr. Speaker, I will not talk too much about the merits of the bill
right now; I will save that for general debate, but let me say a few
things.
I am in my 10th year in the House. My first 2 years there was a
Democratic majority, and the Republicans used to complain about closed
rules. How dare the Democrats refuse to allow Republicans, or anybody
else, to bring amendments to the floor.
Well, for the last 8 years, the Republicans have refused to allow
amendments of any note to come to the floor on any bills except
appropriations bills. Let us take this bill, for example. This bill,
which ostensibly is designed to protect young women in situations where
they are being lured across State lines by evil people to get them to
have abortions without consulting their parents, which is an absurdity,
but forget that for a moment, there were a number of amendments
introduced in committee but not permitted on the floor, such as an
amendment to say this bill should not apply if the person accompanying
the minor across State lines was doing so because the reason the minor
was pregnant was because she had been impregnated by her father.
Picture a situation where the mother is dead and the father is guilty
of incest and rapes the daughter, and now he refuses permission for her
to get an abortion, and we are going to prosecute her grandfather or
her brother or sister for helping her to go to a State which has a more
enlightened law and allows

[[Page H1349]]

her to get an abortion that she wants because she is 17 years old, and
she wants an abortion lest she bear a child fathered by her father in
an act of incestual rape.
Maybe some people can come up with a reason against this amendment; I
do not know. There are twisted minds in this world, but not to allow
that amendment on the floor because they are afraid it will pass, they
are afraid Members in this House will not have twisted minds and the
amendment will pass?
The real purpose of this bill is not to protect women, girls 17, 16
years old, not to protect them in situations such as I have just
mentioned, the real purpose of this bill is simply to cut away at the
right to abortion to the extent possible without falling afoul of Roe
v. Wade.
A second amendment not permitted on the floor is the amendment that
would exempt clergy and grandparents and aunts and uncles from
accompanying a person. I would simply point out also that even in
committee the majority refused to allow amendments to be introduced by
moving the previous question, an almost unheard of procedure.
Mr. Speaker, what is the Republican majority afraid of?
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the House that the minority does have a
motion to recommit, as always.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution
and the rule that we have in front of us, and I would like to commend
the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen), for introducing the legislation. I am also proud to be an
original cosponsor of this legislation.
This legislation makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a
minor across State lines with the intent to obtain an abortion in
circumvention of State law and parental consent or parental
notification law. This legislation is specifically important in my
district, which lies on the border between Illinois and Missouri, and
has an abortion clinic nearby that serves people from both sides of the
Mississippi River.
The problem is that Missouri has a parental notification law and
Illinois currently does not. A young woman can cross the border into
Illinois to have an abortion without the knowledge or consent of her
parents.
I would like to relay a quick story. This is not a hypothetical
story. This is a true incident which recently took place in Illinois
because of Illinois' failure to have a parental notification law in
place, and reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and I include the
entire article for the Record.
In February of this year, a mother from Granite City got a call from
her daughter's high school that her daughter had not shown up for
school. After checking with friends, she learned her daughter was at a
local clinic getting an abortion. The mother quickly ran over to the
clinic to try to talk to her daughter. The woman was not allowed in the
clinic to be with her daughter. When she contacted the police to help
her, they told her there was nothing they could do. Instead, she had to
sit outside the clinic and wait while her daughter underwent a major
medical procedure.
How many Members here today would like to be sitting outside a
hospital while their child underwent a medical procedure, prohibited by
law from being next to them, from being able to care for them, from
holding their hand to ease the pain? Any other operation, any other
treatment, any other reason for a minor to be in a hospital or clinic
would require that the parent be present and consulted. But not for an
abortion.
We should strengthen and protect the family. We should also protect
life, the life of the minor child and the life of her unborn child. In
our Declaration of Independence it states we hold these truths to be
self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
our creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life.
Mr. Speaker, let us protect life and strengthen families by
supporting this rule and this legislation.

Abortion Clinic Blocks Mother From Daughter Inside; Girl Was 16;
Granite City Police Say Law Gives No Voice to Parents of Minors

(By Colleen Carroll)

A woman who tried to enter a Granite City abortion clinic
to see her 16-year-old daughter last week was stopped by
clinic officials and police.
Granite City Police Chief David Ruebhausen said the woman
was seeking entrance to the private Hope Clinic on Thursday
morning when she went across the street to the Gateway
Regional Medical Center and found one of his officers.
Ruebhausen said she asked the officer to help her get inside
the clinic. The officer called the station, and he was
instructed not to bring the woman into the clinic. ``Parental
consent is not necessary,'' Ruebhausen said, explaining that
the Illinois abortion law allows minors to undergo abortions
without the permission or knowledge of their parents.
Ruebhausen said such incidents--of parents asking police to
help them intervene in abortions or speak with their children
who are inside abortion clinics--happen occasionally. But, he
said, the law does not allow his officers to intervene on
behalf of the parents. The woman could not be reached for
comment.
A group of abortion protesters who were at the clinic
Thursday morning said the woman told them that she had
received a call from her daughter's high school alerting her
to her daughter's absence. The woman then learned from her
daughter's friend that her daughter was at the Hope Clinic,
said Angela Michael, one of the protesters. Michael said the
woman was not allowed into the clinic until several hours
after she first requested to see her daughter. ``I just stood
there holding her and praying with her,'' Michael said. Hope
Clinic executive director Sally Burgess said she would not
comment on the cases of specific patients for legal and
privacy reasons. She said uninvited visitors rarely come to
the private clinic looking for patients during a procedure,
``but it does happen.'' When it does, she said, ``We're going
to tell the patient what's going on.'' ``We always encourage,
our patients to talk to their parents,'' Burgess said. ``But
if the teenager is adamant, we're going to respect her
privacy.''

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
in response to the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I know of no Federal law that prohibits a parent from
being with a child; but if this law passes, a grandparent could
certainly be prohibited from doing this. Fortunately, we know this
legislation is not going anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms.
DeGette), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, this bill is unconstitutional because it
would restrict the movements of citizens across State lines for legal
purposes. And I guess the previous speaker said our Constitution says
all ``men'' are created; some Members do not think that young women
should have those same rights. I think this bill would be struck down
by a court for that reason.
But equally importantly and to the underlying bill, it is terrible
public policy; and it is an ineffective attempt by Congress to control
people's lives. Every parent in this Chamber feels the same way about
his or her children. I also have two daughters. One of them is 12 years
old, about to be going through the morass of middle school and high
school. I love my children unconditionally, just like every other
parent in this country; and when it comes to making big decisions, I
would hope my children would come to me. I think that they would come
to me. But sadly, this is not true for every young adult across this
country. For myriad reasons, thousands of adolescents and young adults
do not feel that they can turn to their parents with problems like an
unplanned pregnancy. Victims of incest, victims of rape, child abuse
victims, they have good reasons why they cannot go to a parent. Of
course we should encourage teenagers to seek their parents' advice and
counsel when facing difficult choices about abortion and other
reproductive health issues. But folks, there is a reality in this
country, and that reality is sometimes there are desperate kids who we
need to help from making a bad situation even worse.
The government cannot mandate open and healthy family communication
if it does not exist, and the fact of the matter is most young women
considering an abortion do involve one or both parents. Let me say it
again. Most young women in this country involve one or both parents
when making this decision. But not everybody talks to their parents
because not everybody can. It is these young women who most

[[Page H1350]]

need the advice of a trusted family friend, a minister, a sympathetic
grandmother.
When a young woman cannot involve a parent, public policies and
medical professionals should encourage her to involve a trusted adult
because the result of laws like this will be deaths from illegal
abortions and unsafe abortions, and that is wrong.
Most major medical associations including the American Medical
Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,
the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health
Association all have long-standing policies opposing mandatory parental
involvement laws for this reason.

{time} 1115

Because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for
confidential access to physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics
and Society for Adolescent Medicine oppose this bill. We should, too.
Oppose the rule. Oppose the bill.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).
Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, America is a wonderful and diverse country.
We have people of every kind living here, who belong to different
political parties and go to different kinds of churches. Likewise we
have many kinds of families. But there is one thing just about every
family has in common. Parents love their children. The job of a parent
is to raise and nurture his or her child until that child reaches
adulthood. The way parents do this is by setting rules and making
decisions that will affect their kids for the rest of their lives. They
teach values and principles. They teach their kids the difference
between right and wrong. They teach them manners and pass on their
faith to them. As a child grows and gets older, mom and dad begin to
help their teenagers make their own responsible decisions. Eventually,
when a person turns 18 or so, we treat them as an adult. Even the law
recognizes that when a person turns 18, they can make their own
decision about just about everything except perhaps purchasing alcohol.
This is the way it is. This is the way it should be.
Mr. Speaker, my wife and I had three wonderful kids who long ago left
the nest, who are now full grown and responsible adults. When they were
little my wife and I did our very best to teach our kids the values
that we had learned, that we had learned from our parents. Our greatest
desire was that our own kids by the time they left home would be ready
to make their own choices and not get themselves in trouble. I think
most parents feel that way. Every parent wants their kids to be able to
make good decisions. But until they are full grown, they want to be
there to help them make the hard decision. And, if need be, to step in
and prevent their son or daughter from making a bad decision they will
regret for the rest of their lives.
Sometimes kids get into trouble. That is just the way it is. Parents
should be there to help them learn the lessons that will keep them from
getting into trouble again.
Mr. Speaker, this is not just a parent's right. It is a parent's
duty. This bill was written to protect that right and that duty.
As you can see in this advertisement from the Yellow Pages in my
district, abortion clinics go out of their way to advertise to girls
that they do not need their parents' permission to have an abortion.
I am pro-life. We are not here today to debate pro-life versus pro-
choice. We are here today to protect America's families. We are here
today to guarantee the right of mom and dad to act as the legal, moral
and ethical guardian of their children.
I served in the Pennsylvania legislature when we passed this parental
consent law. In Pennsylvania, we require the consent of one or two
parents. And in case there is a breakdown between the partners and
child, we have a judicial bypass where the child can go confidentially
before a judge to get a decision. This law was designed because of a
case that occurred in Pennsylvania in 1995. At that time, a 12-year-old
young girl was impregnated by an 18-year-old male. The mother of that
boy took the 12-year-old girl to a neighboring State, New York, without
her parents' consent or knowledge for an abortion, secretly. It is
outrageous that in America, a stranger who does not know the child or
her medical history can take that child out of State for a secret
abortion.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill and to show the
moms and dads of America that Congress still knows what it means to be
a loving, caring family.
In closing, if you look at the ads, this is taken from the Yellow
Pages in the State capital of Harrisburg. It says, no parental consent,
no parental consent. They are doing this in violation of our State law.
I urge the adoption of the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 in strong opposition to this rule
because it shuts out an opportunity to offer another side of the issue.
The other side would address what is best for young women.
In an ideal world, teens talk to their parents if they find
themselves in trouble. In fact, in an ideal world, our teens would not
be having sex at all. But let us face it, that is not the world we live
in. Many teenagers live in a world that is quite the opposite and they
would do anything not to tell their parents about an unintended
pregnancy, even if it means putting themselves and their life in
jeopardy.
Make no mistake, I strongly support measures that help to foster
healthy relationships between parents and their children. I would like
to think that I had that kind of relationship with my own four
children. But just because I consider myself an approachable parent
does not give me the right, or anyone else the right, to assume that
all teens find their parents approachable and understanding. Those out
there who believe this is a good family-friendly bill are out of touch
with reality. This bill is not going to encourage teens to talk to
their parents and it is not going to curb abortion. Rather, this bill
will encourage young girls who cannot or will not talk to their parents
to seek unsafe, illegal abortions. For that reason alone, I cannot
support this bill.
I urge my colleagues, vote responsibly. Oppose the Child Custody
Protection Act.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York
for her leadership in opposition to H.R. 476. I associate myself with
her remarks.
One of the most moving experiences of my life was when I met with the
parents of Becky Bell, a 17-year-old who died from an illegal abortion
after the passage in her State of parental notification laws. We have
talked a lot about why children, why girls from families where there is
violence and it is, according to the AAUW, about a third of the teens
that do not involve their parents in the decision to make an abortion
have already been victims of family violence and fear it will recur
with the news of a pregnancy.
But I want to talk about the Bell family because this was in many
ways the ideal family. That is what Karen Bell thought, that they were
very close with their children, they were a middle-class family,
everything was going great. She favored parental notification laws
because she thought certainly Becky, if she had a problem, would come
to her as she should, and everyone in this Chamber agrees that that is
the way it should be, that children should go to their loving parents.
It did not quite happen that way. Becky, because she was so close to
her parents, felt she could not disappoint them. She would not tell
them. She ended up having an illegal abortion. As Becky Bell lay dying,
holding her mother's hand, her mother said, ``Becky, tell mommy what
happened,'' and she would not. She would not. It was not until the
death certificate was written, until the doctor said what was the cause
of Becky's death. Karen would have done anything, paid the fee for her
to go to another State, paid for the abortion, anything for Becky not

[[Page H1351]]

to be dead. This is the reality of life in too many situations. Again,
most girls tell their parents. Of course they do. And involve them. The
vast majority do. We are talking about those who not only cannot
because of violence, but often who will not.
The American Medical Association notes that, quote, the desire to
maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal
abortion deaths. That is what we are talking about, life and death
here, that this legislation, as well intended as it may be, is going to
cause the death of some young women who feel, for one reason or
another, that they cannot tell their parents.
We want them to go to a respected adult, to a relative, a grandparent
and hope that they will and that those adults can provide the guidance
and the care and take them to a place where legally and safely they can
have the abortion that they need.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the
dangerous implications of H.R. 476. While we wish that every family
engaged in open communication, we must recognize that the Federal
Government is unable to mandate it. Studies show, and several speakers
have mentioned this, well over 60 percent of young women do seek their
parents' advice when making an abortion decision. But in situations
where young women do not have supportive home environments or for
whatever reason they are unable to approach their parents, they do
often turn to another trusted adult figure, such as a relative or a
teacher, for assistance. H.R. 476 would make this illegal.
If enacted, this legislation will require a young woman's State laws
to travel with her wherever she goes. These laws would be her only
companion during this stressful time. H.R. 476 may actually harm young
women by compromising their access to health care services since
providers would face the burden of determining their patient's State of
residence and associated laws. Instead of ordering parental
involvement, we should provide comprehensive reproductive health
education to enable young people to make these good decisions.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), a member of the committee.
Mr. SCOTT. I appreciate the time from the gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule because it allows no amendments. There
are several amendments that ought to be offered, that we ought to be
able to consider. The bill prohibits anyone from transporting a minor
across the State line for the purpose of obtaining an abortion if in
fact the notification and parental consent laws were not complied with.
This obviously includes a taxicab driver who knows where the person
is going by virtue of their address and during the conversation on the
way before they cross State lines could clearly ascertain that the
minor is being transported for the purpose of an abortion. He is not
required to know whether or not the parental consent laws are complied
with. He would have to ascertain by the fine print in the bill whether
or not they have been complied with. Otherwise, he will be exposed to
criminal and civil liability.
Even if a prosecutor refused to prosecute a taxicab driver for this
fare, there are civil damages. Even the incest situation that the
gentlewoman from New York indicated, the parents could sue the taxicab
driver for civil damages.
Another is the fact that there is no exception for the health of the
minor. The Supreme Court, on a number of occasions for the last 30
years, has said that any antiabortion legislation must have an
exception for the health of the mother. This does not include a health
exception. Perhaps with an amendment we could debate this situation but
because it is a closed rule, we cannot. Because it is a closed rule and
we cannot debate many important amendments, I oppose the rule.
Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to remind my colleagues who are probably in their offices, I
know a lot are in markups and doing other things, that what is before
us today is a restriction of American citizens to cross State lines,
not just the case of what they call the minor child, but we are
restricting the right of a grandparent, a clergy person, any adults,
brothers, sisters, siblings, even cab drivers the right to carry people
across State lines.

{time} 1130

It is unheard of. I do not suppose any bill ever passed the House of
Representatives saying we are going to restrict travel of American
citizens for legal purposes. That is one of the most important issues
here. Even when we talk about not being able to amend it, I do not know
how you could amend it to make it correct, because, on the face of it,
it is certainly most unconstitutional.
The second most egregious part of it personally is the fact, as I
pointed out before, the Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of 16 to
12 voted to give a rapist or a person who commits incest the right of
action against the minor child or anyone who tries to help the child
get an abortion. In other words, protection of his work took precedence
over the right of that minor.
There has been a lot of talk about 11- and 12-year-old girls being in
that situation. Frankly, no 11- or 12-year-old girl should be giving
birth. If this society allows it or even encourages it, there is really
some debate we need to have on that.
The health of young people is very important to this House, and we
have voted time and time again to try to talk about what we want to do
for our children. But believe me, if the House of Representatives goes
on record today saying that rapists and people who perpetrate incest
have rights of action against anyone trying to help a minor child, and
if it goes on record today saying that we have the right to restrict
American travel of American citizens across State lines for legal
purposes, we will be talked about for years to come as to whether or
not we are really up to the job that we took when we raised our right
hand and swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill today. I will not call
a vote on the rule, but this underlying bill is something that is
really quite remarkable in its unintelligence, and I really urge
Members to vote ``no'' on it today.
Mr. Speaker, 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 388, I
call up the bill (H.R. 476) 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, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of H.R. 476 is as follows:

H.R. 476

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

[[Page H1352]]

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 (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
388, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will control 1 hour.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).

