[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 53 (Wednesday, April 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2593-H2616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Portman). Pursuant to House Resolution 
236 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 748.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley) to assume the chair temporarily.

                              {time}  1556


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill 
(H.R. 748) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the 
transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to 
abortion, and for other purposes, with Mr. Foley (Acting Chairman) in 
the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as 
having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act. Laws that require parental notification 
before an abortion can be obtained by a minor are overwhelmingly 
supported by the American people.
  As recently as March 2005, 75 percent of over 1,500 registered voters 
surveyed favored requiring parental notification before a minor could 
get an abortion. In fact, the 2004 Democratic nominee for President 
said on ``Meet the Press'' this year, ``I am for parental 
notification.''
  Across the country, medical personnel and others must obtain parental 
consent before performing routine medical services such as providing 
aspirin or including children in certain activities such as field trips 
and contact sports.
  Yet, today, people other than parents can secretly take children 
across State lines in violation of parental notification laws for 
abortion without their parents even knowing about it.
  Introduced by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or CIANA for short, will 
protect the health and physical safety of young girls and protect 
fundamental parental rights. This legislation contains two central 
provisions, each of which creates a new Federal crime subject to 
$100,000 fine or 1 year in jail or both.
  The first section of the bill makes it a Federal crime to transport a 
minor across State lines in order to circumvent a State law requiring 
parental involvement in the minor's abortion decision. Twenty-three 
States currently have such parental involvement laws. The purpose of 
this section is to prevent people, including abusive boyfriends and 
older men who may have committed rape, from pressuring young girls into 
receiving a secret out-of-State abortion that keeps the abuser's sexual 
crimes hidden from that minor's parents or law enforcement authorities.
  The first section of the bill does not apply to a minor seeking the 
abortion themselves or to their parents.

                              {time}  1600

  It also does not apply in life-threatening emergencies that may 
require that an abortion be provided immediately.
  The second section of CIANA applies to cases in which a minor who is 
a resident of one State presents herself for an abortion in another 
State that does not have a parental involvement law. In those 
circumstances, the bill requires the abortion provider to give one of 
the minor's parents, or a legal guardian, notice of the minor's 
abortion decision before the abortion is performed. The purpose of this 
section is to protect the fundamental right of parents to be involved 
in a minor's decision to undergo a potentially dangerous medical 
procedure. A parent will be familiar with their daughter's medical 
history and able to give that information to a health care provider to 
ensure that she receives safe medical care and necessary follow-up 
treatment.
  This section of the bill does not apply where the abortion provider 
is presented with court papers showing that the parental involvement 
law in effect in the minor's State of residence has been complied with. 
It also does not apply where the minor states that she has been the 
victim of abuse by a parent and the abortion provider informs the 
appropriate State authorities of such abuse. Furthermore, it does not 
apply where a life-threatening emergency may require that an abortion 
be provided immediately.
  The need for this section was provided by Marcia Carroll, who 
testified on behalf of H.R. 748 before the Committee on the Judiciary. 
In her testimony, Mrs. Carroll described how her daughter, without Mrs. 
Carroll's knowledge, was pressured by her boyfriend's stepfather to 
cross State lines to have an abortion she did not want and which she 
now regrets. Mrs. Carroll said, ``My daughter does suffer. She has gone 
to counseling for this. I just know that she cries and wishes she could 
redo everything, relive that day over. She has asked me to come here 
for her sake and for other girls' safety to speak and let you know what 
was happening.''
  It is important to note that nothing in this legislation prevents a 
minor from obtaining an abortion. CIANA simply protects the right of 
parents to be given a chance to help their children through difficult 
times. The Supreme Court has described parents' right to control the 
care of their children as ``perhaps the oldest of the fundamental 
liberty interests recognized by this Court.'' The Supreme Court has 
also observed that, ``The medical, emotional, and psychological 
consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting,'' and that 
``it seems unlikely that the minor will obtain adequate counsel and 
support from the attending physician at an abortion clinic where 
abortions for pregnant minors frequently take place.''
  The House of Representatives has passed similar legislation by over 
100-vote margins in recent Congresses, and I urge all my colleagues to 
again support this legislation, which is so vital to parental rights 
and to the health and safety of America's minor daughters.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the House, we 
have, this afternoon, a measure on the floor that will increase health 
risks to young women who choose to have an abortion, is clearly 
unconstitutional, is antifamily and antiphysician, and it goes way 
beyond limiting the travel rights of a young woman who would want or 
seek an abortion or forcing a physician to provide parental notices.
  This bill is really about stopping any woman from crossing a State 
line to obtain an abortion under any conditions and about preventing a 
doctor from performing an abortion at any time. It is a tragic bill. It 
is a mean-spirited bill.
  If the proponents really wanted to allow young women to ever cross a 
State line to obtain an abortion, would they pass a law so extreme as 
to prevent even the woman's grandparents, aunts or uncles, siblings or 
clergy from helping safeguard the woman's safety? Why else would they 
pass a law that criminalizes not only taxi and bus drivers but nurses 
or any health professional who even gives a young woman directions 
home? There is only one possible answer, and that is they want to 
prevent any young woman from being able to obtain an abortion, even if 
she is raped, or even if she is too afraid of her parents to confide in 
them.