General Leave

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. 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 material on H.R. 476.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act, would make
it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line
with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in circumvention of a
State's parental consent or notification law. Violation of the law
would be a Class One misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $100,000 and
incarceration for up to 1 year.
H.R. 476 has two primary purposes: the first is to protect the health
and safety of young girls by preventing valid constitutional State
parental involvement laws from being circumvented. The second is to
protect the rights of parents to be involved in the medical decisions
of their minor daughters.
There is widespread agreement that it is the parents of a pregnant
minor who are best suited to provide her counsel, guidance and support
as she decides whether to continue her pregnancy or undergo an
abortion. A total of 43 States have enacted some form of a parental
involvement statute. Twenty-seven of these States currently enforce
statutes that require a pregnant minor to either notify her parents of
her intent to obtain an abortion or to obtain the consent of her
parents prior to obtaining an abortion. As these numbers indicate,
parental involvement laws enjoy widespread public support as they help
to ensure the health and safety of pregnant young girls and support
parents in the exercise of their most fundamental right, that is, of
raising their children.
Despite this widespread support, the transportation of minors across
State lines in order to obtain abortions is, unfortunately, a
widespread and frequent practice. Even groups opposed to this bill
acknowledge that large numbers of minors are transported across State
lines to obtain abortions, in many cases by adults other than their
parents.
Following the 1994 enactment of Pennsylvania's parental consent law,
abortion clinics in New Jersey and New York saw an increase in
Pennsylvania teenagers seeking to obtain abortions. This is not a
surprise, because just prior to Pennsylvania's law going into effect,
counselors and activists in Pennsylvania met to plot a strategy to make
it easier for teenagers to travel to neighboring States for abortions.
In one disturbing case, the operator for the National Abortion
Federation's toll-free national abortion hotline went so far as to talk
a Richmond, Virginia, area teenage girl through a travel route so that
the girl could obtain an abortion in the District of Columbia.
This conduct is only aided by the dubious practices of many abortion
clinics located in States lacking parental involvement laws. To gin up
business, some clinics even advertise in the Yellow Pages directories
distributed in nearby States that require parental involvement,
advising young girls that they can obtain an abortion without parental
consent or notification. Such ads only serve to lure young girls
residing in States with parental involvement laws to these clinics,
thus denying parents the opportunity to provide love, support and
advice to their daughter as she makes one of the most important
decisions of her life.
When confused and frightened young girls are assisted in and
encouraged to circumvent parental notice and consent laws by crossing
State lines, they are led into what will likely be a hasty and
potentially ill-advised decision. Often, these girls are being guided
by those who do not share the love and affection that most parents have
for their children. In the worst of circumstances, these individuals
have a great incentive to avoid criminal liability for their conduct
given the fact that almost two-thirds of adolescent mothers have
partners older than 20 years of age.
Parental notice and consent laws reflect the State's reasoned and
constitutional conclusion that the best interests of a pregnant minor
are served when her parents are consulted and involved in the process.
States are free to craft their own parental notice and consent laws to
allow a minor to consult a grandmother or other family member in lieu
of parents, and a few States have in fact made such a choice. Most,
however, have chosen not to allow close relatives to serve as
surrogates for parents in the abortion context. If a young girl's
circumstances are such that parental involvement is not in her best
interests, grandparents and close relatives are free to assist the girl
in pursuing a judicial bypass. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court
has required judicial bypass procedures to be included in the State's
parental consent statute.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated: ``The natural bonds of
affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their
children.'' The decision to obtain an abortion is, as the Court also
stated, ``a grave decision, and a girl of tender years under emotional
stress

[[Page H1353]]

may be ill-equipped to make it without mature advice and emotional
support.''
In light of the widespread practice of circumventing validly enacted
parental involvement laws by the transportation of minors across State
lines, it is entirely appropriate for Congress, with its exclusive
constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, to enact the
Child Custody Protection Act.
This Chamber has twice approved this legislation, each time by an
overwhelming majority. I encourage my fellow Members to again provide
parents with this much-needed support and approve this important
legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to a bill which will have a
catastrophic and cruel impact on young women and on the adults who care
for them.
I think every Member of this House believes that a young woman with
an unintended pregnancy should make any decision about what to do in
that very difficult situation with her parents in the warm, loving
environment of her family. In fact, in the majority of cases, that is
precisely what happens.
Ideally, young women would not get pregnant at all. Ideally, they
would not get raped by their fathers or step-fathers or boyfriends or
mothers' boyfriends. Ideally, they would make mature and thoughtful
decisions about when to become sexually active and to practice safe sex
all the time, if they must practice sex at all. Ideally, all methods of
birth control would be 100 percent effective. Ideally, when
contemplating an abortion, young women would be able to confide in a
loving parent who would assist them in making the right decision.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world; and Congress cannot
legislate ideal circumstances where they do not exist.
Because we do not live in an ideal world, young women do get raped.
Young women are the victims of incest. Young women often lack the
maturity to make sensible judgments about sexuality. Young women often
do not know how to avoid pregnancy, thanks in large part to the
mindless resistance on the part of many of their elders to sex and
contraception education. And sometimes they get pregnant, and they fear
they cannot go to their parents without fear of violence.
This bill is not about strangers, as its supporters argue. This bill
would make a criminal out of any caring adult who tried to help a young
woman: a grandparent, an adult brother or sister, a clergy member, an
aunt or an uncle. It would also allow a father who had raped his
daughter to sue in law anyone who helped her deal with the consequences
of his crime, because, in the words of this bill, his rights had been
violated. Never mind that he raped the daughter and created the problem
in the first place.
There are times when, in wishing for an ideal world, the murderous
angels of our better nature do more harm than good. This legislation is
a perfect example of that human failing. It does not make the problem
go away. It does not provide assistance to these young women. It only
makes it more likely that a 15- or 16- or 17-year-old girl will have to
face the consequences of her elders' wrongdoing alone. There is no
moral or reasonable justification for doing that.
We are told that States are required to have a judicial bypass
available to a young woman who feels she cannot go to her parent, that
a judge in those circumstances will exercise the judgment and permit
her to have an abortion if the circumstances so indicate. The Supreme
Court has required such a provision in State parental consent laws.
But the fact is, and this is no secret, in many communities the so-
called judicial bypass is a sham. Judges with a strong ideological or
religious opposition to the constitutional right to choose often simply
will not grant that permission. In some small communities, the judge
may know the parents, may know the young woman, or may even be her
teacher or some other authority figure in her life.
To say that the judicial bypass will cure any ill parental consent
laws may create is to ignore the realities of life; it is to pretend we
live in an ideal world and to let these young women suffer the
consequences when reality turns out to be more unpleasant.
We are also told that by going to court the police will become
involved in any case of rape or incest. The reality is not nearly so
simple. Seeking a judicial bypass does not mean the court will believe
the young woman or involve the authorities. Sometimes knowing the
authorities will become involved is enough to scare the young woman
away from going to court in the first place. Of course, a counselor at
a clinic may be better able to involve the authorities in a manner that
is helpful and non-threatening to the young woman than is a judge who
may suspect that a teenager is lying in order to get the abortion that
she wants. Judicial bypass procedures neither guarantee, nor does its
absence preclude, the involvement of the authorities.
As in the past two Congresses, we had hoped to offer amendments to
make this unyielding legislation just a little more humane. We wanted
to exempt grandparents, for example, so that if dad rapes the daughter
and the mother is not coping with reality or is perhaps not alive,
mom's mother can step in and take care of her granddaughter without
facing a stretch in the Federal penitentiary and the threat of getting
sued by the rapist. Unfortunately, even that modest effort to provide
some ability for some adult close to the young woman to help her proved
too much for the Republican majority, which will go to any lengths, no
matter who gets hurt, no matter whose life is ruined, no matter who has
to die, to pander to the extreme fringe of the anti-choice radicals.
Well, being pro-life and pro-family should mean caring about what
happens to real people facing real and tragic crises. This bill is
evidence, if such evidence is needed, that there are Members of this
House who do not care if a young woman must face the most difficult
moment of her life alone, even, as has been the case in the past, she
must die to prove the majority's political bona fides.

{time} 1145

She must die to prove the majority's political bona fides.
I would note one other thing. Quite a few States, my own State of New
York included, have refused to enact, to enact parental consent laws. I
was a member of the State legislature when we considered such
legislation, and I can tell my colleagues that we rejected that law,
that bill, because the realities of these situations convinced us that
it would do more harm than good.
Now comes the party of States' rights in Federalism to tell us that
they do not care what the people of our State think, they do not care
what the legislature of New York and other States think, they are going
to subject people who come to New York to the laws of their own States.
They want to enact the 21st century version of the Fugitive Slave Act.
They want to tell young women that they are the property, the property
of their home States, and that they carry the laws of their home States
on their backs if they go to another State which has a different view,
and that they may not engage in perfectly legal activity if the law of
the State from which they came makes it illegal there. This is
unprecedented in any real way in American law, except for the Fugitive
Slave Act.
In the Fugitive Slave Act, we told South Carolina that she could
reach out her hand to people, to slaves who had fled from North
Carolina and gone to New York or Pennsylvania where freedom prevailed
and said no, you are not free under the laws of Pennsylvania and New
York, you must carry the law of South Carolina with you and the people
up in New York must drag you back to slavery. This bill says if a young
woman, with the help of some friend or adult who wants to help her goes
to another State, she is not free to have an abortion if she wants, if
the law of that State permits it, because we will permit the law of the
other State from which she came to follow her, to reach out the long
hand of the other State and say, wherever you go, you are the property
of this State.
We say, you cannot get the liberty to have the abortion you want in
the other State that says you can, because we are going to drag you
back and punish anyone who helped you go to that other State.
What kind of liberty is this? What kind of Federalism is this?

[[Page H1354]]

This is not only unconstitutional, it is an affront to the dignity
and decency of every citizen of this country. It is an affront to the
people of every State who have chosen not to enact the law that the
majority wants to impose on them. If this Congress succeeds in doing
this, it means that any State in the future will be able to reach
across the country and control the lives of people in other States whom
they own because they came from those States. It means that if you live
in one State, even if you leave it and engage in a perfectly legal
activity in another State, that first State can still punish you in
that State.
There is nothing more offensive to the idea that we are a free people
who can go wherever we want without the permission of the government,
and help our neighbors, and follow the law than this bill. This is the
third time we have considered this bill. Thankfully, it has never
gotten close to passage by the other body. Despite the iron fist that
rules this House and suppresses free debate and free ideas by not
allowing amendments on the floor, I trust that this is the third time
that the Congress disposes of this issue without sending it to the
President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York, my friend, has gotten
carried away in referring to this bill as the 21st century version of
the Fugitive Slave Act. First of all, let it be plain. This bill only
involves a minor crossing State lines in order to evade a parental
involvement statute. Nobody over the age of 18 is caught in by this
bill whatsoever.
Secondly, since Roe v. Wade, abortion has been legal in every State
in the country, so it is not a way to shut off access to abortions in
any State. That has been settled law since Roe v. Wade. But the Supreme
Court has also said that as long as there is a judicial bypass,
parental involvement statutes are legal. So what is wrong with keeping
the parents involved when a decision is made to give an abortion to a
minor when the parents, by law, have to be involved when a doctor
treats that minor for a hang-nail?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
As chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I will address
some of the Constitution issues and the legal issues relative to H.R.
476.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 476, The Child Custody Protection Act, is a
regulation of interstate commerce that seeks to protect the health and
safety of young girls, as well as the rights of parents, to be involved
in the medical decisions of their minor daughters, by preventing valid
and constitutional State parental involvement laws from being
circumvented. As such, it falls well within Congress's constitutional
authority to regulate the transportation of individuals in interstate
commerce.
There is a solid body of case law which confirms that the authority
of Congress to regulate the transportation of individuals in interstate
commerce is no longer in question. Particularly instructive is the Mann
Act, which flatly prohibited the interstate transportation of women for
``prostitution'' or for ``any other immoral purpose.'' Upholding the
Act, the Supreme Court held that under the commerce clause, ``Congress
has power over transportation `among the several States,' '' and
characterized this power as being ``complete in itself,'' and further
held that incident to this power, Congress ``may adopt not only means
necessary,'' but also means ``convenient to its exercise,'' which ``may
have the quality of police regulations.''
Congress's commerce clause authority to enact H.R. 476 is not placed
in question by the fact that it seeks to prohibit interstate activities
that might be legal in the State to which the activity is directed.
Application of the Mann Act has been upheld in the transportation of a
person, for example, to Nevada, even though prostitution in Nevada is
legal. And Federal prohibitions on the transportation of lottery
tickets in interstate commerce as well as placing letters or circulars
concerning lotteries in the mail, regardless of whether lotteries are
legal in the State to which the tickets are transported, have also been
upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
Rather than exercising its full authority under the commerce clause
by simply prohibiting the interstate transportation of minors for
abortions without obtaining parental notice or consent, H.R. 476
respects the rights of the various States to make these often
controversial policy decisions for themselves, and ensures that each
State's policy aims regarding this issue are not frustrated. Nothing in
H.R. 476 affects the ability of minors residing in States that have
chosen not to enact a parental involvement law, or where a parental
involvement law is currently not in force, from obtaining an abortion
without the knowledge of their parents. Thus, it will not supersede,
override, or in any way alter existing State parental involvement laws.
Opponents argue that H.R. 476 violates the rights of residents of
each of the United States and the District of Columbia to travel to or
from any State of the Union for lawful purposes. First, it does not
appear that the Supreme Court has ever held that Congress's power to
regulate interstate commerce is limited by the right to travel. Even
assuming, however, that Congress's authority under the Interstate
Commerce Clause is limited by the right to travel doctrine, the Supreme
Court recognized in Saenz v. Roe that the right to travel is ``not
absolute,'' and is not violated, so long as there is a ``substantial
reason for the discrimination beyond the mere fact that they are
citizens of other States.''
Congress obviously has a substantial interest in protecting the
health and well-being of minor girls and in protecting the rights of
parents to raise their children.
In upholding the constitutionality of parental notice and consent
statutes, the United States Supreme Court has consistently recognized
that ``during the formative years of childhood and adolescence, minors
often lack the experience, perspective and judgment to recognize and
avoid choices that could be detrimental to them.'' Based upon this
reasoning, the court has allowed the States to enact laws that
``account for children's vulnerability'' and to protect the unique role
of parents. Thus, ``legal restrictions on minors, especially those
supportive of the parental role, may be important to the child's
chances for the full growth and maturity that make eventual
participation in a free society meaningful and rewarding.''
Opponents of H.R. 476 also contend that its criminal intent
requirement renders it unconstitutional. However, the bill's
requirement that defendants ``knowingly'' transport a minor with the
intent that the minor obtain an abortion prevents H.R. 476 from acting
as a strict liability law. Although H.R. 476 does not require
defendants to be aware that the conduct is criminal, a mens rea
requirements still exists, since the defendant must intend or know what
he or she is doing in a physical sense, apart from any knowledge as to
its legality.
Furthermore, as the court has stated, ``The State may, in the
maintenance of a public policy, provide that he who shall do particular
acts shall do them at his peril and will not be heard to plead in
defense good faith or ignorance.''
A stranger that secretly takes a minor across State lines for a
dangerous medical procedure without ascertaining her parents' consent
is certainly aware that he or she has acted, in some measure, wrongly.
By finding the transporter liable when he ``in fact'' abridges a State
law, H.R. 476 puts the transporter under a duty to ascertain parental
permission before action is taken in order to guard against a possible
violation.
At the heart of the debate surrounding the Child Custody Protection
Act is a disagreement about whether common sense legislation should be
enacted in order to preserve the health of pregnant young girls and
support parents in the exercise of their most basic right. This debate
has already been held in almost all of the Nation's State legislatures,
43 of which have reasonably concluded that parents should be involved
in these decisions by their minor daughters. These laws have been
validly enacted and Congress is well within its authority to ensure
that the channels of interstate commerce are

[[Page H1355]]

not used to frustrate the policy goals of these laws.
Thus, I urge my colleagues to support American families and vote in
favor of this important bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this debate is not really about the parental consent,
parental notification laws; those debates occur in State legislatures.
This debate is whether Congress should attempt to give the power to
one's State to export its law to another State by criminalizing
crossing the State line to do something that is legal in that State
with respect to abortion, and that, that is what makes this the 21
century Fugitive Slave Law, because the philosophy of the bill is we
can control what our young people do wherever they do it, not in this
State, but elsewhere. We can criminalize anyone helping to do something
elsewhere.
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) says criminal intent can be
inferred, we know that. Well, the fact is, in some cases, it can. But
let us assume that someone crosses the New York-Pennsylvania border,
not necessarily because they want to cross a border, but simply because
the nearest town with a clinic happens to be across the State border.
The lines on the map are not lines on the street in front of you. You
go to the nearest town, you help your young friend, your niece, your
granddaughter, and it will be criminal, even if you had no intent to
cross the State line, you were not even thinking about the States; it
just happens that the nearest town is across the State line.
I would also like to ask the gentleman from Ohio to yield for a
question, if he would, on my time. I will ask the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot) a question, and then I will yield. The bill said, except
as provided in subsection B, whoever knowingly transports an
individual, et cetera, et cetera. What does the bill mean by transport?
I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) repeat the question?
Mr. NADLER. What does the bill mean by the word ``transport''?
Whoever knowingly transports an individual under 18, et cetera.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield on his time?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, ``transport'' would be to take a person
across a State line for the purpose of an abortion. It would not
include a taxi cab driver, for example, if the taxi cab driver was not
involved in a conspiracy to transport that person across the State
line.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I did not ask what
``knowingly'' means, I asked what ``transport'' means. So in other
words, if you take this person across State lines; now, what if she is
17 years old and she is driving, you are just accompanying her and
holding her hand. Are you transporting her? I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CHABOT. Will the gentleman yield on his own time?
Mr. NADLER. Yes.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, if the person has knowledge and conspires to
transport a minor across the State line----
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Ohio
is not answering the question. Forget the knowledge question. Let us
assume he has the knowledge. Transport. If the young 17-year-old woman
who has a driver's license who wants to get an abortion asks her friend
or her uncle or her aunt or her grandparent to accompany her, and she
is driving, are they ``transporting'' her, under the meaning of this
bill?

{time} 1200

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, the
gentleman says ``she is driving.'' Who is he referring to?
Mr. NADLER. The 17-year-old who wants the abortion.
Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman is saying if the person who is going to get
the abortion is driving the vehicle, would they themselves be
responsible?
Mr. NADLER. No, would the person sitting in the seat next to them
holding their hand be responsible?
Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will yield further, if a person is
involved in a conspiracy to transport a person across State lines for
the purpose of obtaining an abortion, and is doing that in violation of
a parental notification law and is not the parent, then they would be
involved and they would be responsible.
Whether it is a person accompanying, in my opinion, a person just
accompanying would not be criminally responsible.
Mr. NADLER. So, in other words, the person, if a 17-year-old minor
who wants to get an abortion asks her grandfather or her uncle or her
brother or her friend who is 18 to accompany her across the State line
to get the abortion, but she is driving, nobody has committed a crime?
Is that what the gentleman is saying?
Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the gentleman
needs to read the language that is in the statute.
Mr. NADLER. I have read the language.
Mr. CHABOT. The language indicates if a person transports a person
across the State line, then that person is responsible. It depends upon
the level of their involvement.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would tell the gentleman, I am not asking
the level of their involvement. But reclaiming my time, the bill seems
to indicate the opposite. Normally, when we say ``transport,'' if I
transport a box, I am driving the car and the box is on the seat or in
the trunk. If I transport a person, I am driving the car, the person is
in the car with me.
My question is, if the person who wants to get the abortion, who is
17 years old and has a driver's license, is driving the car across the
State line and she has asked someone to go along with her and he knows
the purpose, is that person guilty of transporting? Is that person
guilty of knowingly transporting her?
The plain language of English would seem to indicate he is not
transporting; she is.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield again, since I
have answered it four times, I would like to read the bill. The bill
clearly says, ``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 1 year, or both.''
Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time, I can read the bill, too.
Mr. CHABOT. I would suggest that the gentleman do that.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, my point is, whoever
knowingly transports. If the person who is getting the abortion is
doing the driving, she is transporting. She is not subject to this
bill. The person sitting next to her is not transporting her, under the
plain English language.
I have read the definitions in the bill. There are definitions in
this bill of other terms, but not of the term ``transport.'' The plain
English meaning is that if she is driving, no one is transporting her.
She is transporting herself. So what this bill does is criminalize
someone going with her, depending on who is at the steering wheel.
Now, I do not think that was the intent of the law, of the bill, but
I think it is the clear meaning of the bill. I think it is just one
more instance of how sloppily drafted, of necessity, this bill has to
be because of the nature of it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the principal author of the bill.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, when asked, should a person be able to
take a minor girl across State lines to obtain an abortion without her
parents' knowledge, 85 percent of Americans answered no in a recent
poll conducted by Baselice and Associates. Whether pro-choice or pro-
life, Americans agree that an abortion can leave

[[Page H1356]]

behind physical, emotional, spiritual, and psychological consequences.
Yet, advocates of the abortion industry continue to think that in the
name of Roe v. Wade, parents need not be involved in a female's
decisions, regardless of the fact that she may be a 12- or 13-year-old
vulnerable, frightened, and confused young girl.
Where is the outrage on mass-marketed Yellow Pages advertisements
such as the one right here to my side, which clearly solicits business
from young, confused girls, shouting out ``no parental consent''? These
are from the Yellow Pages.
Why is it that some of our opponents are instead outraged by
cigarette ads which some say target minors? Do opponents of this bill
not believe that a child is not mature enough to choose not to smoke,
but is mature enough to choose to have a potentially fatal, invasive
surgical procedure?
The ads cry out, ``Come over here. No parental consent.'' And it is a
procedure, as we know, that has been linked to breast cancer, medical
complications, and that has left many women barren for the rest of
their lives. I call this hypocrisy.
It is parents who are aware of their daughter's medical history. They
know the ways in which she may react to stressful situations, and they
are best equipped to provide the necessary counseling and guidance. My
bill, the Child Custody Protection Act, protects the inherent rights of
parents, and upholds and enforces existing State laws without creating
a parental Federal consent or notification mandate.
If parents have the right to decide a child's curfew and the right to
grant permission for a date, they should certainly be enabled to
exercise their inherent rights when making a life-impacting decision
about a serious, complicated, and potentially life-threatening
procedure. It defies common sense to remove parents from any medical
decisions concerning their children, but especially one that has life-
long consequences, such as an abortion.
I urge my colleagues to give parents the right to protect and care
for their own children. Let us enable children to receive the guidance
they need and deserve. I urge my colleagues to vote for passage of H.R.
476, the Child Custody Protection Act.
I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his
leadership on this issue.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker, the gentlewoman from Florida,
showed us the horrible example of a perfectly legal ad in the Yellow
Pages offering perfectly legal services in a State where it is legal to
do so, as if there were something terrible about that.
I do not think it is terrible, I think it is praiseworthy. The fact
is, there are many young women under the age of 18, maybe 17, maybe 16,
who cannot go to their parents; who desperately need an abortion and
cannot go to their parents for fear of violence or whatever. This ad
says, ``You can have help here.'' Nothing wrong with that.
Many young women justifiably feel they would be physically or
emotionally abused if forced to disclose their pregnancies to their
parents, unfortunately. Nearly one-third of minors who choose not to
consult with their parents when contemplating an abortion have
experienced violence in their family, or feared violence, or feared
being forced to live at home.
We know of the case of Spring Adams, an Idaho teenager who was shot
to death by her father, shot to death after he learned she was planning
to terminate a pregnancy caused by his acts of incest with her. Do
Members think she could have gone to him?
And we know that judges often will not grant permission to have an
abortion because of their own personal opinions. One study found that a
number of judges in Massachusetts either refused to handle abortion
petitions, or focus inappropriately, inappropriately under the law, on
the morality of abortion, which is none of their business to determine,
except for themselves, because their duty is to exercise the judicial
bypass guaranteed by the law of that State.
The American Medical Association has noted that because the need for
privacy may be compelling, minors may be driven to desperate measures
to maintain the confidentiality of their pregnancies. The desire to
maintain secrecy against the parental notification and consent laws has
been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion deaths, deaths,
since 1973. That is what we are dealing with here, young women who are
so fearful of telling their parents, for whatever reason, that they
would rather have a coat hanger abortion and have died as a result.
When the Subcommittee on the Constitution held hearings on this bill,
we heard from an Episcopal priest, the Reverend Katherine Ragsdale, the
vicar of St. David's Episcopal Church, who discussed the actual case of
a 15-year-old girl who had been raped and had become pregnant. She
could not go to her father, who would throw her out of the house, and
she had no other family to turn to. Of course, if she did, this
legislation would place those other relatives in legal jeopardy if they
helped her.
Though they did not cross State lines, the Reverend Ragsdale drove
the young woman to an abortion clinic, rather than allowing her to
travel several hours alone by bus to and from the procedure. This is an
act of kindness, not a criminal act. Reverend Ragsdale movingly
described the pastoral counseling she provided to the young woman
during the drive. This bill would make criminals of clergy providing
this sort of pastoral care and guidance.
Reverend Ragsdale's observations at the subcommittee are worth
repeating: ``Mr. Chairman, you talked about all the reasons it is
important for a girl to have parental involvement before a medical
procedure, and you are absolutely right. If I thought that this bill
would accomplish parental involvement, if I thought it would eliminate
the kind of pain Ms. Roberts spoke about, this panel would be even more
unbalanced than it is, because I would be on the other side.
``But it won't do that. This bill is not about resolving problems,
this bill is about punishing people. While I understand that even the
best of us have punitive impulses from time to time, we have no
business codifying them in law. They are venal. They are beneath the
dignity of any member of the human family.''
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, the Child Custody Protection Act is such a needed and
necessary step because it closes a destructive loophole in parents'
rights to protect their children from that lasting physical,
psychological, and spiritual consequence that is caused from abortion.
As things stand today, the abortion industry actually uses ``No
parental consent required'' as a marketing tool within neighboring
States that empower parents to protect their children from abortions by
requiring their prior approval. That is not just wrong, it is immoral.
The CCPA simply makes the act of transporting a minor across the
State line for the purpose of performing an abortion a Federal offense.
It places parents back in charge of their children, and it issues a
warning to those who would actually insert themselves between parents
and their daughters to encourage the single most horrendous and
emotionally devastating mistake that young women are tragically
permitted to make.
We know well that parents are in the best position as observers to
counsel and advise their own daughters. The CCPA places those parents
back in charge by closing a secret loophole. That loophole facilitates
the anonymous destruction of innocent life, and it creates the lasting
trauma that haunts every young girl who ends her baby's life.
I just beg the Members to vote yes on this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished
ranking member for yielding time to me. I thank him for his voice, and
I am saddened that we have this debate. The reason is because I believe
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are

[[Page H1357]]

concerned about family and children and relationships.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that it is difficult for me to convince many of
my colleagues on my view of the ninth amendment of the Constitution and
the right to privacy and choice. I am an advocate of choice, but as I
say that, I am an advocate of life. I encourage, in instances of the
private decisions of a woman, that that woman has the right to make a
choice with respect to her body between herself, her family members,
and her spiritual leader.
This is a somewhat different debate. This legislation is called ``the
Child Custody Protection Act.'' It is a constitutional debate, because
privacy is still an element, it is still an element of States' rights.
It is interesting that my colleagues can come to the floor in one
instance and promote up the value and the high virtues of States'
rights, but at the very same time, we had a debate some few years ago
in the same subcommittee on attacking various desegregation busing
orders in various States, where we were trying as a Congress, the
Republican majority, to eliminate those busing plans.
We have over and over again gone over legislation to deal with the
rights of Oregon citizens who have themselves voted over and over again
that they wish to make a decision, a personal decision, on their right
to die.
I call that, if you will, the conflict of values and the conflict of
standards in this House: What is good for the goose is not good for the
gander. My way or the highway is the mentality of those who would ask
us to not have legislation like this that would be sufficiently and
openly bipartisan.

{time} 1215

How do I say that? Many amendments were offered to suggest that
teenagers who have come upon difficult times might find the need to
consult with others other than a parent who would have been accused of
incest or rape or that there might be instances of health issues that
would be necessary for this particular teenager, possibly 16 or 17
years old, to consult with someone else.
The Republican majority had a closed rule and then again we come to
the floor without giving this legislation a chance that it could have
had with a bipartisan approach.
Let me cite for my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, possibly a startling
number. More than 75 percent of minors under 16 years old already
involved one or both parents in their decision to have an abortion.
It is really the obligation of Congress to confront a crisis. I know
that we have differences on this question of choice. I will never get
some of my good friends and colleagues to agree with me on this issue,
and let me make it clear that I know that they fall on both sides of
the aisle, but if we had worked on this legislation for the good of the
child, to protect the child against rape and the incest that comes from
a parental situation sometimes, if we had looked at the numbers and
noted that more than 75 percent of a child already goes to that
comforting parent but yet there are a percentage of those who do not.
There are a percentage of those who do not know how to travel through
the judicial system so they cannot use judicial bypass.
This legislation unfortunately, with all of its good intentions, will
cause some damage, some danger and God forbid, loss of life to some
young person who needs to have the guidance other than those parents,
maybe a drug-addicted parent, maybe a parent suffering from their own
ills and devils.
I would ask my colleagues to send this bill back ultimately so that
we can reach a bipartisan approach. I would ask them to assess this on
constitutional grounds and to realize that we cannot have a double
standard. Today's State rights, tomorrow my rights.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to H.R. 476, the ``Child
Custody Protection Act'' (CCPA) because it criminalizes any good faith
attempt by a caring adult to assist a young woman in obtaining abortion
services across state lines.
CCPA 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 punishes adolescents by making it more difficult for them
to safely access constitutionally protected abortion services. CCPA
does not protect young women nor will it strengthen family ties.
Rather, it will punish and endanger those women who cannot discuss
unwanted pregnancy with parents by forcing them to travel to another
state alone, seek an unsafe illegal abortion, attempt to self-abort, or
carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
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 the parents' names. In small towns, confidentiality may
be further compromised if the judge knows the teen or her family.
There are various reasons 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 creates severe
hardships.
The need to travel across state lines may be necessary in states
where abortion services are not readily available. This bill would
unduly burden access to abortion for young women who travel across
state lines to obtain such services and who choose not to involve their
parents.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade, recognized a
constitutional right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. The
Court reaffirmed the right to choose in Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, holding that restrictions on this
right are unconstitutional if they impose an ``undue burden'' on a
woman's access to abortion. The right extends to both minors and
adults, but the Court has permitted individual states to restrict the
ability of young women to obtain abortions within that states' borders.
Allowing a state's laws to extend beyond its borders runs completely
contrary to the state sovereignty principles on which this country is
founded.
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.
This bill would isolate young women from trusted adults by placing
criminal sanctions on providing basic comfort and advice. Abortion is a
highly personal and private decision that should be made by a woman and
her doctor, without interference from the government. I urge my
colleagues to please vote against this dangerous bill.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, imagine a father who loves his daughter, pretty little
15-year-old girl, all the boys are crazy about her and so is daddy, but
she has got a special boyfriend and daddy knows those two little ones
are going to get into trouble. So in order to make sure that his
daughter is safe, daddy piles the little 15-year-old boy that lives
down the block about four blocks and piles him in a car and takes him
to Arkansas to get a vasectomy. That way they could have safe sex, they
could be politically correct, and they could be as active as they
wanted to, and we would not have to bother their parents with any
restraint or teaching or instruction or whatever. Daddy would just take
care of it with a simple little harmless surgical procedure.
Who in this body would not be outraged? How far would that father get
before the cops would nab him after that deal? How much crying and
moaning before the hardship inflicted on that poor child boy would we
hear from this body here?