[[Page H2594]]

  If the proponents of the bill really wanted to permit doctors to 
conduct abortions on young women under the proper circumstances, why 
would they force the doctors to travel in person across State lines to 
give actual written notice to parents? Why else would they fail to 
define what constitutes reasonable effort by a physician? Why else 
would they impose this burdensome requirement, even if a parent brought 
his or her child to the doctor's office to obtain this medical 
procedure?
  So if the proponents really cared whether the bill complied with the 
Constitution, they would add a health exception that has been 
frequently enumerated by the Supreme Court in Stenberg versus Cahart; 
they would provide for a judicial bypass, as is mandated in Hodgson 
versus Minnesota. Yet the proponents continue to ignore the letter of 
the law and then act surprised and complain about activist judges when 
the Court merely does its duty and strikes down blatant 
unconstitutional proposals like the one before us today.
  Unfortunately, this legislation constitutes yet another in a long 
line of shortsighted efforts to politicize tragic family dilemmas that 
does nothing to respond to the underlying problems of teen pregnancies, 
dysfunctional families, and child abuse. We in Congress should not be 
in the business of telling young women facing a terrible situation who 
they must confide in and that the Constitution does not apply to them.
  Please listen carefully and reject this unwarranted piece of 
legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act, CIANA, which was introduced by my colleague, 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). I would 
also like to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), for his leadership on this bill as well.
  CIANA's predecessor, the Child Custody Protection Act, received broad 
support, passing this House by over 100-vote margins on three separate 
occasions, including the 105th, the 106th, and the 107th Congresses. 
H.R. 748, introduced this session, was favorably reported out of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution on March 17 and out of the full 
Committee on the Judiciary on April 13 of this year.
  Passing CIANA is critical to both protecting our minors as well as 
preserving the opportunity for parents to be involved in their 
children's decisions. The first section of CIANA, as our chairman 
mentioned, would make it a Federal crime to transport a minor across 
State lines to obtain an abortion in another State in circumvention of 
a State's parental notification law.
  The primary purpose of the first section is to prevent people, 
including abusive boyfriends and older men, and oftentimes we have seen 
people in their twenties and we have seen girls 15, 16, 17 years of age 
here, so oftentimes it is statutory rape, from pressuring these young 
girls into circumventing their State's parental involvement laws by 
receiving secret out-of-State abortions, unknown to their parents. The 
parents are the ones that ought to be involved in making these 
oftentimes life-altering decisions, not some abusive boyfriend, not 
some older man whose interests are to protect himself and perhaps to do 
away with the evidence. He does not have that girl's best interests in 
mind. The parents are the ones that ought to be involved in making this 
decision.
  CIANA recognizes certain exemptions to the act's requirements, 
including instances in which a life-threatening emergency may require 
an abortion be provided immediately; instances in which the abortion 
provider is presented with court papers showing that the parental 
involvement law in effect in the minor's home State has been complied 
with; and instances in which the minor states that she has been the 
victim of abuse by a parent and the abortion provider informs the 
appropriate State authorities of such abuse so that it can be 
prevented.
  The statistics show that approximately 80 percent of the public 
favors parental notification laws, and as recently as last month, 75 
percent of 1,500 registered voters favored requiring parental 
notification before a minor could get an abortion, with only 18 percent 
opposing parental notification.
  Forty-four States have enacted some form of parental involvement 
statute. Twenty-three of these States enforce statutes that require the 
consent or notification of at least one parent or court authorization 
before a young girl can obtain an abortion, including my State, the 
State of Ohio. Such laws reflect the widespread agreement that the 
parents of a pregnant minor are best suited to provide counsel and 
guidance and support as the girl decides whether to continue her 
pregnancy or to undergo an abortion.
  The Subcommittee on the Constitution heard firsthand about this life-
altering procedure, as our chairman mentioned. We had the mother of a 
young girl. This young girl was essentially pressured by the boyfriend 
and the boyfriend's parents. This young girl's parents thought they 
were sending her to school; she was then taken out of State, from 
Pennsylvania into New Jersey, where an abortion was performed on her. 
The parents and the boyfriend, they went out and had lunch while she is 
undergoing this abortion.
  This girl did not want to go through with it to begin with. They 
pressured her, and when she got there, she said she did not want to go 
through with it. That was the evidence in the committee. She was told 
by them if you do not go through with this, you do not have a way to 
get back home. So she would have been stuck there. The mother found out 
about this, and the daughter, she said, still cries about this 
constantly; that she wishes she could go back and undo what happened to 
her, but obviously it is too late.
  The parents should have been entitled to have been involved in this 
process, but, unfortunately, too often that is not the case if they are 
being pressured by the boyfriend or some abusive adult. Parents such as 
Mrs. Carroll should be given the chance to be involved in these life-
altering decisions. Confused and frightened young girls who find 
themselves in these situations are routinely influenced and assisted by 
adults in obtaining abortions and are encouraged to avoid parental 
involvement by crossing State lines.
  These girls are often guided by those who do not share the love and 
affection that the parents do. It should be the parents involved. 
Parental involvement is critical. I strongly urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution, who has worked with great diligence 
on this subject across the years.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and first let me begin by noting that the case just alluded to by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), that in the case where a young 
woman was held coercively, was threatened if she did not go through 
with an abortion she would not be able to get home, would seem to 
violate the laws against kidnapping and half a dozen other criminal 
laws. If those people were not prosecuted, it is the district 
attorney's fault. We do not need this bill to deal with a situation 
like that.
  Mr. Chairman, we consider today legislation that is at once another 
flagrant violation of the Constitution and an assault on the health and 
well-being of young women and their health care providers. Some States 
have chosen to enact parental notification and consent laws. Some, like 
mine, have considered this issue and decided such laws are not good for 
the welfare of young women and have declined to enact them. This bill 
would use Federal authority to impose the restrictive laws of one State 
on abortions performed in another State. It would, in effect, make a 
young girl carry the law of her State on her back wherever she goes.
  Mr. Chairman, I know of no law that has attempted to do this kind of 
thing since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. This bill would make 
criminals of grandparents, boyfriends, brothers, sisters, and clergymen 
and women who try to help a young woman, a young