[[Page H1358]]

I have got another friend who is a daddy. I love daddies. Daddies
love their kids so much. I have got a friend who has got a 15-year-old
son and he has got a 14-year-old girl for a beautiful little girl, but
she has got bad need of dental work. Her parents do not get her dental
work.
This papa loads that little girl up in the car and drives her to
Oklahoma and see an orthodontist, pulls out her wisdom teeth, does
other surgeries on her mouth. Who in this room is going to condone
that? Is that acceptable? What right does that father have to take
somebody else's child from Texas to Oklahoma to have her teeth pulled?
My colleagues would be outraged. My colleagues would bring the force
of law on that person, but here we have people in this body, people in
this body, so-called enlightened people, who believe in safe sex. Safe
sex being a child does not get a serious disease or does not get
pregnant. How about all the emotional stress, how about all the
emotional trauma and so forth?
People in this body say, hey, here is the deal, we have got a 14-
year-old son. He has got a 13-year-old girlfriend, they get reckless,
they get careless, they get pregnant, just take that little girl, pile
her in a car, take her to Arkansas for an abortion, and we will protect
a person's right to take somebody else's child across the State line
for a medical procedure that endangers her life and steals the life of
an innocent baby. We will protect the person who does it. What kind of
heinous law would we have? This is no, as we say in Texas, this is no
thinkin' thing.
The most precious moment in any family's life, you get married and
fall in love, you love one another and you get married and you some day
come back from the hospital and you have got this very precious little
bundle of joy in your hands and you look down on that little darling
baby and you say this is my baby. All my life it will be me. I will
pour my tears over this child. I will pour my heart into this child. I
will say my prayers over this child. I will teach this child. I will
hold this child. I will console this child. I will protect this child.
If something goes wrong, my heart will break.
We would dare to leave any avenue in law that would allow somebody
else to take that child across a State line for a life threatening
surgical procedure that even if it inflicts no physical harm on the
child will leave that child emotionally scarred for a lifetime? We
would dare to leave that avenue for exploitation open?
I must say this, if my colleagues would vote no on this bill, then
they are either without heart or without children.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I have heart, I have children, or at least one child, and I will
almost certainly vote no on this bill, and the gentleman has no right
to cast aspersions on my motives or anybody else.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott).
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, this bill prohibits anyone from transporting
a minor across State lines in order to obtain an abortion if the
notification and parental consent laws have not been complied with.
There is nothing in the bill that prohibits a minor from crossing
State lines herself to get the abortion. Nothing in the bill that would
prohibit a parent to cross State lines with the minor and evade a State
requirement that both parents be notified or consent. There is no
prohibition so long as they go themselves and no one else transports
them. This prohibits someone from accompanying the minor.
One of the things that we mentioned before was the amendment about
taxicab drivers. If a taxicab driver knows that the minor is going to
get an abortion and has not ascertained that the parental consent laws
have been complied with, that taxicab driver is exposed to liability,
both civil and criminal. So if the prosecutor is not going to prosecute
the cab driver, the parent can sue the cab driver for damages.
This bill does not have a health exception and, therefore, has
constitutional problems. The Supreme Court has frequently said that
there has to be a health exception in any abortion legislation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to strongly consider the
precedents that we are setting. The possibility that we are prohibiting
crossing State lines to do something which is legal in the State
someone is going to.
Virginia prohibits casino gambling. We could, under this idea,
prohibit people from crossing the State line, leaving Virginia to go to
Las Vegas or Atlantic City to participate in something that is illegal
in Virginia. Some States have lottery tickets. Others do not. Are we
going to prohibit people leaving the State to go buy a lottery ticket
in another State? Virginia used to prohibit shopping on Sunday. I
suppose under this legislation we prohibit taking somebody across State
lines to go shopping on Sunday if we still had those laws.
The idea that we are going to prohibit someone crossing State lines
to do something that is legal in that State is a situation that I think
we ought to seriously consider and reject. This bill will do nothing to
limit minors crossing State lines to obtain an abortion. The minor can
go by herself to obtain the abortion. All this bill does is prohibits
anyone from accompanying them.
This bill does nothing to advance public safety, does nothing to
reduce the abortions, and I think was counterproductive in that if the
child is going to get an abortion and will get the abortion, it makes
sense for them to be accompanied.
I would hope that we would reject the legislation.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), a member of the committee.
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin,
the distinguished chairman of the committee, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge passage of this common sense
legislation. I am disappointed that we even need to debate a bill that
is designed to prevent people from circumventing State laws in order to
abort a baby carried by a minor.
I do not think most of our constituents consider parental involvement
in their children's lives a radical notion. I do not think most
Americans consider parents to be the enemy of their children. I do
think most parents desire to support and love their children through
the most difficult circumstances they may face.
Under current law, any person in the world can take a pregnant girl
into his car, drive her to another State and coerce her to get an
abortion, all without her parents' knowledge or consent. That is a
frightening and unacceptable scenario.
Why do we treat abortion differently than we do any other medical
procedure? If, for example, a minor was taken across State lines to
receive an appendectomy without parental consent, she would be turned
back, and for the purpose of the gentleman from New York, the Fugitive
Slave Act already applies to appendectomies.
If a school counselor or second cousin took a minor in for a
tonsillectomy without the permission of the child's parents, they would
be turned away. Once again, the Fugitive Slave Act, using as an
analogy, already applies to tonsillectomies.
A schoolteacher cannot even take children to the local museum without
their parents' permission, and yes, the Fugitive Slave Act already
applies to museum field trips.
Opponents of this bill argue that an adult, even if he is a rapist or
a child molester, should be allowed to transport a girl miles from her
home, across State lines for the invasive surgical operation known as
abortion. Since the Supreme Court created a right to an abortion out of
thin air 29 years ago, our children have been susceptible to
ideological predators who care more about their proabortion agenda than
they do about frightened vulnerable girls.
The gentleman brought up the testimony of the vicar from
Massachusetts, and I would like to return to that testimony. It has
been discussed here that the people that are involved in this procedure
are confidantes of the individual. According to the testimony of the
one witness supplied by the minority, in her own words, she said this:
``I didn't know the girl. I knew her school nurse. The nurse had
called me a few days earlier to see if I knew

[[Page H1359]]

where she might mind find money to give the girl for bus fare to and
cab fare home from the hospital. I was stunned. A 15-year-old girl was
going to have to get up at the crack of dawn and take multiple buses to
the hospital alone. The nurse shared my concern but explained that the
girl had no one to turn to. She feared for her safety if her father
found out, and there was no other relative close enough to help.''
The vicar never testified that the father would have run her out of
the house as the gentleman from New York earlier spoke. It was up to
the nurse and the child who was under duress at this time to come up
with this excuse, and the vicar used that opportunity to pray on the
child's weakness and to move ahead with this.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to remember that parents should
ultimately be given this opportunity to have a decision in their
child's most critical time in her life, should that ever happen.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a nonsensical point. In that case,
if the vicar had not traveled with the young woman, she would have
traveled alone and gotten the abortion. That would have been
preferable? In this case, the school nurse called in the vicar because
the young woman had told her that she feared for her life or that she
would run away from home if she had, that she could not under any
circumstances, would not under any circumstances tell her parents but
she would get the abortion.
So she called in the vicar, the vicar spoke with her, counseled her,
and rather than let her go alone, helped her. This is not praying on
the young woman. This is giving pastoral guidance and helping her.
Mr. Speaker, we are told that this bill is somehow constitutional,
but the Supreme Court has clearly and consistently held that States
cannot prohibit the lawful out of State conduct of their citizens if
its lawful out of State nor may they impose criminal sanctions on this
behavior as this bill does.
The court reaffirmed its principles in its landmark right to travel
decision Saenz versus Roe. In its decision, the court held that even
with congressional approval, California's attempt to impose on recently
arrived residents the welfare laws of their former States of residence
was an unconstitutional penalty upon their rights to interstate travel.

{time} 1230

The decision also reaffirmed that the constitutional right to travel
under the privileges and immunity clause of Article IV of the
Constitution provides a similar type of protection to a nonresident who
enters a State with the intent eventually to return to her home State.
This principle applies to minor's rights to seek an abortion on
nondiscriminatory terms as well as through welfare benefits.
In Saenz, the court specifically referred to Doe v. Bolton, the
companion case to Roe v. Wade, which established the right to abortion
which held that under Article IV of the Constitution, a State may not
restrict the ability of visiting nonresidents to obtain abortions on
the same terms and conditions under which they are made available to
lawful State residents. ``The Privileges and Immunities Clause,
Constitutional Article IV, section 2, protects persons who enter a
State seeking the medical services that are available there.'' It is
also clear that such protections will flow to minors given that Planned
Parenthood v. Danforth, a 1976 decision, held that pregnant minors have
a constitutional right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear this bill is unconstitutional as well as
unwarranted as well as cruel.

September 5, 2001.
To: United States House of Representatives Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution
From: Laurence H. Tribe, Tyler Professor of Constitutional
Law, Harvard University Peter J. Rubin, Associate
Professor of Law, Georgetown University
Re: H.R. 476 and Constitutional Principles of Federalism

Introduction

We have been asked to submit our assessment of whether H.R.
476, now pending before the House, is consistent with
constitutional principles of federalism. It is our considered
view that the proposed statute violates those principles,
principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order.
That statute violates the rights of states to enact and
enforce their own laws governing conduct within their
territorial boundaries, and the rights of the residents of
each of the United States and of the District of Columbia 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 v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489
(1999). We have therefore concluded that the proposed law
would, if enacted, violate the Constitution of the United
States.
H.R. 476 would provide criminal and civil penalties,
including imprisonment for up to one year, for any person who
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. . . [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 in the State where the individual
resides.

H.R. 476, Sec. 2 (a) (proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2431(a)(1)
and (2)). In other words, this law makes it a federal crime
to assist a pregnant minor to obtain a lawful abortion. The
criminal penalties kick in if the abortion the young woman
seeks would be performed in a state other than her state of
residence, and in accord with the less restrictive laws of
that state, unless she complies with the more severe
restrictions her home state imposes upon abortions performed
upon minors within its territorial limits. The law contains
no exceptions for situations where the young woman's home
state purports to disclaim any such extraterritorial
effect for its parental consultation rules, or where it is
a pregnant young woman's close friend, or her aunt or
grandmother, or a member of the clergy, who accompanies
her ``across a State line'' on this frightening journey,
even where she would have obtained the abortion anyway,
whether lawfully in another state after a more perilous
trip alone, or illegally (and less safely) in her home
state because she is too frightened to seek a judicial
bypass or too terrified of physical abuse to notify a
parent or legal guardian who may, indeed, be the cause of
her pregnancy. It does not exempt health care providers,
including doctors, from possible criminal or civil
penalties. Nor does it uniformly apply home-state laws on
pregnant minors who obtain out-of-state abortions. The law
applies only where the young woman seeks to go from a
state with a more restrictive regime into a state with a
less restrictive one.
This amounts to a statutory attempt to force this most
vulnerable class of young women to carry the restrictive laws
of their home states strapped to their backs, bearing the
great weight of those laws like the bars of a prison that
follows them wherever they go (unless they are willing to go
alone). Such a law violates the basic premises upon which our
federal system is constructed, and therefore violates the
Constitution of the United States.

Analysis

The essence of federalism is that the several states have
not only different physical territories and different
topographies but also different political and legal regimes.
Crossing the border into another state, which every citizen
has a right to do, may perhaps not permit the traveler to
escape all tax or other fiscal or recordkeeping duties owed
to the state as a condition of remaining a resident and thus
a citizen of that state, but necessarily permits the traveler
temporarily to shed her home state's regime of laws
regulating primary conduct in favor of the legal regime of
the state she has chosen to visit. Whether cast in terms of
the destination state's authority to enact laws effective
throughout its domain without having to make exceptions for
travelers from other states, or cast in terms of the
individual's right to travel--which would almost certainly be
deterred and would in any event be rendered virtually
meaningless if the traveler could not shake the conduct-
constraining laws of her home state--the proposition that a
state may not project its laws into other states by following
its citizens there is bedrock in our federal system.
One need reflect only briefly on what rejecting that
proposition would mean in order to understand how axiomatic
it is to the structure of federalism. Suppose that your home
state or Congress could lock you into the legal regime of
your home state as you travel across the country. This would
mean that the speed limits, marriage regulations,
restrictions on adoption, rules about assisted suicide,
firearms regulations, and all other controls over behavior
enacted by the state you sought to leave behind, either
temporarily or permanently, would in fact follow you into all
49 of the other states as you traveled the length and breadth
of the nation in search of more hospitable ``rules of the
road.'' If your search was for a more favorable legal
environment in which to make your home, you might as well
just look up the laws of distant states on the internet
rather than roaming about in a futile effort at sampling
them, since you will not actually experience those laws by
traveling there. And if your search was for a less hostile
legal environment in which to attend college or spend a
summer vacation or obtain a medical procedure, you might
as well skip even the internet, since the theoretically
less hostile laws of other jurisdictions will mean nothing
to you so long as your state of residence remains
unchanged.

[[Page H1360]]

Unless the right to travel interstate means nothing more
than the right to change the scenery, opting for the open
fields of Kansas or the mountains of Colorado or the beaches
of Florida but all the while living under the legal regime of
whichever state you call home, telling you that the laws
governing your behavior will remain constant as you cross
from one state into another and then another is tantamount to
telling you that you may in truth be compelled to remain at
home--although you may, of course, engage in a simulacrum of
interstate travel, with an experience much like that of the
visitor to a virtual reality arcade who is strapped into
special equipment that provides the look and feel of
alternative physical environments--from sea to shining sea--
but that does not alter the political and legal environment
one iota. And, of course, if home-state legislation, or
congressional legislation, may saddle the home state's
citizens with that state's abortion regulation regime, then
it may saddle them with their home state's adoption and
marriage regimes as well, and with piece after piece of the
home state's legal fabric until the home state's citizens are
all safely and tightly wrapped in the straitjacket of the
home state's entire legal regime. There are no constitutional
scissors that can cut this process short, no principled
metric that can supply a stopping point. The principle
underlying H.R. 476 is nothing less, therefore, than the
principle that individuals may indeed be tightly bound by the
legal regimes of their home states even as they traverse the
nation by traveling to other states with very different
regimes of law. It follows, therefore, that--unless the right
to engage in interstate travel that is so central to our
federal system is indeed only a right to change the
surrounding scenery--H.R. 476 rests on a principle that
obliterates that right completely.
It is irrelevant to the federalism analysis that the
proposed federal statute does not literally prohibit the
minor herself from obtaining an out-of-state abortion without
complying with the parental consent or notification laws of
her home state, criminalizing instead only the conduct of
assisting such a young woman by transporting her across state
lines. The manifest and indeed avowed purpose of the statute
is to prevent the pregnant minor from crossing state lines to
obtain an abortion that is lawful in her state of destination
whenever it would have violated her home state's law to
obtain an abortion there because the pregnant woman has not
fully complied with her home state's requirements for
parental consent or notification. The means used to achieve
this end do not alter the constitutional calculus.
Prohibiting assistance in crossing state lines in the manner
of this proposed statute suffers the same infirmity with
respect to our federal structure as would a direct ban on
traveling across state lines to obtain an abortion that
complies with all the laws of the state where it is performed
without first complying also with the laws that would apply
to obtaining an abortion in one's home state.
The federalism principle we have described operates
routinely in our national life. Indeed, it is so commonplace
it is taken for granted. Thus, for example, neither Virginia
nor Congress could prohibit residents of Virginia, where
casino gambling is illegal, from traveling interstate to
gamble in a casino in Nevada. (Indeed, the economy of
Nevada essentially depends upon this aspect of federalism
for its continued vitality.) People who like to hunt
cannot be prohibited from traveling to states where
hunting is legal in order to avail themselves of those
pro-hunting laws just because such hunting may be illegal
in their home state. And citizens of every state must be
free, for example, to read and watch material, even
constitutionally unprotected material, in New York City
the distribution of which might be unlawful in their own
states, but which New York has chosen not to forbid. To
call interstate travel for such purposes an ``evasion'' or
``circumvention'' of one's home-state laws--as H.R. 476
purports to do, see H.R. 476, Sec. 2(a) (heading of the
proposed 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2431) (``Transportation of minors
in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion'')--
is to misunderstand the basic premise of federalism: one
is entitled to avoid those laws by traveling interstate.
Doing so amounts to neither evasion nor circumvention.
Put simply, you may not be compelled to abandon your
citizenship in your home state as a condition of voting with
your feet for the legal and political regime of whatever
other state you wish to visit. The fact that you intend to
return home cannot undercut your right, while in another
state, to be governed by its rules of primary conduct rather
than by the rules of primary conduct of the state from which
you came and to which you will return. When in Rome, perhaps
you will not do as the Romans do, but you are entitled--if
this figurative Rome is within the United States--to be
governed as the Romans are. If something is lawful for one of
them to do, it must be lawful for you as well. The fact that
each state is free, notwithstanding Article IV, to make
certain benefits available on a preferential basis to its own
citizens does not mean that a state's criminal laws may 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's state or by virtue of a
congressional enactment. To be sure, a state need not treat
the travels of its citizens to other states as suddenly
lifting otherwise applicable restrictions when they return
home. Thus, a state that bans the possession of gambling
equipment, of specific kinds of weapons, of liquor, or of
obscene material may certainly enforce such bans against
anyone who would bring the contraband items into the
jurisdiction, including its own residents returning from a
gambling state, a hunting state, a drinking state, or a state
that chooses not to outlaw obscenity. But that is a far cry
from projecting one state's restrictive gambling, firearms,
alcohol, or obscenity laws into another state whenever
citizens of the first state venture there.
Thus states cannot prohibit the lawful out-of-state conduct
of their citizens, nor may they impose criminal-law-backed
burdens--as H.R. 476 would do--upon those lawfully engaged in
business or other activity within their sister states.
Indeed, this principle is so fundamental that it runs through
the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in cases that are nominally
about provisions and rights as diverse as the Commerce
Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the right to travel,
which is itself derived from several distinct constitutional
sources. See, e.g., Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U.S. 324,
336 n. 13 (1989) (Commerce Clause decision quoting Edgar v.
Mite Corp. 457 U.S. 624, 643 (1982) (plurality opinion),
which in turn quoted the Court's Due Process decision in
Shaffer v. Heitner, 433, U.S. 186, (1977)) (``The limits on a
State's power to enact substantive legislation are similar to
the limits on the jurisdiction of state courts. In either
case, `any attempt ``directly'' to assert extraterritorial
jurisdiction over persons or property would offend sister
States and exceed the inherent limit of the State's
power.' '').
The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this fundamental
principle in its landmark right to travel decision, Saenz v.
Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). There the Court held that, even
with congressional approval, the State of California was
powerless to carve out an exception to its otherwise-
applicable legal regime by providing recently-arrived
residents with only the welfare benefits that they would have
been entitled to receive under the laws of their former
states of residence. This attempt to saddle these interstate
travelers with the laws of their former home states--even if
only the welfare laws, laws that would operate far less
directly and less powerfully than would a special criminal-
law restriction on primary conduct--was held to impose an
unconstitutional penalty upon their right to interstate
travel, which, the Court held, is guaranteed them by the
Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
See Saenz, 526 U.S. at 503-504.
Although Saenz concerned new residents of a state, the
decision also reaffirmed that the constitutional right to
travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article
IV, Section 2, provides a similar type of protection to a
non-resident who enters a state not to settle, but with an
intent eventually to return to her home state:
[B]y virtue of a person's state citizenship, a citizen of
one State who travels in other States, intending to return
home at the end of his journey, is entitled to enjoy the
``Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several
States'' that he visits. This provision removes ``from the
citizens of each State the disabilities of alienage in the
other States.'' Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 180 (1869). It
provides important protections for nonresidents who enter a
State whether to obtain employment Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437
U.S. 518 (1978), to procure medical services, Doe v. Bolton,
410 U.S. 179, 200 (1973), or even to engage in commercial
shrimp fishing, Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U.S. 385 (1948).

Sanez, 526 U.S. at 501-502 (footnotes and parenthetical
omitted).
Indeed, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), which was
decided over a quarter century ago, and to which the Saenz
court referred, specifically held that, under Article IV of
the Constitution, a state may not restrict the ability of
visiting non-residents to obtain abortions on the same terms
and conditions under which they are made available by law to
state residents. ``[T]he Privileges and Immunities Clause,
Const. Art. IV, Sec. 2, protects persons . . . who enter [a
state] seeking the medical services that are available
there.'' Id. at 200.
Thus, in terms of protection from being hobbled by the laws
of one's home state wherever one travels, nothing turns on
whether the interstate traveler intends to remain permanently
in her destination state, or to return to her state of
origin. Combined with the Court's holding that, like the
states, Congress may not contravene the principles of
federalism that are sometimes described under the ``right to
travel'' label, Saenz reinforces the conclusion, if it were
not clear before, that even if enacted by Congress, a law
like H.R. 476 that attempts by reference to state's own laws
to control that state's resident's out-of-state conduct on
pains of criminal punishment, whether of that resident or of
whoever might assist her to travel interstate, would violate
the federal Constitution. See also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394
U.S. 618, 629-630 (1969) (invalidating an Act of Congress
mandating a durational residency requirement for recently-
arrived District of Columbia residents seeking to obtain
welfare assistance).
In 1999, this Committee heard testimony from Professor Lino
Graglia of the University of Texas School of Law. An opponent
of constitutional abortion rights, he candidly conceded that
the proposed law would ``make

[[Page H1361]]

it . . . more dangerous for young women to exercise their
constitutional right to obtain a safe and legal abortion.''
Testimony of Lino A. Graglia on H.R. 1218 before the
Constitution Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. House of Representatives, May 27, 1999 at 1. He also
concluded, however, that ``the Act furthers the principle of
federalism to the extent that it reinforces or makes
effective the very small amount of policymaking authority on
the abortion issue that the Supreme Court, an arm of the
national government, has permitted to remain with the
States,'' Id. at 2. He testified that he suppor6ted the bill
because he would support ``anything Congress can do to move
control of the issue back into the hands of the States.'' Id.
at 1.
Of course, as the description of H.R. 476 we have given
above demonstrates, that proposed statute would do nothing to
move ``back'' into the hands of the states any of the control
over abortion that was precluded by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973), and its progeny. The several states already have
their own distinctive regimes for regulating the provision of
abortion services to pregnant minors, regimes that are
permitted under the Supreme Court's abortion rulings. That,
indeed, is the very premise of this proposed law. But, rather
than respecting federalism by permitting each state's law to
operate within its own sphere, the proposed federal statute
would contravene that essential principle of federalism by
saddling the abortion-seeking young woman with the
restrictive law of her home state wherever she may travel
within the United States unless she travels unaided. Indeed,
it would add insult to this federalism injury by imposing its
regime regardless of the wishes of her home state, whose
legislature might recoil from the prospect of transforming
its parental notification laws, enacted ostensibly to
encourage the provision of loving support and advice to
distraught young women, into an obstacle to the most
desperate of these young women, compelling them in the moment
of their greatest despair to choose between, on the one hand,
telling someone close to them of their situation and perhaps
exposing this loved one to criminal punishment, and, on the
other, going to the back alleys or on an unaccompanied trip
to another, possibly distant state. This federal statute
would therefore violate rather than reinforce basic
constitutional principles of federalism.
The fact that the proposed law applies only to those
assisting the interstate travel of minors seeking abortions
may make the federalism-based constitutional infirmity
somewhat less obvious--while at the same time rendering the
law more vulnerable to constitutional challenge because of
the danger in which it will place the class of frightened,
perhaps desperate young women least able to travel safely on
their own. The importance of protecting the relationship
between parents and their minor children cannot be gainsaid.
But in the end, the fact that the proposed statute involves
the interstate travel only of minors does not alter our
conclusion.
No less than the right to end a pregnancy, the
constitutional right to travel interstate and to take
advantage of the laws of other states exists even for those
citizens who are not yet eighteen. ``Constitutional rights do
not mature and come into being magically only when one
attains the state-defined age of majority. Minors, as well as
adults, are protected by the Constitution and possess
constitutional rights.'' Planned Parenthood of Central
Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 74 (1976). Nonetheless,
the Court has held that, in furtherance of the minors' best
interests, government may in some circumstances have more
leeway to regulate where minors are concerned. Thus, whereas
a law that sought, for example, to burden adult women with
their home state's constitutionally acceptable waiting
periods for abortion (or with their home state's
constitutionally permissible medical regulations that may
make abortion more costly) even when they traveled out of
state to avoid those waiting periods (or other regulations)
would obviously be unconstitutional, it might be argued that
a law like the proposed one, which seeks to force a young
woman to comply with her home state's parental consent laws
regardless of her circumstances, is, because of its focus on
minors, somehow saved from constitutional invalidity.
It is not, for at least two reasons. First, the importance
of the constitutional right in question for the pregnant
minor too desperate even to seek judicial approval for
abortion in her home state--either because of its futility
there, or because of her terror at a judicial proceeding held
to discuss her pregnancy and personal circumstances--means
that government's power to burden that choice is severely
restricted. As Justice Powell wrote over two decades ago:
The pregnant minor's options are much different from those
facing a minor in other situations, such as deciding whether
to marry . . . A pregnant adolescent . . . cannot preserve
for long the possibility of aborting, which effectively
expires in a matter of weeks from the onset of pregnancy.
Moreover, the potentially severe detriment facing a
pregnant woman is not mitigated by her minority. Indeed,
considering her probable education, employment skills,
financial resources, and emotional maturity, unwanted
motherhood may be exceptionally burdensome for a minor. In
addition, the fact of having a child brings with it adult
legal responsibility, for parenthood, like attainment of the
age of majority, is one of the traditional criteria for the
termination of the legal disabilities of minority. In sum,
there are few situations in which denying a minor the right
to make an important decision will have consequences so grave
and indelible.

Bellotti v. Baird (Bellotti II), 443 U.S. 622, 642 (1979)
(plurality opinion) (citations omitted).
Second, the fact that the penalties on travel out of state
by minors who do not first seek parental consent or judicial
bypass are triggered only by intent to obtain a
lawful abortion and only if the minor's home state has
more stringent ``minor protection'' provisions in the form
of parental involvement rules than the state of
destination, renders any protection-of-minors exception to
the basic rule of federalism unavailable.
To begin with, the proposed law, unlike one that
evenhandedly defers to each state's determination of what
will best protect the emotional health and physical safety of
its pregnant minors who seek to terminate their pregnancies,
simply defers to states with strict parental control laws and
subordinates the interests of states that have decided that
legally-mandated consent or notification is not a sound means
of protecting pregnant minors. The law does not purport to
impose a uniform nationwide requirement that all pregnant
young women should be subject to the abortion laws of their
home states and only those abortion laws wherever they may
travel. Thus, under H.R. 476, a pregnant minor whose parents
believe that it would be both destructive and profoundly
disrespectful to their mature, sexually active daughter to
require her by law to obtain their consent before having an
abortion, and who live in a state whose laws reflect that
view, would, despite the judgment expressed in the laws of
her home state, still be required to obtain parental consent
should she seek an abortion in a neighboring state with a
stricter parental involvement law--something she might do,
for example, because that is where the nearest abortion
provider is located. This substantively slanted way in which
H.R. 476 would operate fatally undermines any argument that
might otherwise be available that principles of federalism
must give way because this law seeks to ensure that the
health and safety of pregnant minors are protected in the way
their home states have decided would be best.
In addition, the proposed law, again unlike one protecting
parental involvement generally, selectively targets one form
of control: control with respect to the constitutionally
protected procedure of terminating a pregnancy before
viability. The proposed law does not do a thing for parental
control if the minor is being assisted into another state
(or, where the relevant regulation is local, into another
city or county) for the purpose of obtaining a tattoo, or
endoscopic surgery to correct a foot problem, or laser
surgery for an eye defect. The law is activated only when the
medical procedure being obtained in another state is the
termination of a pregnancy. It is as though Congress proposed
to assist parents in controlling their children when, and
only when, those children wish to buy constitutionally
protected but sexually explicit books about methods of birth
control and abortion in states where the sale of such books
to these minors is entirely lawful.
The basic constitutional principle that such laws overlook
is that the greater power does not necessarily include the
lesser. Thus, for example, even though so-called ``fighting
words'' may be banned altogether despite the First Amendment,
it is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court held in 1992, for
government selectively to ban those fighting words that are
racist or anti-semitic in character. See R.A.V. v. City of
St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 391-392 (1992). To take another
example, Congress could not make it a crime to assist a minor
who has had an abortion in the past to cross a state line in
order to obtain a lawful form of cosmetic surgery elsewhere
if that minor has not complied with her state's valid
parental involvement law for such surgery. Even though
Congress might enact a broader law that would cover all the
minors in the class described, it could not enact a law aimed
only at those who have had abortions. Such a law would
impermissibly single out abortion for special burdens. The
proposed law does so as well. Thus, even if a law that were
properly drawn to protect minors could constitutionally
displace one of the basic rules of federalism, the
proposed statute can not.
Lastly, in oral testimony given in 1999 before the
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Professor John Harrison of
the University of Virginia, while conceding that ordinarily a
law such as this, which purported to impose upon an
individual her home state's laws in order to prevent her from
engaging in lawful conduct in one of the other states, would
be constitutionally ``doubtful,'' argued that the
constitutionality of this law is resolved by the fact that it
relates to ``domestic relations,'' a sphere in which,
according to Professor Harrison, ``the state with the primary
jurisdiction over the rights and responsibilities of parties
to the domestic relations is the state of residence . . . and
not the state where the conduct'' at issue occurs. See
transcript of the Hearing of the Constitution Subcommittee of
the House Judiciary Committee on the Child Custody Protection
Act, May 27, 1999.
This ``domestic relations exception'' to principles of
federalism described by Professor Harrison, however, does not
exist, at least not in any context relevant to the
constitutionality of H.R. 476. To be sure, acting

[[Page H1362]]

pursuant to Article IV, Sec. 1, Congress has prescribed
special state obligations to accord full faith and credit to
judgments in the domestic relations context--for example, to
child custody determinations and child support orders. 28
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1738A, 1738B. These provisions also
establish choice of law principles governing modification of
domestic relations orders. In addition, in a controversial
provision whose constitutionality is open to question,
Congress has said that states are not required to accord full
faith and credit to same-sex marriages. Id. at Sec. 1738C.
But the special measures adopted by Congress in the
domestic relations context can provide no justification for
H.R. 476. There is a world of difference between provisions
like Sec. Sec. 1738A and 1738B, which prescribe the full
faith and credit to which state judicial decrees and
judgments are entitled, and proposed H.R. 476, which in
effect gives states statutes extraterritorial operation--by
purporting to impose criminal liability for interstate travel
undertaken to engage in conduct lawful within the territorial
jurisdiction of the state in which the conduct is to occur,
based solely upon the laws in effect in the state of
residence of the individual who seeks to travel to a state
where she can engage in that conduct lawfully.
The Supreme Court has always differentiated ``the credit
owed to laws (legislative measures and common laws) and to
judgments.'' Baker v. General Motors Corp., 522 U.S. 222, 232
(1998). For example, while a state may not decline on public
policy grounds to give full faith and credit to a judicial
judgment from another state, see, e.g., Fauntleroy v. Lum,
210 U.S. 230, 237 (1908), a forum state has always been free
to consider its own public policies in declining to follow
the legislative enactments of other states. See Nevada v.
Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 421-24 (1979). In short, under the Full
Faith and Credit Clause, a state has never been compelled
``to substitute the statutes of other states for its own
statutes dealing with a subject matter concerning which it is
competent to legislate.'' Pacific Employers Ins. Co. v.
Industrial Accident Comm'n, 306 U.S. 493, 501 (1939). In
fact, the Full Faith and Credit Clause was meant to prevent
``parochial entrenchment on the interests of other States.''
Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261, 272 (1980)
(plurality opinion). A state is under no obligation to
enforce another state's statute with which it disagrees.
But H.R. 476 would run afoul of that principle. It imposes
the restrictive laws of a woman's home state wherever she
travels, in derogation of the usual rules regarding choice of
law and full faith and credit.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, imagine as a parent the shock
and profound sorrow upon learning after the fact that some adult
stranger deliberately kept the parents out of the decision-making
process and took an underaged girl for a secret abortion in another
State. Imagine the feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and
violation that you would feel when your extremely vulnerable daughter,
perhaps confused, frightened and even numb, was whisked away to an
abortion mill by a stranger to pursue the violent death of her baby.
Her baby, your grandchild, dead in a sneaky scheme deliberately
contrived to deceive the parent about what was really going on, perhaps
scarred for life by the unpardonable intervention of the adult stranger
who acted as a parental surrogate. If there are complications, severe
bleeding, perforated uterus, emotional or psychological aftermath, do
not expect any help from the stranger; but of course a parent would be
there to help, to love and to nurture and to heal. It is both a
parental moral duty and legal duty, but it is really out of deep love.
A parent would sacrifice thier own life for their daughter and be
there; the stranger would not.
It would not take very long to ask, Mr. Speaker, did the meddling
stranger tell her that abortion has significant physical and emotional
consequences? Did the stranger inform her that it might increase her
risk of breast cancer?
A 1994 study by cancer researcher Janet Daling of the Fred Hutchinson
Cancer Research Center indicated if a girl under the age of 18 has an
abortion, the risk of breast cancer increases by 150 percent. If she or
any member of her family has any history of breast cancer, that first
abortion means that her risk of breast cancer skyrockets to 270
percent. Dr. Daling's National Cancer Institute-funded study comports
with more than two dozen similar studies showing the abortion-breast
cancer link.
Mr. Speaker, we can take it to the bank: neither the stranger nor the
abortionist himself informed her of this long-term, deleterious
consequence.
Mr. Speaker, it is tragic beyond words that the abortion rights
movement not only promotes mutilations, dismemberment and chemical
poisoning of children by abortions, they further destroy the family by
invading the sacred space between parents and their teenage daughters.
The so-called choice to mutilate, dismember and chemically poison
little children is unconscionable. Currently even a 14-year-old, often
with the assist from a stranger, has an unfettered and secret right in
many States to have her baby destroyed in a horrific procedure. I urge
my colleagues to wake up. Abortion is violence against children.
Enabling a stranger to facilitate a minor's secret abortion only adds
abuse to abuse.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman states his views of abortion. There are
clearly differing views. We are not going to settle them in this debate
today. He thinks it is a cruel procedure. Some of us think it is a
procedure which in many cases is unavoidable. But in any event, the
Supreme Court of the United States says it is the right of a woman to
choose if she wishes, and she should be counseled as to the
consequences and so forth; but it is her choice.
But this bill before us has nothing to do with that, except for the
fact it is simply another step in the attempt to in any way possible
reduce abortions in any way possible to hamstring the exercise of the
constitutional right of women to choose within the limits of what the
Supreme Court has said.
The real interest in this bill is not to protect young women who may
be helped by a grandfather or a brother or a sister or a clergy person
in doing something which she is determined to do. In the case we talked
about before, she would have done it anyway; but at least she had
someone to help her along and give her counseling and hold her hand.
The intent of this bill is to try to stop her from having an abortion
because the people in this House have determined that they are right
and she is wrong and she should not be able to have an abortion.
Forgetting that question, the real question in this bill is: Can the
Congress of the United States say to a young woman, she is the property
of the State in which she lives, and she must carry around on her back
the law which it enacted which tells her that she cannot do something
even if she goes to another State where she can do it?
The plain meaning of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has
reaffirmed that, is that Congress cannot do that. The citizens of each
State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in
the several States. That was enacted after the Civil War because of the
Fugitive Slave Act, because South Carolina should not be entitled to
tell an escaped slave in New York, although New York does not permanent
slavery, South Carolina's laws do, and we are going to extend our law
here and drag the slave back and force the slave into our laws of
slavery.
Mr. Speaker, Congress cannot do the same thing. Congress cannot say
to a young woman that we are going to force her to obey the law of her
own State, we are going to criminalize someone who attempts to help do
something that is perfectly legal in New York or some other State
because it is not legal where she came from; and I cited the Supreme
Court decisions before, which are recent Supreme Court decisions.
We cannot look at the interstate commerce clause. Women are not
objects of commerce. I hope the majority is not telling us that women
are objects of commerce under the meaning of the interstate commerce
clause, that Congress can regulate interstate commerce. Women are
citizens of the United States and people, not subjects of commerce. We
said in the Norris-LaGuardia Act that labor is not to be considered a
commodity in Congress, nor should women be, nor will the Supreme Court
support that, nor is this bill constitutional.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Stearns).
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I rise of course in support of H.R. 476,
the Child

[[Page H1363]]