[[Page H2595]]

woman who had a fear or alienation and thinks she cannot confide in her 
parents.
  It would even apply to a case such as that of a 13-year-old from 
Idaho, Spring Adams, who was shot to death by her father after he found 
out that she planned to terminate a pregnancy, a pregnancy he caused by 
his act of incest. Under this bill, he would have the parental 
notification or veto right.
  This bill is radically different from previous versions. If you voted 
for this bill in the past, look again. It would now, for the first 
time, jail doctors. It would now, for the first time, require doctors 
to know the laws of all 50 States. It would now, for the first time, 
require a doctor to fly to the young woman's home State and ring her 
parents' doorbell before treating her. Even if the young girl's State 
of residence and the doctor's State have both decided not to enact 
parental notification or consent laws, this bill would impose a new 
Federal parental notification law that is more Draconian than the laws 
of most States.

                              {time}  1615

  This bill imposes a 24-hour waiting period and does not waive that 
requirement even if the parents accompany the young woman to the 
abortion doctor and even if a delay would threaten her health. That is 
not only unconstitutional; it is immoral. Congress should not be 
tempted to play doctor. It is always bad medicine for women.
  In an ideal world, loving, supportive and understanding families 
would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in 
the majority of cases, law or no law; but we do not live in a perfect 
world. Some parents are violent; some parents are rapists. Some young 
people can turn only to their clergy, to a grandparent, a brother, a 
sister, or some other trusted adult. We should not turn these people 
into criminals simply because they are trying to help a young woman in 
a difficult or dire situation.
  This bill is the wrong way to deal with a very real problem. It does 
not provide exceptions to protect the young woman's health. It does not 
provide exceptions where a parent has raped a young woman. It even 
allows the rapist to sue the clergyman or the doctor who tries to help 
the doctor deal with the effects of the rape committed by the rapist. 
It allows the rapist to sue the doctor and gain from his crime.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation on both 
constitutional and policy grounds. If only for the sake of humanity, I 
urge Members to join in providing the needed flexibility for the most 
difficult real-world cases involving the lives of real young women. We 
owe them at least that much.
  We also owe the States the respect to note that some of them have 
passed such laws, some have not. Why should we impose these laws in 
States that have not done it? Why should we tell someone in one State 
because you came from another State, you are subject to the laws of 
that State wherever you go. We do not do that in this country 
generally. We are supposed to be a Federal Republic, although 
increasingly in this House we seem to forget that. I urge rejection of 
this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author of the bill.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for his critical leadership on 
this bill, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for his help 
throughout this process.
  As a mother of two teenage daughters, I, like so many Americans, 
believe that we as parents have a right to know what is going on in our 
daughters' lives, especially with regard to a potentially life-
threatening medical procedure. And my bill, the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act, CIANA, will incorporate all of the 
provisions previously contained in the Child Custody Protection Act 
making it a Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines in 
order to circumvent that State's abortion parental notification laws.
  In addition, the bill will require in a State without a parent 
notification requirement, abortion providers are required to notify a 
parent. It will protect minors from exploitation from the abortion 
industry. It will promote strong family ties, and it will help foster 
respect for State laws.
  This legislation will put an end to the abortion clinics and family 
planning organizations that exploit young, vulnerable girls by luring 
them to recklessly disobey State laws. This legislation has had the 
support of the overwhelming majority of Members who have voted in favor 
of a similar, but not identical, bill in not only 1998 and in 1999 but 
also in 2002. Today, CIANA has 129 cosponsors. The people have spoken 
in the past, and so have their representatives.
  I am extremely hopeful that this Congress will pass this common-place 
and commonsense legislation. I hope it will pass the House and the 
Senate, and the President has said he will sign the bill into law. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation and reject 
weakening amendments that seek to put loopholes in this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to what I think 
is an outrageous piece of legislation that is going to harm women and 
make criminals out of innocent individuals and even grandmothers who 
seek to help their granddaughters travel across State lines in order to 
end their pregnancy.
  Mr. Chairman, we worked very hard in the Committee on the Judiciary 
to try and make sense out of this bill. Those of us who oppose this 
legislation thought for one minute that perhaps our colleagues would 
have enough humanity to recognize that there ought to be some 
exceptions to this bad bill. One that I dealt with had to do with 
incest.
  Can Members imagine that a young girl has been raped or abused by a 
father, and now she has to go to him to ask him for permission to have 
an abortion; but beyond that, permission to travel out of the State to 
another State where the laws are different and would allow for 
abortion, perhaps without a bypass procedure?
  It is inconceivable to me that we would have been denied this kind of 
an amendment. It is inconceivable to me that my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle would think that they should not only force a young 
girl who is the victim of incest to go to the perpetrator, maybe the 
father or the relative to ask them for permission, they even create 
penalties for anyone that would assist the young girl in traveling 
across State lines. This is absolutely outrageous and unreasonable.
  Young women in this country increasingly are confronted with far too 
many traumatic situations. We have sexual predators out there, many in 
the headlines today. We have more and more cases of incest that we are 
learning about, and at the same time we would make life more difficult 
for someone who is the victim of incest. I would ask my colleagues to 
reject this legislation. It is absolutely unreasonable.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Chairman Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time to speak on this 
important issue.
  I rise today to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 748, the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This important piece of 
legislation will make it a Federal crime to transport a minor across 
State lines to obtain an abortion in another State.
  Unfortunately, only about half our States currently have parental 
notification or consent laws in effect, and all too often these laws 
are circumvented by those wishing to take minors to other States that 
do not have parental notification requirements. This often happens 
under heavy pressure from older boyfriends or at the urging of abortion 
providers.
  In order to protect the welfare of young women and the rights of 
their parents, Congress has a duty to regulate this interstate 
activity. Furthermore, those who manipulate and abuse young, 
vulnerable, pregnant women should be punished. This must include 
irresponsible abortionists who perform abortions on young women from 
other States. As Federal lawmakers, we also