Custody Protection Act. Unfortunately, in May of 2000, Florida's
parental notification laws were challenged in circuit court and a
permanent injunction was granted. So we in Florida are very much
involved with this debate. To give amnesty to those who manipulate
State laws by crossing into States without parental notification laws,
in my opinion the people who support this bill, it is irresponsible and
a misguided use of the law.
When we talk about this law, we are talking about safety here. To
leave parents out of such a serious decision for the child with
potentially long-term medical, emotional and psychological consequences
is to jeopardize the health of the child. So when we talk about the
Fugitive Slave Act or we talk about commerce, we are missing the point.
We are talking about safety.
To leave parents out of this decision for minors, in my opinion, is
irresponsible. Some seem to suggest that most parents are not being
reasonable but their primary concern is their teenaged daughter. One
study has shown that up to two-thirds of the school-aged mothers were
impregnated by adult males. These men could be prosecuted under State
statutory rape laws, giving them a strong incentive to pressure the
young woman to agree to an abortion without involving her parents.
Let us put this into perspective. A child must have parental consent
to be given an aspirin. Should the child want to go on a field trip,
parental consent is required. Play in the school band, parental
consent. Cosmetic ear piercing, that requires parental consent. Why?
Because they are concerned about safety for fear that the girl may
contract dangerous infections.
Here we have advertising to minors that they can cross State lines,
but surely the gentleman from New York would not support advertising of
cigarettes to minors to allow them to smoke, so this kind of
advertising should be prohibited; and obviously we should prohibit
allowing young minors to go across State lines.
Parents know what is best for their daughters' medical condition and
can best help their daughters in times of need. I ask my colleagues to
support this bill and pass it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, cigarettes are harmful to one's health and may kill one.
They are certainly much more harmful than marijuana or some of the
other drugs which are prohibited by law; and maybe cigarettes ought to
be prohibited by law, and certainly that kind of advertising should be
prohibited by law.
Abortions are not in the same category. Abortions will not kill the
woman. They are not generally harmful to her health. In fact, the
statistics are that it is more dangerous to carry a pregnancy to term
than it is to have an abortion because a larger percentage of women die
from complications of child birth than from complications from
abortion. I am certainly not arguing for abortions for that reason, but
I am saying that we cannot say that abortions are life threatening,
although demagogues do say that.
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. STEARNS. But the gentleman would agree that advertising to minors
to allow them to go across State lines for an abortion is wrong?
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would not agree that it is wrong. An
abortion is a legal medical service, and in some States it is legal to
do without parental consent. And there are some young women, some young
women, who fear for their lives if they have to tell their parents, and
cannot tell their parents, and desperately need an abortion, and will
get the abortion by coat hanger at this risk to their life. It is
better in that case to know that they can get a safe abortion in a safe
medical procedure across State lines rather than resorting to the coat
hangers.
Mr. Speaker, many speakers on the other side have talked about people
who prey on young women, who have an ideological desire to promote
abortions. I do not know of anybody who has an ideological desire to
promote abortions. I know of people who have ideological desires to let
women have abortions if they want to. I do not know of anybody who
desires to promote abortions as a good thing, in and of themselves.
Putting aside, we are talking about evil people who will prey upon
young women and take them across State lines for the reason of getting
an abortion for some nefarious motive.

{time} 1245

If that is the true purpose of this bill, I would want to know, on
their time, why the majority would not permit amendments on the floor
to exempt the grandparent or the sibling, the brother or sister. What
are they afraid of? Are they afraid that the logic of that amendment is
so strong even for people who might support this bill that it might
pass? Why would they not even permit amendments in committee? Why was
it so necessary to call a halt by moving the previous question before
Members had returned to the committee from a vote on the floor? What
are they afraid of, a little logic and common sense?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
Child Custody Protection Act, a commonsense piece of legislation that
would prohibit unscrupulous third parties from taking minors across
State lines for abortions to circumvent parental consent and parent
notification laws. Mothers have previously testified before State
legislatures and Congress about the horror of finding out that their
young daughters had obtained secret abortions and of having to pick up
the pieces of the emotional and physical consequences. As a mother of
two, it is very disconcerting to me to know that the parent-child
relationship could be undermined in such a manner.
As pointed out earlier, studies have shown that most school-age
mothers are impregnated by adult men, with the median age of the father
being 22 years old. Thus, many of the third parties taking minors
across State lines are older boyfriends who obviously have a very
personal interest in the young girl obtaining an abortion and in
keeping it secret from her parents.
Congress must ensure that State laws designed to protect the
integrity and sanctity of the parent-child relationship are not
undermined. I consequently urge my colleagues to support passage of
this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I
would simply point out that in such cases, those people, those males,
can be prosecuted for statutory rape, and probably should be. This bill
does not add or detract anything from them.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to expand on his point, just to reinforce a point that I
think is being lost in this debate. I indicated that Congress usually
rises to the occasion to respond when there is a crisis, when we find
that the law is being violated and being ignored, the laws of
particular States who may have these laws regarding parental consent.
I also noted that we probably will not get our friends and colleagues
all to agree with us on the question of choice, but I have already said
that more than 75 percent of minors under 16 already involve one or
both parents in the decision to have an abortion. What about the
individual, however, that is living on their own, that has been raped
by a close family member, whose parent may be in some condition that
they are not able to give counsel?
And we now are intruding upon the right to travel, the constitutional
right of choice on this particular minor who cannot consult with a
loving grandmother, a loving spiritual leader, a loving sibling who can
provide such assistance to them. It is clear in Planned Parenthood of
Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, holding that restrictions on this
right are unconstitutional if they impose an undue burden on a woman's
access to abortion. And the right extends to both minors and adults.
It is also clear in the constitutional decisions of the Supreme Court
that there are rights that minors have and

[[Page H1364]]

though we recognize the validity and the stand of parents, I too am a
parent and would hope that I am always in a position to counsel with my
two children, encourage that. But we are also trying to save lives and
avoid the very example that my colleagues were speaking to, boyfriends
taking them across State lines if that is the case, when these
amendments dealing with special friends, special relatives in a
relative position were not allowed.
And so we have a situation where, as I said, it is a double standard
on States rights. We now want to intrude our Federal process on States
that do not have these laws and, therefore, we are violating
constitutional rights of minors which do exist. I think we are going
too far with this legislation.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, one of my commitments as a Member of
Congress is to protect the rights of the traditional family. The family
is the building block of society and parents must have the ability to
know where their children are going and be able to protect them.
I am a proud cosponsor of this bill. It prohibits transporting an
individual under the age of 18 across State lines to obtain an
abortion. It is wrong that a child can legally be taken across State
lines without parents' or guardian's knowledge for an abortion. A
medical procedure of this magnitude with such serious implications for
physical health of the girl and moral and emotional fabric of the
entire family must be a family decision. Young girls today are exposed
to many forces but the forces that should have the most strength in
their lives, both morally and legally, should be their parents, not the
government and not strangers.
I have seen the phone book ads marketing out-of-state abortions and
safe abortions to minors. It is truly sickening to think that my
daughters may grow up to one day be told by the abortion industry that
abortions are as easy to receive and as safe as taking candy. I have
heard the doomsday tales of children afraid to tell their parents they
are pregnant but nothing could possibly be scarier for these young
girls than having someone they barely know escort them to a place they
have never been to have major surgery that ends a life.
Opponents of this bill are saying a parent can know where their child
is except when she is receiving an abortion. That makes no sense
whatsoever. Whose child is it, anyway?
By passing the Child Custody Protection Act, Congress will take a
clear stand against the notion that the U.S. Constitution confers a
right upon strangers to take one's minor daughter across State lines
for a secret abortion even when State law specifically requires the
involvement of a parent or judge in the daughter's abortion decision.
I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the imagery used by speakers in favor of this bill,
indeed the language of the bill itself prohibiting someone from
transporting a minor across State lines, evokes the image of a helpless
young child being dragged against her will or being taken to another
State. The fact is that a young woman old enough to get pregnant is in
her teens, with a very few exceptions, and in this situation, one would
hope that she would ask her parents' permission, and I am sure the
daughter of the previous speaker would, and that the decision would be
made between the two of them. But I do not think a woman of 16 or 17
years old, who is pregnant, who for whatever reason, because she was
made pregnant by her father or her stepfather, because she is
terrified, for whatever reason cannot, refuses to tell them, and gets
her, even a boyfriend or a clergy person or her brother or sister, a
grandmother, that is not an exploitative thing. They are helping her.
She would probably or might very well do it herself, alone. Even the
wording of the bill ``transport.'' Someone sitting and holding her hand
as she drives the car is not transporting her. They are giving her
moral help in a difficult procedure.
People may not like abortions. They may think it is a terrible thing.
They are entitled to their opinions. But a young woman may be terrified
of giving birth. She may be terrified of the responsibility of a child.
She may have her reasons and the Supreme Court says the Constitution
gives her the absolute right to choose. This bill simply tries to make
that right to choose impractical insofar as possible and therefore it
is not only unconstitutional, it is wrong. This bill would criminalize
the acts of persons who might be exploitative, but it would also
criminalize the acts of people who are simply trying to be helpful and
supportive of a young woman in distress, and that is wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, by passing the Child Custody Protection Act
today, Congress will take a clear stand against the bizarre notion that
somehow the United States Constitution confers a right upon strangers
to take one's minor daughter across State lines for a secret abortion,
even when a State law specifically requires the involvement of a parent
or judge in the daughter's abortion decision.
It is amazing to me that a child cannot get aspirin from a school
nurse without parental consent but can cross State lines to get an
abortion without the consent of their parents. There are school
counselors who set up out-of-state abortions for minor students to hide
this life-changing decision from the girls' parents. There are even
sexual predators who would take their victims across State lines to
destroy evidence through an abortion in a State without parental notice
laws.
Mr. Speaker, as the father of two young daughters, I cannot
understand how anyone can defend the right of an adult to take a child
across State lines to have an abortion without the parents knowing. To
me when that happens, both of the victims are children. When
governments undermine families, it tears at the very fabric of our
culture and supports a culture of death rather than a culture of life.
This bill closes a loophole that skirts State laws requiring parental
notification. Twenty-seven States, including South Dakota, recognize
the value and need for parental consent when a minor is seeking to
obtain an abortion, and another 16 States require parental
notification.
Mr. Speaker, there are many injustices in the world, but can you put
yourself in the position of a parent who sends her young daughter to
school and later in the day finds that a stranger has taken your 13-
year-old daughter into another State to have an abortion? This is
currently legal in the United States and that is why we need to pass
the Child Custody Protection Act to stop it.
Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of the sanctity of human life and
parental rights, I am proud to vote for this legislation and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The protestations of people on the other side about strangers
transporting minors across State lines would be somewhat better heard
if they had not refused amendments to exempt nonstrangers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Barcia).
Mr. BARCIA. I want to thank the gentleman from New York for yielding
this time even though we happen to be viewing this legislation
differently.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 476, the Child Custody
Protection Act, and 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 recently, 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 they can thrive as they move into adulthood.
One of life's harsh realities is that some young women become
pregnant

[[Page H1365]]

at too early an age. H.R. 476 does not terminate a person's right to an
abortion but does provide important protections for young children who
become pregnant. H.R. 476 will make it illegal for any person to
transport a minor across State lines in order to circumvent State laws
to obtain an abortion without first consulting a parent or judge. It
will make it a Federal crime if an individual knowingly evades the laws
of their State to seek an abortion for any mother 17 years of age or
younger. 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 her 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 their 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 23,
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 friend if they
feel they cannot talk to their parents. That is absolutely wrong. There
is a provision in H.R. 476 which will allow a judge to relieve the
parental notification requirement in certain circumstances.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 476, which will support the
rights of States to protect the relationship between parents and
children and ensure the safety of young girls who are in unfortunate
circumstances.

{time} 1300

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the committee.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time and
commend his leadership and that of the gentlewoman from Florida for her
visionary leadership on this legislation. I do rise today in support of
the Child Custody Protection Act.
Today, Mr. Speaker, the House will determine who it serves. I am a
pro-life Member of this institution, but I would offer respectfully
today that this is not a debate about the right to have an abortion. It
is about the right to be a parent. And we will decide today in the
Congress whether or not we will serve the beleaguered parents of the
United States of America, of whom I am proudly one, or whether we will
serve the interests of the abortion lobby.
As a father of two daughters I can tell you, we live in a society
today where parents are expected to be actively involved in the lives
of our children. When a child commits a crime, the first question we
hear is, why were the parents not aware? We are bombarded with antidrug
advertisements commanding parents to ask their children questions, no
matter how intrusive, to know where they were and when they were there.
But for some inexplicable reason today we are debating whether parents
should have the right to know if their daughter is considering an
abortion, a decision that even pro-life and pro-abortion opponents
agree will have lifelong consequences.
Mr. Speaker, this is even more outrageous when you consider that my
children cannot even attend a field trip at school or even take an
aspirin without my or my wife's consent. Are we willing to stand here
today and say that the life and death decision that we debate pales in
comparison to taking an aspirin?
Last week, Mr. Speaker, I took my children, two of them, one daughter
and one son, to get braces. In addition to the extraordinary ordeal and
the wires and the pain and the anxiety, we spent about an hour filling
out consent forms for this 5- and 6-year procedure. Why in the world
would we not have parental consent for even a more extraordinary
procedure, invasive, that is an abortion?
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to choose life, cast a vote
in favor of parental rights, and support the Child Custody Protection
Act.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
close for our side.
Mr. Speaker, there really are, I suppose, in summation, two things to
say about this bill: one is that parental consent bills in general,
although the providence of the States, in our opinion, are very ill-
advised, because although we all would wish that young women who are
pregnant and are contemplating an abortion would consult with their
parents, and certainly most do and should, there are those situations
where a young woman feels she cannot, where she is afraid of the
violent reaction the parent might have, where a parent may have been
abusive to her, where the pregnancy may be the result of rape or incest
on the part of the parent, and we should recognize reality and
understand that a parental consent and notification bill in no
circumstances makes no sense, and it is certainly not in the best
interests of the young woman; but that is a matter for the State
legislatures.
The second thing to say about this bill is that none of that, none of
the question of the validity or the intelligence or the desirability of
a parental consent and notification bill, is before us. Those are State
legislative decisions, and quite a few legislatures have passed those
decisions, have passed such bills; and others have refused to do so.
The bill before us has nothing to do with that. The bill before us
has to do with trying to criminalize someone who accompanies a young
woman from one State to another, knowing that she is going to get an
abortion legally in that State.
The proponents of this bill are trying to use the power of the
Federal Government to impose the laws of one State in the jurisdiction
of the other State.
The proponents of this bill are trying to place on the back of a
young woman from one State the burden of the law of that State, to
carry it around wherever she goes, to another State where the law is
different. We do not have the constitutional power to do that. In a
Federal system we do not have the right to do that.
I referred earlier to the Fugitive Slave Act because it was the last
major attempt in this country to do that, where some of the Southern
States said if a slave flees or goes to a State which does not
recognize slavery, that person still is a slave, despite the laws of
that State, and the Federal Government will enable the State to
exercise its long arm and bring him back to bondage in the State that
allows slavery.
Here this bill says that the Federal Government will use its
jurisdiction to try to prevent a young woman from doing a perfectly
legal act, because the State she came from does not regard it as a
legal act; to force that young woman to carry the burden of the law she
disagrees with from her home State to another State. This bill is
unconstitutional for that reason and obnoxious for that reason.
This bill also would send grandmothers and ministers to jail,
grandmothers and ministers who know the situation, who judge that the
young woman cannot, as she judges, go to the parent, because they know
there has been a rape, they know there has been incest, or they know
there is family violence involved, they know the situation of the
family.
In plenty of families it is perfectly fine to have parental consent.
But by drawing a bill that says all families, no matter what, you are
plainly putting many young women at risk of injury or death. But,
again, that is a State legislative matter. What this bill says is that
ministers and grandmothers and brothers and sisters of a young woman
whose life would be at risk perhaps, they cannot help her when she
needs help on penalty of going to jail. This bill will not bring
families together; but it may, in such circumstances, tear them apart.
On all these grounds, Mr. Speaker, I say, let the States make these
decisions, as they are allowed to do under the Constitution. Let us not
butt in the Federal Government, as we are not permitted to do under the
Constitution,

[[Page H1366]]

and as good judgment should indicate we should not do in any event.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, listening to the gentleman from New York the last hour
and a half, he seems to be making two points. One is that this bill
requires that the parental involvement laws of a minor's State of
residence carry along with the minor if they are brought across the
State line into a jurisdiction that does not have a parental
involvement law, and that this is some new notion in American
jurisprudence and in our history of Federalism.
Well, the gentleman from New York, he and I carry the burden of our
respective State income taxes with us to the work that we do here; and
as most people know, New York and Wisconsin's State income taxes are
quite high, and we have to pay those State income taxes as residents
and as representatives of the States for the work that we do at our
Nation's Capital.
The other thing is that it is somehow cruel and unconstitutional to
force the involvement of parents where the parental involvement acts
have been held constitutional by the Federal courts.
Now, a constitutional parental involvement act is not cruel; it is
loving. It is not unconstitutional, because the courts have already
said it is not unconstitutional. So to merely cross the State line for
the purpose of evading a constitutional parental involvement act is not
unconstitutional in and of itself, because Congress has got the
exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce under the United States
Constitution.
For all these reasons, this is a good bill. The House should pass
this bill today, like it has done in the two previous Congresses.
Mr. 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 in States without ``parental consent'' laws,
the majority of 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 assists a young woman by traveling with her across states lines
to seek an abortion, the adult becomes a criminal. It does not matter
if the adult is her sister, brother, grandmother, or minister--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 other trusted adults
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 care in the medical facility that is closest to their
home, but, due to lack of facilities in many areas, the closest
facility may be across a State border. In Wisconsin, 93 percent of
counties do not have an abortion provider, so the nearest facility for
women in these counties may be in Minnesota or Illinois. Congress has
not made it illegal to cross state lines to buy guns, or gamble, or
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 home. Nor is there an exception for a
young women who might be subject to grave physical abuse if she
confided to her parent or parents.
Mr. Speaker, we all want children to confide in their parents, we all
want a society with strong families. But let us not forget those
children in our society who are victims of incest or physical abuse.
Let us encourage them to reach out to an adult rather than deal with a
crisis pregnancy alone.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R.
476, the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill would make it a
federal crime for a person, other than a parent, to transport a minor
across state lines for an abortion unless the minor had already
fulfilled the requirements of her home state's parental involvement
law. This bill would deny teenagers facing unintended pregnancies the
assistance of trusted adults, endanger their health, and violate their
constitutional rights. This flawed legislation is dangerous to young
women and should in fact be called the ``Teen Endangerment Act.''
Minor women who seek abortions come from a wide variety of religious,
cultural, socioeconomic, geographic, and family backgrounds, and seek
abortions for an equally wide variety of reasons. In 86 percent of
counties nationwide for example, the closest abortion provider is
across state lines.
Data shows that the majority, 61 percent, of minors willingly involve
their parents in their decision to have an abortion. Many that do not
wish to involve their parents make that decision because of a history
of physical abuse, incest, or the lack of support from their parents.
Parental involvement laws cannot and do not open lines for healthy,
open family communication where none exist, and they can put a minor in
danger of physical violence. When a young woman does not have the
ability to involve a parent, public policies and medical professionals
should encourage her to involve a trusted adult, such as a grandparent.
Instead of giving young women this alternative, this bill does the
exact opposite. If passed into law, it would create havoc by
potentially allowing grandma to be prosecuted and jailed for traveling
across state lines to obtain needed reproductive health services for
her granddaughter.
While proponents of this bill will argue the alternative to parental
consent is a judicial bypass, this simply is not an option for many
teenagers. Many judges never grant bypass petitions, and many teenagers
have well-grounded fears of being recognized in a local courthouse and/
or of revealing their personal intimate details in a potentially
intimidating legal process. Moreover, many states with parental
involvement laws do not provide a procedure for ruling on a minor's
right to an out-of-state abortion. Besides, in many states judicial
bypasses are available only in theory and not in practice.
Rather than tell their parents, some teenagers resort to unsafe,
illegal, ``back alley'' abortions or try to perform the abortion
themselves. In doing so, they risk serious injury and death, or in some
cases, criminal charges.
In my home state of California, a minor who wishes to obtain an
abortion may do so without any legal requirements that she involve her
parents or that she seek a court order exempting her from forced
parental involvement requirements. This bill will override California's
law for some minors obtaining abortions in California by requiring
enforcement of other states' laws within California's borders. States
such as California are most likely to be visited by minors in need of
abortions. These states will bear the burden of having their medical
personnel and clinic staff subject to potential liability from a number
of complex provisions regarding conspiracy, accomplice and accessory
liability.
While this bill raises many obvious concerns, it also tramples on
some of the most basic principles of federalism and state sovereignty.
A core principle of American federalism is that laws of a state apply
only within the state's boundaries. This bill would require some people
to carry their own state's laws with them when traveling within the
United States. Allowing a state's law to extend beyond its borders runs
completely contrary to the state sovereignty principles on which this
country is founded. Gambling for example is allowed in Nevada, but not
California. If Congress enacts this legislation, it would be similar to
making it a federal crime to spend a vacation in Las Vegas.
Abortion should be made less necessary, not more difficult and
dangerous. A comprehensive approach to promoting adolescent
reproductive health and reducing teen pregnancy should require
comprehensive sexuality and abstinence education as well as access to
contraception and family planning services. I urge my colleagues to
oppose this legislation.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this closed rule on
H.R. 476, the misnamed Child Custody Protection Act. By rejecting all
amendments, the Rules Committee has shut out Members from debate on
important amendments.
I had offered an amendment in Judiciary Committee, and again to the
Rules Committee, that would carve out an exception to the prohibitions
of H.R. 476. Under my amendment, those prohibitions would not apply in
cases where the minor child's pregnancy was caused by sexual contact
with a parent, step-parent, custodian, or household or family member.
This closed rule, however, makes it impossible for any Member to vote
on this valuable amendment.
Sadly, some pregnancies result from unwanted sexual contact. Adding
to that horror is the fact that many families are unable or unwilling
to deal with the realities of the situation. A mother may choose not to
believe that the

[[Page H1367]]

child's father or step-father could have done such a horrible thing.
She may even share the child's confidences with the very person who
committed the deed--thus potentially putting the child at greater risk.
Let me tell you about the tragic case of Spring Adams, a 13-year old
sixth grader from Idaho. She was impregnated by her father's acts of
incest. When he learned that she was planning to terminate a pregnancy
caused by those acts, he shot her to death.
My amendment to H.R. 476 addresses this problem. When the child in
such a situation turns instead to a grandparent, adult sibling,
boyfriend, or religious leader, we should let her do so. And we should
let them help her. Otherwise, we will find young girls, impregnated by
relatives on household members, seeking to deal with it in any way they
can--whether they do so by traveling alone to another state for the
procedure, or take care of it through a self-induced or illegal, back-
alley abortion.
Unfortunately, the closed rule we have before us means that none of
my colleagues can address this problem with H.R. 476. Instead, these
children, who have been victims of incest or nonconsensual sex with a
household member, will be forced to confide their pregnancy to the
person who violated them. We should not demand that of the child.
I urge a rejection of this rule that blocks valuable amendments from
an overly harsh bill. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 476, the
Child Custody Protection Act.
Twenty-seven states, including my home state of Nebraska, have laws
requiring that a parent receive notification or give consent before
their young daughter can have an abortion. These laws are designed to
honor the rights of parents and protect young girls from being sexually
exploited or injured. Unfortunately, they are often circumvented by the
widespread practice of taking young girls across state lines to receive
an abortion, a practice which is utilized by sexual predators.
In one example, a 12 year-old girl was taken to an out-of-state
abortion clinic by the mother of the man who had raped and impregnated
her. This young girl's mother learned what had happened only when her
daughter returned home with severe pain and bleeding that required
medical attention. H.R. 476 would help prevent such terrible situations
by making it a Federal crime to dodge a parental involvement law by
transporting a minor to an out-of-state abortion provider.
If a teenage girl needs permission to take an aspirin at school, her
parents should certainly be notified about her receiving a potentially-
harmful medical procedure. Loving guidance and support from parents is
also crucial for young women facing the difficult situation of having a
child out of wedlock. Even the abortion provider Planned Parenthood
acknowledges on its website that, and I quote, ``Few would deny that
most teenagers, especially younger ones, would benefit from adult
guidance when faced with an unwanted pregnancy. Few would deny that
such guidance ideally should come from the teenager's parents.''
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 476
to protect the rights of parents, to protect the rights of states, and
most importantly, to protect young girls from sexual predators.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my support
to H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act, of which I am a
cosponsor. This important legislation protects our daughters from being
transported across state lines to be subjected to abortion, an invasive
medical procedures, without the consent of their parents. Thirty-six
states have parental consent laws in place to ensure that young
teenaged girls do not undergo an abortion without their parent's
consent. As a medical doctor I understand the physical and emotional
ramifications of abortion. If parental consent is required for a child
to receive an aspirin in school or to take a field trip, how much more
critical is parental consent for an abortion?
Moms and Dads should play a critical role in these kinds of
decisions. It is simply not acceptable for third parties with their own
agenda and interests to circumvent the role of parents, particularly
when the state of residence has reinforced these rights for parents.
All to often third parties such as sexual predators and abortion
providers take advantage of these girls for their own purposes, and the
parents are left to deal with the consequences. When the long-term
repercussions such as medical complications and depression set in, old
boyfriends and abortion companies are not there for the child, instead
the parents are left to suffer as they watch their daughters suffer.
Last September Eileen Roberts whose daughter was a victim of a non-
parent assisted abortion, testified before the House Judiciary
Committee about the horrors of this practice. She stated:

I am horrified that our daughters are being dumped on our
driveways after they are seized from our care, made to skip
school, lie and deceive their parents to be transported
across State lines whether that distance be two miles or 100
miles. Where are these strangers when the emotional and
physical repercussions occur? They are kidnapping another
young adolescent girl and transporting her for another secret
abortion, and thus the malicious activity occurs over and
over. When will this activity stop? When will those
responsible for these secret abortions be held accountable
for the financial costs of emotional and physical follow-up
care from a disastrous legal abortion?
I am reminded of the many young adolescent teens,
especially Dawn from New York, whose parents were notified in
time to make funeral arrangements after their daughter's
legal abortion. Mrs. Ruth Ravenell and her husband were
awarded $1.3 million dollars by the State of New York for the
wrongful death of their 13-year-old daughter. Mrs. Ravenell,
shared with me and the Senate Education and Health Committee
in Richmond, VA that she sat in the hospital before her
daughter died, with her hand over her mouth to help keep
herself from screaming.

Eileen Roberts, whose daughter was encouraged by her boyfriend, with
the assistance of an adult friend, to obtain a secret abortion without
telling her parents. Eileen's daughter suffered from depression,
medical complications, and sever pelvic inflammatory disease which
caused the family terrible pain and suffering and cost $27,000 in
medical bills.
Mr. Speaker, we must take action to protect our children from these
attacks on the family. We must protect girls from being coerced to have
an abortion without even their parents' knowledge. Children should not
be transported across state lines for major medical procedures with the
express intent to circumvent the laws and parental involvement. H.R.
476 will preserve the right of parents and will protect our children.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
The legislation we are considering today would prohibit anyone--
including a step-parent, grandparent, or religious counselor--from
accompanying a young woman across State lines for an abortion.
This is a dangerous, misguided bill that isolates our daughters and
puts them at grave risk. 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, most young women--more than 75 percent of minors under
age 16--involve their parents in the decision to seek an abortion.
That's the good news. And as a mother and a grandmother, I hope--as we
all hope--that every child can go to her parents for advice and
support.
But 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
to involve another responsible adult--a grandmother, an aunt, a rabbi
or minister--in what can be a very difficult decision.
Already, more than half of all young women who do not involve a
parent in the decision to terminate a pregnancy choose to involve
another adult, including 15 percent who involve another adult relative.
That's a good thing. We should encourage the involvement of responsible
adults in this decision--be it a stepparent, aunt or uncle, religious
minister or counselor--not criminalize that involvement. Unfortunately,
this bill will impose criminal penalties on adults--like grandmothers
who come to the aid of their granddaughters.
I am a grandmother of six--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 and 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 tells young women who cannot tell their parents: don't tell
anyone else.
Parental consent law 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
don't protect our daughters--but they can kill them. They don't bring
families together--but they can tear them apart. And so I ask, why
can't we do more to bring families together, and to keep our people
safe?
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. And 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. I urge my colleagues to vote
no on this legislation.

[[Page H1368]]

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause
(preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the
Congress could potentially move our nation one step closer to a
national police state by further expanding the list of federal crimes
and usurping power from the states to adequately address the issue of
parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride
the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in
the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a
Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which
the nation is protected from what is perhaps the worst evil,
totalitarianism carried out by a centralized government. Who, after
all, wants to be amongst those members of Congress who are portrayed as
trampling parental rights or supporting the transportation of minor
females across state lines for ignoble purposes.
As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally
delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not
performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written
extensively and publicly condemning this ``medical'' procedure. At the
same time, I have remained committed to upholding the constitutional
procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and
in control of the states. In the name of protecting states' rights,
this bill usurps states' rights by creating yet another federal crime.
Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited
powers, Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area for
which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For
every other issues, the federal government lacks any authority or
consent of the governed and only the state governments, their
designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such
rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.'' Our nation's history makes clear that
the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of
central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding
the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it
differently.
Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits,
Congress today will likely pass H.R. 476. H.R. 476 amends title 18,
Untied States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State line to
avoid laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.
Should parents be involved in decisions regarding the health of their
children? Absolutely. Should the law respect parents rights to not have
their children taken across state lines for contemptible purposes?
Absolutely. Can a state pass an enforceable statute to prohibit taking
minors across State lines to avoid laws requiring the involvement of
parents in abortion decisions? Absolutely. But when asked if there
exists constitutional authority for the federal criminalizing of just
such an action the answer is absolutely not.
This federalizing may have the effect of nationalizing a law with
criminal penalties which may be less than those desired by some states.
To the extent the federal and state laws could co-exist, the necessity
for a federal law is undermined and an important bill of rights
protection is virtually obliterated. Concurrent jurisdiction crimes
erode the right of citizens to be free of double jeopardy. The fifth
amendment to the U.S. Constitution specifies that no ``person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or
limb . . .'' In other words, no person shall be tried twice for the
same offense. However, in United States v. Lanza, the high court in
1922 sustained a ruling that being tried by both the federal government
and a state government for the same offense did not offend the doctrine
of double jeopardy. One danger of the unconstitutionally expanding the
federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger
that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense.
Despite the various pleas for federal correction of societal wrongs, a
national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.

We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more federal crimes, while
they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor
prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes
that traditionally have been handled in state courts . . . threatens to
change entirely the nature of our federal system.'' Meese stated that
Congress' tendency in recent decades to make federal crimes out of
offenses that have historically been state matters has dangerous
implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the
principle that states are something more than mere administrative
districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized
criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less
effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those
who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the
integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as
full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those
who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal
government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which
allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal
government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV,
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from
one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon
states in working with one another rather than relying on a national,
unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to
state autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police
power.
It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well
as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller,
independent jurisdictions. An inadequate federal law, or an
``adequate'' federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court,
preempts states' rights to adequately address public health concerns.
Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making
matters worse in all states by federalizing an issue.
It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in
vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than
shifting parental responsibility further upon the federal government.
There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read ``It's ten o'clock;
do you know where your children are?'' I suppose we have devolved to
the point where it reads ``It's ten o'clock; does the federal
government know where your children are.'' Further socializing and
burden-shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the federal
government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to
be more involved.
For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further
and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national
government and, accordingly, H.R. 476.
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support a common-sense
bill to empower parents and protect children. The Child Custody
Protection Act is first, last and always about the youngest and most
vulnerable members of our society.
Girls under the age of eighteen should be protected from people who
set out to break a state's law--especially when the decision is one
that can never be reversed.
States have wisely enacted parental consent and notification laws to
ensure mothers and fathers are fully involved in their children's
lives. Just as they have control whether or not to permit an aspirin to
be dispensed to their son or daughter in school, the parent-child
relationship must not be undermined on the subject of abortion.
There is an abundance of evidence from the Yellow Pages to prove
abortion clinics advertise to minor girls. ``No parental consent
needed'' caters to the out-of-state girl who is often scared and
confused. Children should not have their parents' counsel replaced by
the phone book.
I commend the sponsors and supporters of this legislation--both
Democrat and Republican--and urge passage of the bill.
Ms. BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition
to this bill. While the other side likes to call this bill the Child
Custody Protection Act, I have named it the Rapist and Incest
Perpetrator Protection Act. This bill does not protect girls and their
families. This bill protects the rights of those who rape and molest
young girls by forcing these vulnerable girls to gain permission from
the very person who has committed this awful crime to exercise her
constitutionally protected right.
The fact is that over 60 percent of parents now are already involved
in this important decision of their daughters' lives. But if a parent
is the perpetrator of a crime against these girls, and she turns to a
grandparent or a teacher or a religious leader for help, that
grandparent or religious leader can be dragged off to jail for doing
what is right.