[[Page H2596]]

have an obligation to protect the rights of the States. Unfortunately, 
when it comes to abortion, these State laws are being trampled on at 
the expense of vulnerable young women and their families.
  Life does begin at conception and is sacred. We should do all we can 
to protect life. This includes empowering the States that have parental 
notification laws to enforce them. Abortionists should not be rewarded 
for opening their businesses to new markets in other States. The health 
and well-being of these young women is at risk.
  I am optimistic about the future of this legislation because of the 
tenacity of the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the 129 
cosponsors of the bill, the support the Committee on the Judiciary and 
the chairman of the committee, and our leadership in the House. Life is 
a gift from God delivered at conception. It must be protected and 
cherished at that point forward. I am happy and honored to be here to 
celebrate another great stride towards that goal.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) who has worked tirelessly on the 
committee on this subject matter.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
strong opposition to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. 
This is simply another example of anti-woman and anti-choice 
legislation that jeopardizes a young woman's health and is at odds with 
the United States Constitution.
  This bill will leave young girls like Spring Adams completely 
unprotected. Spring was a 13-year-old sixth grade student from Idaho 
who became pregnant as a result of her father's shameful actions. When 
Spring's father became aware that she planned to terminate the 
pregnancy, he shot and killed her. If H.R. 748 were law, girls in 
Spring's tragic circumstances would be more vulnerable to harm since 
young women will be forced to notify the same parent that sexually 
abuses them of their plan to seek medical care. Is that the dangerous 
situation we want to put an abused girl in?
  What is worse is that H.R. 748 does not contain a health exception 
which is dangerous to a young woman's health. Under this bill, doctors 
will be guilty of a crime if they do not wait 24 hours before 
performing an abortion, a medical procedure, on a young girl even if 
the girl is at risk for serious injury. This means that in some 
circumstances conscientious doctors must sit on their hands and wait 
for 24 hours as young female patients suffer from complications and 
risk permanent injury.
  Mr. Chairman, 24-hour delays are not always an option when a young 
girl is pregnant and experiencing medical complications. And if these 
victimized girls ask a caring grandparent or aunt to drive them to 
another State for an abortion, even if the girl is at risk for serious 
injury or has been sexually abused by a parent, their family members 
will be guilty of a crime and may wind up in prison.
  That is a heavy price to pay for trying to help and protect a loved 
one. Doctors and grandparents should not have to make the unthinkable 
choice between protecting a patient or granddaughter from serious 
physical injury and going to jail. This bill forces them to make that 
impossible choice. For this reason, I urge every Member of this body to 
stand up for women's health, stand up for the U.S. Constitution, and 
vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
support of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. While many 
States require parental notification or consent before an abortion 
procedure, others do not. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen) introduced this bill to prohibit the transportation of a 
minor across State lines in order to obtain an abortion.
  As we have all heard in the discussion today, there are no Federal 
parental notification laws and not every State operates under the same 
rules. There are some States that do not require a parental consent 
form or notification, or their laws may be tied up in a court 
challenge, as was the case in Florida; but the voters voted 
overwhelmingly to have parental notification. When a minor is 
transported across State lines to evade these State laws, the rights of 
parents have been violated.
  I only have daughters. I have three daughters and certainly any 
parent realizes that their children cannot have such a minor thing as a 
tattoo or a body piercing or even receive vaccines in school without 
their consent. Is it asking too much that our children receive parental 
consent before they undergo an out-of-state and serious medical 
procedure, all without their parents' consent? Can you imagine learning 
that your daughter was transported across State lines because she 
thought it was her only option? That is just plain wrong.
  Mr. Chairman, we must support the Child Interstate Abortion 
Notification Act today. Certainly Congress does not want to condone 
nonparents transporting young women across State lines for the purpose 
of evading the parental involvement laws in the girl's home State. To 
me that is a dangerous and unconscionable precedent to set. Across the 
country, officials must obtain parental consent before performing even 
routine medical procedures.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of this legislation, 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), is my colleague and 
friend; but on this issue I must respectfully disagree with her.
  I know that most of my colleagues believe teens should communicate 
with their parents and guardians when faced with difficult and 
terrifying choices. Unfortunately, that does not always happen; and in 
some cases where abuse and neglect are involved, we cannot force it to 
happen. In every community in every congressional district, whether red 
or blue, the sad truth is that there are unspeakable acts perpetrated 
against young girls by relatives that result in pregnancy, and this 
legislation does nothing to protect them.
  In a perfect world, there would be no heinous acts against children. 
In a perfect world, no woman would become pregnant until she was 
spiritually, physically, and emotionally prepared to love and care for 
a child.

                              {time}  1630

  Just over a month ago, I stood on the floor of this House because I 
firmly believed that politicians have no right to meddle in personal 
and private affairs of medical decisions. As recent actions and events 
have reflected, leaders in this Congress across the country are seeking 
more ways to violate the Nation's laws and our personal freedoms in 
order to impose their will on American families. This is not the role 
of Congress, nor should it be. This legislation includes no provision 
for a teenager who fears turning to her parents because the pregnancy 
may be the result of an act of rape or incest. It is wrong and we must 
stop it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).
  Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to voice my strong support 
for H.R. 748. And I thank the Committee on the Judiciary for allowing 
Members to speak on this bill and also particularly the gentlewoman 
from Florida, who brought this legislation to the floor and who has 
worked on this legislation to get it through.
  Needless to say, this bill is something that many of us feel very 
strongly about, that will protect our daughters of minor age from those 
who would seek to harm them or that would interfere with that parental/
child relationship.
  In my State, for example, Alabama, we have a one-parent consent or 
judicial bypass law that is currently on the books. Three of the States 
that border Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, and Mississippi, have laws 
that are at least as stringent as those in Alabama. The fourth State, 
Florida, currently has no parental involvement statute in effect, which 
in essence means that minor children from Alabama can be taken into 
Florida to have an abortion with no parental involvement.
  I in no way believe that this legislation punishes young women. It 
was put there to protect them. Therefore, I

[[Page H2597]]

would urge my colleagues to vote in support of this important 
legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. I applaud his leadership.
  And I would like to be associated with the comments of the Members of 
minority in their comments strongly against this bill. It is not about 
protecting children. It is merely a part of the majority's agenda to 
please anti-choice extremists. If the majority were truly concerned 
about children, then this bill would not be so extreme, so complex, and 
so unconstitutional. It provides no exception for the health of the 
mother, as required by the Supreme Court. It does not always provide an 
option for judicial bypass, which is also required by the Supreme 
Court. And it violates States rights by forcing the laws of one State 
on to another.
  What this bill is really about is the majority war with our courts. 
The majority knows that this bill is unconstitutional, but they do not 
care. And when the first court determines that it is unconstitutional, 
the majority will blame the judges, just as they labeled them judicial 
activists, as they did in the Terri Schiavo case, and just as they did 
in the partial birth abortion case. Believe me, when the judges make 
their decision, it will be based on volumes and volumes of case 
precedent that sets the standard of constitutionality and not on a 
political agenda.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky. Mr. Chairman, as a father with four daughters, 
the safety and well-being of young women are among my absolute 
priorities. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is not a 
bill that affects a minor's right to have an abortion. It is a bill 
that protects young women from being pressured into having an abortion. 
The legislation requires that abortion providers provide 24-hour notice 
to one of the minor's parents or legal guardians before the procedure 
is performed. Abortion is already taking one life. We have a duty to 
protect the lives of the young girls forced to have these procedures.
  Kentucky is among the Commonwealths and States that have parental 
involvement laws for minors seeking an abortion. An overwhelming 
majority of Americans support these laws, and parents, unlike those 
taking a young girl over State lines for the procedures, have the 
girl's best interests at heart. The decision to end the life of an 
unborn child is not one that should be made by a frightened young girl 
forced into a clinic.
  Too often the men transporting the girls are either abusive 
boyfriends or men who have committed rape and are trying to dispose of 
the evidence. These predators should not be given the opportunity to 
circumvent State law and circumvent a girl's parents.
  The House has passed legislation similar to this in the past, and we 
find ourselves here again supporting a bill that will protect young 
women. Officials must obtain parental notification before dispensing 
aspirin to minors and before taking students on field trips. States 
require written parental consent before a minor can get a tattoo or 
body piercing. But our current laws allow a young girl to be taken 
across the State lines for an abortion without notifying her parents. 
This is despicable. It is dangerous. And it should be stopped.
  I urge my colleagues to join me to pass the Child Interstate Abortion 
Notification Act so that we can protect young girls and involve their 
parents or legal guardians in decisions of life or death.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin), a distinguished member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
748.
  This bill is yet another example of government intrusion into the 
most private of family decisions, and it once again criminalizes the 
actions of doctors who seek to provide women with confidential 
reproductive health care services.
  Mr. Chairman, in a perfect world every child would be able to turn to 
their parents for guidance. In a perfect world, every parent would have 
their child's best interests in mind. In a perfect world, every parent 
would create a safe and loving home where their teens could talk openly 
about important decisions.
  But, Mr. Chairman, we do not live in a perfect world. And mandatory 
parental notification and consent laws like the one before us harm 
exactly those people whom our laws should be looking out for, those who 
cannot turn to their parents for guidance. These young women who feel 
they cannot turn to their parents often enlist the help of a 
grandparent or an aunt or a trusted family friend. H.R. 748 would make 
it a Federal crime for any of these people to help the young women in 
need.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this deplorable legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I have to take issue with the gentlewoman from 
Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). She says this bill involves itself in the most 
personal of family decisions. How does it involve itself in a family 
decision when the family does not even know about it? And what this 
bill requires is that the family at least know about the fact that 
their daughter is being taken across a State line in circumvention of a 
State law requiring parental involvement.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I certainly thank the gentlewoman from 
Florida for offering this legislation. I commend her, and I am proud to 
be an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  We work so hard in the policies that we pass in this body. We work so 
hard in so many ways in this country today to try to help families to 
stay together. We try to encourage communication between parents and 
their kids. And that is exactly what this legislation is designed to 
do. It is designed to encourage parents and their children to have more 
conversations, to be communicating about some of life's most difficult 
and challenging circumstances and decisions that have to be made in 
families today.
  We have young kids in our family, and time after time after time, 
kids come home from school with permission slips. They cannot do 
anything in school today without a permission slip. A school trip, 
being on a bus, participating in some activity. We cannot do anything 
in schools today, with young people today, without getting a permission 
slip from their parents. A child cannot get an aspirin in school 
without getting permission from their parents.
  Yet with this legislation, we are simply suggesting and requiring 
that if someone is going to try to take a young child, a minor, a young 
woman, a girl, across State lines to evade a law that is designed to 
have parents and their children talking and communicating about some of 
the toughest things that families have to deal with, we are talking 
about an abortion procedure. We are talking about an invasive surgical 
procedure. It requires anesthesia. And we are saying that parents 
should not necessarily be involved in that decision? My gosh, it 
betrays common sense. It betrays norms for decency and common sense. We 
are talking about an invasive surgical procedure that requires 
anesthesia, when we require a parent to be notified and to give consent 
for their child to have an aspirin or to ride on a bus or to go on a 
school trip; yet saying parents should not be involved necessarily when 
their child is going to have an invasive surgical procedure requiring 
anesthesia simply betrays common sense.
  I certainly encourage and urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Davis).
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to 
H.R. 748.
  Let us just pause for a moment and think about what it does. Will it 
prevent unwanted pregnancies that teenagers today have, although in 
smaller numbers, at least in California where we have had good 
education? Let us get real about it.
  I think it glosses over the complexity of real people's lives and 
abandons