[[Page H1369]]

Under this bill, if a man from my state of Florida helped his younger
sister across state lines to Georgia because she feared telling her
abusive parents or because the clinic in Georgia was actually closer
and more convenient, this older brother could be charged with a felony.
Not only that, but anyone who knew that he helped her could be charged
as a co-conspirator. The receptionist at the clinic who gave directions
from Florida could be charged. The person performing the intake
interview or counseling who knew of her Florida address would be
charged. If they spent the night at an aunt's house in Georgia, that
aunt could also be thrown in jail.
This is wrong. This bill is wrong. The government cannot mandate
healthy and open family communications where it does not already exist.
If passed into law, this bill will cause many young women to face very
important decisions alone, without any help. I urge Members to vote
overwhelmingly against this bill.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Child
Custody Protection Act. This parental rights legislation prohibits the
transportation of a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion if
the requirements of a law in the state where the individual resides
requiring parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision are not
met before the abortion is performed. Twenty-seven states require
parental consent or notification of minors seeking to abort their
babies. It is a shame that as we are working to promote parental
involvement, their rights are being activity circumvented.
News reports and published studies reveal that large numbers of
minors are crossing state lines to obtain abortions, and many of these
cases involve adults rather than parents transporting the minors. This
is especially worrisome when the pregnancy is a result of statutory
rape. Not only are our daughters being preyed upon by older men, but
they are further psychologically damaged by having to obtain an
abortion without even the support of their parents. A California study
found that two-thirds of the girls were impregnated by adult,
postschool fathers with a median age of 22. It is estimated that 58
percent of the time girls seek an abortion without parental knowledge,
they are accompanied by their boyfriend. Even those of you who support
the supposed ``choice'' to abort babies cannot be in favor of the
intimidation of teenage girls by older males.
The Child Custody Protection Act is not a federally parental
involvement law; it merely ensures that state laws are not evaded
through interstate activity. It does not encroach upon state powers,
but reinforces them. Pennsylvania is one of the states with parental
notification requirements. The Pennsylvania appeals court noted,
``although a parent's right to make decisions for her child is tempered
in the instance of abortion, at least in Pennsylvania that parent has
the legitimate expectation that procedural safeguards designed to
protect the minor will be observed.'' Parents in Pennsylvania and 27
other states need our help to guaranteeing that these laws are upheld.
Parental rights protect not only parents but minors as well. We have
all read numerous studies indicating the benefits of parental
involvement in a child's education. Parental involvement and guidance
in life is even more critical. Pregnancy is a life changing experience,
especially for teenagers, and we should not further distance them from
their parents at a time when they need as much support and love as they
can get. We cannot allow parental rights to be bypassed. I encourage my
colleagues to join me in support of the Child Custody Protection Act.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that today we will
vote on H.R. 476, the so-called ``Child Custody Protection Act.'' This
anti-choice bill would dangerously criminalize help from relatives and
close friends who assist young women struggling with the most difficult
personal challenges.
I wish that every child was in a loving family that they could turn
to first. The facts are, however, that many young women do not have
that type of relationship with their parents and in too many cases we
have seen the actual problem caused by abusive close family members.
People who would deny women reproductive choice have altered their
tactics to chip away at women's reproductive freedoms; this is one of
the most insidious examples. This bill would limit the choices for the
most desperate women and is part of an overall anti-choice strategy
that I reject.
Draconian measures like H.R. 476 often have unintended consequences
that can lead to desperate actions with dire consequences for the
mental health and physical well-being of our nation's young women.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 476,
the Child Custody Protection Act because the bill is unconstitutional,
dangerous, anti-family, and incredibly broad.
1. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional in at least three respects:
First, the bill violates minors' due process rights by increasing
their risk of physical harm. This violates the principles of Carey v.
Population Services, where the Supreme Court held that a state may not
seek to deter sexual activity by ``increasing the hazards attendant on
it.''
Second, H.R. 476 contains an inadequate exception to protect women's
lives, and it does not have any exception to protect a woman's health--
in clear violation of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Finally, the bill violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause by
denying citizens the right to travel freely and enjoy the legal rights
of citizens of other states. In violation of these principles of
federalism, the bill saddles a young woman with the laws of her home
state no matter where she travels in the country.
2. The bill is also dangerous because it takes away from young women
safe alternatives to parental involvement--such as turning to close
relatives, close family friends, and religious counselors--and replaces
them with life-endangering ones, such as hitchhiking, self-induced, or
back-alley abortions. If you don't believe me, ask Becky Bell's family.
She died from a back alley abortion as a result of Indiana's parental
consent law when she was afraid of confiding in her family.
The bill will inevitably lead to increased family violence. We know
that one-third of teenagers who do not tell their parents about a
pregnancy have already been the victim of family violence. We also know
that the incidence of family violence only escalates when a teenage
daughter becomes pregnant. This bill will only exacerbate those
problems.
3. In addition, the bill is anti-family because it will turn family
members into criminals. In a state that requires the consent of both
parents, a single parent who takes a child across state lines would be
subject to criminal charges, even if the other parent was estranged or
their whereabouts were unknown. Grandparents would also be subject to
prosecution, even if they were the child's primary caregiver.
4. Finally, the legislation is incredibly broad. Supporters of this
bill claim to be targeting predatory individuals that force and coerce
a minor into obtaining an abortion. However, the net cast by this bill
is far broader and far more problematic. Under the legislation, anyone
simply transporting minor could be jailed for up to a year or fined or
both. Any bus driver or taxi driver unaware that the young woman has
not engaged a formal parental involvement process could conceivably be
sent to jail under this prohibition. The same applies to emergency
medical personnel who may be aware they are taking a minor across state
lines to obtain an abortion, but would have no choice if a medical
emergency were occurring.
What we have is yet another shortsighted effort to politicize a
tragic family dilemma that does nothing to respond to the underlying
problem of teen pregnancies or dysfunctional families.
I urge the Members of vote ``no'' on this simple-minded, dangerous,
and misguided legislation.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 388, the bill is considered read for
amendment, and the previous question is ordered on the bill.
The question is on the 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. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.
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.
476 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 7, insert the following:
``(3) The prohibitions of this section do not apply with
respect to conduct by an adult sibling, a grandparent, or 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 to recommit 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.

[[Page H1370]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 5 minutes in support of her
motion.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I was just listening to a
discussion that reminded me that we have come repeatedly to the floor
to discuss this issue, and I do not intend by this motion to recommit
any of the debate that has preceded us to diminish the consciousness
and the sense of dedication and commitment that our colleagues have
when they come to the floor of the House; but I believe that it is
extremely important that this Congress, this House, reach to their
higher angels, and understand that there are people who suffer every
day, whose lives may be different from those of us who have spoken
today.
I have heard women in this debate mention their family members, their
children and the relationships they have. I have a 22-year-old daughter
and 16-year-old son, and we work very hard to keep the lines of
communication open, being there for them. If they were talked to by
someone else, they might say on some things I want to not speak to
parents who are loving and nurturing, of which my husband and myself
believe that we try to be. I could not give you a response. I know what
we try to do as a family.
But even in the instance where we try, what about the reality of
life? What the majority is doing today, Mr. Speaker, is ignoring their
own proposition, which says we have a responsibility to protect a child
from someone who may be putting his interest ahead of the child's at a
most vulnerable time. Those are words by the majority leadership. Yet
this bill does that. It takes the political and moral views of the
majority and imposes them on young women who may not feel the same way.
This motion to recommit says this. This is a motion to recommit that
no one should oppose, and that is that the prohibitions of this section
do not apply with respect to the conduct by an adult sibling, a loving
sister or brother, a loving grandparent, a minister, rabbi, pastor,
priest or other religious leader of a minor.
Mr. Speaker, life is real; and I do not know if many of you are aware
of lives that young people live. Thirteen-year-old Anita lives with her
grandmother, Joy, who she calls Momma. After noticing that Anita had
become withdrawn and observing changes in her sleeping and eating
patterns, Grandma Joy, Momma, suspected that Anita was pregnant.
At first Anita denied she could be pregnant. Joy finally got Anita to
open up, and Anita revealed, Mr. Speaker, that she had been raped.
Anita could not stop crying, shaking and vomiting as she told Joy the
story; and she told Joy that she did not want to have a baby, because
Anita was 13 years old.
Anita was raped. Anita was not engaging in frivolous sex. She was
raped. Fortunately, Joy and Anita do not live in a State with parental
consent, because Anita's mother is a drug addict, Mr. Speaker. She is
part of America's society, but she is not a mother who is able to
counsel with this young girl.
Had Joy and this mother lived in another State, this young girl, who
had already been so traumatized by rape, would have further been harmed
by parental involvement, but even more so harmed by this Federal law
that would keep Momma, Momma, who this little girl lives with, from
taking her to a place of safe haven, where they might have consulted
with their religious leader, and little Anita to be able to rebuild
this young girl's life. Raped.
This bill does not answer the health of the child. This bill does not
confront the reality of American life, where children live in homes
where there is no parent. This bill does not confront the
constitutional rights of children and choice and the right to privacy.
This motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, is a fair motion. How can
anyone in this body vote against a grandparent, a loving adult sibling,
a minister, a rabbi or pastor or priest or religious leader who would
guide and consult with the family? These are the very same rights and
privileges that we give to all who claim to live in the bounty of this
land.

{time} 1315

This is tragic. It is well known that young people live alone as
well, like the one I mentioned, April, the single mother, 16 years old,
of a 2-year-old child and whose stepfather abused her and, therefore,
no relationship with the natural mother.
We are denying the privileges of a familial situation, and I would
ask my colleagues who value this legislation as family values, where is
your heart to match the family values? Where is it reasoned that you
would deny that grandmother and that adult sibling and that ministerial
or that religious leader from helping to protect the constitutional
rights that exist?
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to instruct by a motion to recommit
this bill to go back and be able to emphasize family values for real,
with a heart.
Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed. Here we are, adult legislators
who raise families and promote family unity. But yet this bill before
us alienates young adolescents from their families and people that care
about them.
H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act, would criminalize anyone
transporting a minor across state lines if this circumvents the state's
parental involvement laws.
While I strongly oppose this bill, I offered amendments in Committee
that would have at least given a young woman the support of a family
member or clergy person during this time. Except that the Democrats
were not allowed to offer any amendments to soften the effects of this
family-destructing bill. Amendments were the only chance for this bill
to assure that the young woman who decides to get an abortion, for
whatever reason, has the support of a loving family member or respected
member of the clergy. She should not do it alone when she can't. The
Majority said that ``very often, parents are the only ones that know
their child's psychological and medical history. Not consulting with
parents can lead to health and safety risks.'' On the contrary, this
bill is detrimental to young women's health.
First of all, legal abortions, particularly early in pregnancy, are
very safe--safer than carrying a pregnancy to term. Secondly, studies
demonstrate that minors are capable of making competent medical
decisions without parental involvement. Further, states that do not
permit minors to consent to abortion do permit them to consent to
childbirth. If the true purpose of this bill is to protect children
rather than to impose another obstacle on young women's right to
choose, this anomalous result would be resolved here today.
The Majority continues by saying, ``We have a responsibility to
protect a child from someone who may be putting his interest ahead of
the child's, at a most vulnerable time.'' This is what this bill does.
It takes the political and moral views of the Majority and imposes them
on young women who may not feel the same way. If we are concerned about
promoting healthy family communication and family values, we will not
accomplish that with this bill. Many young women who feel they cannot
seek the counsel of their parents turn to other trusted family members
when they face a crisis pregnancy. As a matter of fact, one study found
that 93% of minors who did not involve a parent were accompanied by
someone else in the reproductive health facility.
This bill would criminalize the conduct of a grandmother who helps
her granddaughter in time of need. Aunts, uncles, and other trusted
family members would face imprisonment if they accompany a young
relative across state lines without complying with her home state's
parental involvement law. This bill would isolate young women from
supportive and protective family members rather than uniting families.
If my colleagues on the other side of the aisle really believe in
family unity and cared about their health, then they would have been
amenable to the amendments that we attempted to make in order.
That is why I am offering this motion to recommit. Our ultimate goal
is to provide access to health care that is in the best interest of the
adolescent. This bill prohibits that. My motion is to send this back to
the House Judiciary Committee and report back exempting adult siblings,
a grandparent, or a religious leader who helps a young woman in this
situation. These are adults who care for adolescents and would offer
assistance when confiding in their parents is not feasible. My
colleagues on the other side say that this bill protects minors who
cannot tell their parents because minors can appear before judges and
bypass any parental involvement law. Judicial bypass procedures often
pose formidable obstacles to young women facing crisis pregnancies.
Some anti-choice judges routinely deny minors' petitions.
For example, a judge in Toledo, Ohio, denied permission to a 17-year-
old woman--an `A' student who planned to attend college and who
testified that she was not financially or emotionally prepared for
motherhood at the same time. The judge stated that the young woman had
``not had enough hard knocks in her life.''

[[Page H1371]]

Mr. Speaker, if we really care about the health and well-being of our
young citizens, then we must send this bill back.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, these individuals that are referred to in this motion to
recommit, siblings and grandparents and religious leaders, ministers,
that sort of thing, do not have the authority now to authorize any
medical procedures for a minor child or to council or guide that child
as she makes important medical decisions. So why should the fundamental
rights of parents to consult and advise their pregnant daughters be
thrown aside, only in the context of abortion?
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the rights of parents to
be involved in their daughter's abortion decision is not interfered
with. Judicial bypass procedures contained in all parental notice and
consent statutes allow a pregnant minor in some circumstances to obtain
an abortion without having notified or gained the consent of her parent
or legal guardian in cases of sexual abuse or incest and those types of
things, for example. Those who want to add these exemptions have a
fundamental problem with the underlying State laws that only provide
parents a right to consent to or receive notice of this procedure. The
inclusion of these individuals is a matter for each individual
legislature to decide, not Congress.
The purpose of H.R. 476 is to enforce State laws as they are. If
extended family members or religious leaders are truly interested in
the best interests of the pregnant young girl, they will encourage and
support her as she takes the difficult step to either inform her
parents or guardian about her pregnancy, or to pursue a judicial
bypass. It is certainly not in the best interests of a pregnant young
girl for anyone, including a religious leader or extended family
member, to assist her in evading the laws of her home State and
secretly transporting her miles away from those who love her most in
order to undergo a potentially dangerous procedure that carries with it
serious medical consequences, serious long-term consequences.
Parents are in the best position to make decisions about their minor
children. Parents have their children, they love their children, they
nurture their children, they care for them. They are in the best
position, not anybody else.
For these reasons and others, I urge my colleagues to vote against
this motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to
this motion.
I would remind my colleagues that this motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is essentially the same as the
one that was offered back in 1999, and it was defeated by this body 164
to 268. This motion again seeks to cut out the parent. And the parent,
as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) just pointed out--not the
religious leader, not some grandparent, not a sibling that happens to
be an adult--is the legal guardian. If there is a problem, if there is
some kind of injury that results as a result of that abortion, who is
responsible? It is not going to be the brother or the sister. It is
certainly not going to be the grandparent. It will be the parent. We
should not cut the parent out of parental involvement by refusing them
consent or knowledge about an abortion.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation has been very carefully crafted by the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and members of the
Committee on the Judiciary. This is a killer motion, and I hope it will
be defeated.
Mr. BEREUTER. Madam Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of
the motion to instruct conferees on the issue of payment limitations
which the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) has
offered.
It is clear that strong payment limitation language would improve the
integrity of the farm program payments and help to retain public
support for these programs essential to rural areas. Making this change
will also help prevent the overwhelming consolidation of farms that has
resulted in a decrease in small- and medium-sized family farm
operations. The savings achieved from this provision could then be
directed to other worthwhile agricultural programs.
A survey conducted by 27 land grant universities found that 81
percent of the agricultural producers across the country supported
placing limits on support payments thereby directing dollars to where
they are actually intended. Furthermore, a 2001 General Accounting
Office report found that in recent years, more than 80 percent of farm
payments were made to large- and medium-size farms. In 1999, for
instance, 7 percent of the nation's farms--those with gross
agricultural sales of $250,000 or more--received about 45 percent of
the payments. With Congress facing so many spending priorities, we must
demonstrate to our constituents that we are using taxpayers' money more
efficiently.
It is important to note that this motion to instruct expresses
support for redirecting these funds to agricultural research and
conservation. Our choice is clear--we can continue to funnel millions
of dollars to some of the wealthiest farms or we can make an investment
in the future of agriculture which will benefit all producers and all
Americans.
Mr. Speaker, this Member strongly supports the motion to instruct and
encourages his colleagues to vote for it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). 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.
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, followed
by a 5-minute vote, if ordered, on approving the Journal.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 173,
nays 246, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 96]

YEAS--173

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Condit
Conyers
Coyne
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Doggett
Dooley
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gilman
Gonzalez
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutierrez
Harman
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Mink
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rangel
Rivers
Rodriguez
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Sweeney
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NAYS--246

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox

[[Page H1372]]

Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Mascara
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Terry
Thomas
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--15

Bartlett
Clement
Clyburn
Dingell
Hastings (FL)
Jones (OH)
LaTourette
Miller, George
Pryce (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thornberry
Traficant
Watt (NC)

{time} 1344

Messrs. KILDEE, RAHALL, ORTIZ, McNULTY, BILIRAKIS and STUPAK changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. GILMAN, Ms. SANCHEZ, and Messrs. GREENWOOD, SHAYS, and FORD
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, my vote was recorded incorrectly on the
motion to recommit on H.R. 476. My vote would be a ``no'' on the motion
to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 260,
noes 161, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 97]

AYES--260

Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonior
Bono
Boozman
Borski
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Etheridge
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
Kildee
Kilpatrick
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaFalce
LaHood
Langevin
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Lynch
Manzullo
Mascara
Matheson
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pascrell
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Portman
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Roemer
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roukema
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Stenholm
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--161

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

NOT VOTING--13

Barcia
Callahan
Clement
Clyburn
Dingell
Dunn
Hastings (FL)
Jones (OH)
LaTourette
Pryce (OH)
Thornberry
Traficant
Watts (OK)

{time} 1354

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. CALLAHAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 97, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. WATTS of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, my vote was not recorded on the
Child Custody Protection Act, vote No. 97. I ask that the Record
reflect that had my vote been recorded, I would have voted ``aye.''
Mr. BARCIA, Mr. Speaker, due to an unavoidable conflict I was unable
to cast a vote on rollcall No. 97, question: on passage of H.R. 476,
the Child Custody Protection Act. I ask that the Record reflect that if
I were able to cast my vote it would have been ``aye.''

[[Page H1373]]

Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently voted ``yea'' on final
passage of the Child Custody Protection Act (rollcall vote 97) when I
meant to vote ``no.'' Please let the Record reflect my true intention
and note this statement in the appropriate place in the Congressional
Record.

____________________