[[Page H2598]]

young women at a critical time. Young women deserve better than H.R. 
748's complicated grid of State laws and intimidating legal procedures.
  We cannot mandate healthy communication where it does not exist. Just 
the opposite, I think, can happen from this bill. But we can work 
together to prevent teen pregnancies through education, through 
counseling, through access to family planning services. Please let us 
focus on prevention rather than restrictions.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair inform us as to how much 
time remains on both sides?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 14 
minutes left. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 8\1/
2\ minutes left.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It is very critical that we understand whose side everyone is on. The 
Center for Reproductive Rights, the American Medical Association, the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who are all 
opposed to this bill, the American College of Physicians, the American 
Public Health Association, Planned Parenthood, all have longstanding 
policies opposing mandatory parental involvement laws because of the 
dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access 
to physicians.
  We have yet to have anyone explain why it is that the exception for 
health is not included in this law. So the dangers that are posed to 
young women in H.R. 748 underscore the need for confidential access to 
physicians. It is absolutely critical that we realize that this is 
about developing more human regulations of this very terrible 
circumstance.
  Very little has been said on the other side about the constitutional 
concerns and the fact that we refuse to recognize that the lack of 
parental notification provisions raise at least three serious 
constitutional concerns.

                              {time}  1645

  So I urge the Members to consider how much more Draconian this law is 
than the previous bills that have been on the floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time. I do rise in strong opposition to this bill. I 
am a strong supporter of my own State's law requiring parental 
involvement, but I strongly oppose this bill.
  First of all, it is quite different from any bill that has appeared 
before us, and it is truly ironic that we should have this bill before 
the House on the very same day we are passing a Small Business Bill of 
Rights. One of those rights is for small business to be relieved of 
litigation.
  The majority of physicians in America practice in one, two, or three-
man practices, which are small businesses. But, this bill opens up a 
new lawsuit possibility against them for civil damages in case they do 
not notify the parents, and that is plural, of a young person who comes 
to them for abortion services. It requires that the physician serve 
this notification in person. Now, what happens if that doctor gets in 
his car, goes and drives and notifies the mother, but since he does not 
know the mother and father are estranged, he does not notify the 
father. The father then has a right of action against him.
  This is not fair or right. This bill requires physicians to reveal 
information that under HIPAA and all confidentiality laws, they are not 
allowed to reveal. So this puts a burden on physicians that is 
extraordinary, and they are small businesses, and we need to remember 
that.
  Secondly, it puts young people, remember, it does not put the 
teenager of a healthy family in jeopardy, it puts the teenager of the 
at-risk family, of the family in which there is a lot of abuse, in 
jeopardy. Many of the teenagers who become pregnant young are pregnant 
because their fathers impregnated them, or an uncle or a nephew or a 
cousin. These are ugly situations, and if they find a grandmother or an 
aunt or a cousin who will substitute for a mother who may be the drugee 
and effectively out of their lives, who might help them deal with this 
situation, and that grandmother does not happen to know that she has to 
comply with State notification and all the other laws of both States, 
she will be subject to criminal penalties.
  This is a bad bill for the children who most need our help.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 additional minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the subcommittee ranking member.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have alluded repeatedly in this debate 
to the reasons why this bill is oppressive and is wrong, and we have 
alluded to the fact that it is unconstitutional, but we have not really 
gone into that.
  The fact is that under the rulings of the Supreme Court, it is not 
permissible to pass a law which has the effect of imposing one State's 
legal requirements on another State, as this bill does. In essence, the 
bill imposes on States and physicians the laws of the States that have 
the most stringent requirements on abortion. Federalism dictates that 
one has the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an 
unfriendly alien when temporarily present in another State, according 
to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.
  In the Saenz case in 1999, the Supreme Court held that a State cannot 
discriminate against a citizen of another State when there is no 
substantial reason for the discrimination, except for the fact that 
they are a citizen of another State. The court specifically referred to 
Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, where it said the 
State cannot limit access to its medical care facilities for abortions 
to in-State residents. A State must treat all that are seeking medical 
care within that State in an equal manner.
  This bill would, in effect, say that there are two legal regimes in a 
State. One is the regime, the system, the set of laws that apply to 
residents of that State passed by the State legislature of that State. 
The second law that applies applies to people who came from another 
State, and it is the laws of that other State that apply, plus the laws 
of this State. Constitutionally, you cannot do that. You cannot make, 
you cannot make a young woman carry the law of one State on her back 
wherever she goes because she originated in that State.
  I said before that Congress has made no attempt to use Federal 
authority to impose the laws of one State on another since the Fugitive 
Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act, if passed today, would clearly be 
unconstitutional. This bill is clearly unconstitutional, as well as 
oppressive.
  It is also wrong because the States that have decided not to impose 
such laws on their own citizens should not be forced to because we say 
so.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
chairman for yielding me this time, and I wand to commend him and the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot) for their outstanding work that they have done, and many 
others, on this very important legislation to protect life--especially 
the lives of underage teenagers.
  Mr. Chairman, abortion mills in my home State of New Jersey go so far 
as to buy ads, especially in the yellow pages, to promote abortion for 
minors residing in Pennsylvania, where parental consent is required for 
abortion, to come to my State, where no parental involvement of any 
kind is needed. The marketing of teenage abortions in this way, Mr. 
Chairman, or in any way, for that matter, is morally indefensible. The 
abortion industry's engraved invitation to vulnerable young girls to 
procure a secret abortion means it becomes more likely and that more 
abortions will indeed occur. That means, Mr. Chairman, more dead 
babies; that means more wounded moms.
  Earlier in this debate, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) 
suggested that the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act somehow 
constituted an ``abandonment'' of minor girls. Well, I thought I had 
heard just about everything one could hear in my 25 years in Congress 
during abortion debates, but to call a bill designed

[[Page H2599]]

to protect vulnerable teenagers from abuse by abortion mills and those 
who would facilitate that abuse ``abandonment'', is deeply and 
profoundly troubling. I respectfully submit that enabling secret 
abortions by underage teenagers without parental knowledge or consent 
is, in and of itself, abandonment. To abandon is to forsake, to desert, 
to give up on. Why abandon a 14-year-old or a 15-year-old or a 16-year-
old to an abortion mill where she could be severely hurt and where the 
baby will be killed? Moreover, Mr. Chairman, abortion itself, by 
definition, is an act of abandonment of a baby.
  Let us not kid ourselves. Abortion mills do not nurture, they do not 
heal, they do not cure disease; unless you construe pregnancy to be a 
disease, and some abortionists do, including Dr. Willard Cates, who 
used to be the head of the CDC Abortion Surveillance Unit and gave a 
1976 speech before Planned Parenthood, titled ``Pregnancy: The Second 
Most Prevalent Sexually Transmitted Disease After Gonorrhea.'' But if 
you do not see pregnancy as a disease and the child a tumor or wart, 
then we are talking about abandonment.
  Abortion clinics are in the business, and a Member just a few moments 
ago talked about abortion mills as small business. It is not just small 
business; this is big business, and abortionists make millions of 
dollars plying their lethal trade. But they are in the business, I say 
to my colleagues, of dismembering the fragile bodies of unborn children 
with sharp knives and hideous suction machines that are 25 to 30 times 
more powerful than a vacuum cleaner used at home. This is not healing, 
this is killing, and it is abandonment.
  I say to my colleagues, no wonder 3 out of 4 Americans strongly 
support parental notification laws. This bill ensures that those State 
laws are not violated and young girls and young women are protected 
from abuse and abandonment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, under this legislation, we get two crimes for the price 
of one. H.R. 748 would not only make a felon out of anyone, a 
stepparent, grandparent, aunt, or member of the clergy who accompanies 
a young woman across State lines for an abortion; it would make a felon 
out of any doctor who performs an abortion on a minor from another 
State without having first obtained parental consent, in person, and 
abided by a 24-hour waiting period. In my judgment, this is a terribly 
misguided bill that has the potential to isolate young people and put 
doctors in the unthinkable position of having to decipher State and 
Federal law before practicing good medicine.
  Thankfully, most young women involve their parents in the decision to 
seek an abortion. But, under this legislation, those who feel they 
cannot turn to their parents when facing an unintended pregnancy, and 
my colleague, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) talked 
about the terrible cases of incest where a young woman is impregnated 
by a father or a stepfather, they will be forced to fend for themselves 
without any help from a responsible adult. Some will seek unsafe 
abortions close to home. Others will travel to unfamiliar places, 
obtaining abortions by themselves. We should encourage the involvement 
of responsible adults in these difficult decisions, not criminalize 
this compassion.
  Mr. Chairman, every single Member of this body knows that we cannot 
legislate family relationships. Sadly, parental consent laws do not 
always force young women to talk to their parents. In fact, we know 
that in some circumstances, these laws, without any exemptions, can 
literally tear families apart.
  This bill is not about involving parents in the lives of their 
daughters, or about ensuring that doctors practice medicine responsibly 
or well; in my judgment, it represents a lack of compassion, empathy, 
and moral judgment. It distracts us from doing things that will 
actually help young people and their families make abortion less 
necessary, teaching and encouraging abstinence, fostering safe and 
healthy relationships in adolescence.
  I believe this body can do better, and I encourage my colleagues to 
oppose this legislation.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my distinguished predecessor as chairman of 
the Committee on the Judiciary.
  (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. HYDE. Mr. Chairman, the question was asked, whose side are we on? 
I am on the side of the family. It seems to me the practice of 
ferreting some pregnant girl who is a minor out across the State line 
so that parents will not know about it is an assault on the family, and 
I do not know why the family should be assaulted as much as it is 
routinely by some elements. Where in the world is the humanity in 
killing an unborn child?
  I have listened to this whole debate, and not one syllable has 
emanated from the opposition to this bill about the real tragedy of 
abortion: the killing of an innocent human life. That is what abortion 
is. And you are busy attempting to facilitate abortions.
  The litany of medical societies that support abortion is a scandal. 
At one time, abortion was a crime. Now it is a constitutional right. 
But it is wrong, and the sad thing is, we have gotten used to it.
  This is a good bill and we ought to support it. Get on the side of 
the family.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased now to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time.
  I want to ask my colleagues to ask themselves, what messages are we 
sending to young women and girls about what their value is, with no 
provisions and no exceptions and no safety clauses in this bill to 
protect them from abuse? Why could we not have an amendment to ensure 
that protection for those young girls?

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to consider all of the unintended 
consequences and ramifications of passing this legislation. But more 
importantly, I ask them to consider the young women and girls and 
families whose lives we will be impacting. The result of this 
legislation, sadly, will not be more communication between parents and 
their daughters. It will not result in fewer minors becoming pregnant. 
It will result in more young girls ending their pregnancies themselves, 
giving birth in bathroom stalls and potentially harming their newborns 
and themselves. These and other dire outcomes are the potential 
unintended consequences of this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to think carefully through the 
consequences of this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), cochair of the Women's Caucus.
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise in opposition to H.R. 748, the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill especially 
concerns me because it endangers the lives of young women who are 
seeking abortion services in emergency circumstances, such as rape and 
incest.
  The travel restrictions in this bill make it a Federal crime for any 
person other than a parent to assist a minor across State lines to 
access abortion services.
  Unfortunately, this is not inclusive of young women who seek help 
from a grandparent or another family member when the relationship with 
the parent is either nonexistent or unhealthy. This places a burden on 
young women who are unable to seek help from a parent.
  Plus, it is important to realize that often women must travel across 
State lines because they do not have reproductive health providers 
close by.
  The notification requirements also place a burden on doctors. Under 
this bill, it would be illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion 
without first notifying a parent. This will not only deter doctors from 
performing such services but also endanger the life of a young woman 
who may not be able to consult with a parent. This could create a very 
dangerous situation at home.

[[Page H2600]]

  The bill does not provide exemptions for critical and dangerous 
health situations which endanger a woman's life. The bill endangers the 
life of young women, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against the 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, this bill imposes a Federal parental 
notification requirement on the 27 States, including my own of 
Illinois, that either have no parental involvement law in effect, or 
require parental involvement but allow flexible alternatives, such as 
allowing an adult family member to be notified or give consent.
  Since Illinois has no parental involvement law in effect, the bill 
will impose tough and unrealistic requirements to Illinois providers 
for the first time. Under the bill, doctors will be asked to comply 
with other State laws, verify the information provided by patients, and 
obtain in-person parental consents, even if the parents were abusive or 
guilty of incest.
  To make matters worse, because this bill lacks an adequate exception 
for medical emergencies, Illinois doctors could be force to withhold 
needed medical treatment from their patients in order to comply with 
this Federal law.
  Young people from Missouri, Indiana, and other neighboring States 
often travel to Illinois for safe abortion care, frequently because the 
nearest abortion provider happens to be located in Illinois. Yet this 
legislation would criminalize responsible adults.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield the remaining 
time to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), chair of the Pro-
Choice Caucus.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation. 
The bill before us is so ludicrous it would be laughable if it were not 
so dangerous. The bill is blatantly unconstitutional. It is 
unrealistic, and it is cruel.
  Not since the Fugitive Slave Act has there been a law designed to 
extend individual State laws beyond their boundaries to intrude into 
the jurisdiction of other States.
  The debate on this bill so far has centered on what young women 
should do, how families ought to be. And there is not any disagreement 
among us about how much we all love our kids. We all want the best for 
our kids, no matter what. And when it comes to making big decisions, I 
think we would all want our kids to come to us for advice. Certainly I 
would want my 15-year-old daughter to come to me first, and I think she 
would.
  And, in fact, the majority of young women do involve one or more 
parents when considering an abortion. But, sadly, this is not the case 
for all young people in this country. For myriad reasons, many 
adolescents and young adults cannot turn to their parents with a 
problem like this. And in many situations, they have a very good 
reason. For example, what about the victims of incest?
  Of course teenagers should seek out their parents' advice, but we 
also need to face reality. We need to do what will help these desperate 
kids from making a bad situation worse, even to take their own lives.
  The government cannot, my friends, mandate healthy, open family 
communication when it does not exist. The bill here will not make 
families stronger, and will put more young women at risk.
  Not everybody talks to their parents, because they cannot. And so it 
is these young people who most need the advice and assistance of a 
trusted family friend, a minister, or a sympathetic grandmother. When a 
young woman cannot involve her parents, public policies and medical 
professionals need to encourage her to involve a trusted adult. And if 
you look at this bill, it does just the opposite of that. If it is 
passed into law, these young women will have to face this life-altering 
decision themselves, alone and without any medical help.
  So why do so many major medical associations, including the AMA, the 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American 
College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association, all 
have longstanding policies against parental notification laws?
  Because they are dangerous to these young women and they take away 
the need for confidential access to physicians. And so I think the harm 
to adolescents alone, by denying access to appropriate medical care, is 
cruel, it is against family values, and it makes this legislation so 
dangerous, it so ill serves our youth. We need to vote against this 
bill to preserve our families.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to come to 
the floor and wish upon my colleagues the ability to look at a bill 
that really denies a young person the comfort of clergy, of 
grandparents, and the ability to make a fair decision about a choice 
that should be the family, the doctor, and the religious leader.
  This parental consent that confuses the issue of State laws is going 
to cost lives. I ask my colleagues to consider that we want to save 
lives. We want that young person to have someone to have comfort. And 
if their parent is incestuous, if their parent has created incest, then 
that is not the person for parental consent.
  Mr. Chairman, I oppose the legislation before the House, H.R. 748, 
the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The provisions 
contained within this proposal are very inflexible and unreasonably 
punitive. This legislation completely eliminates State rights and 
creates a maze of confusion during a troubling time.
  Given the usual slant of my good colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle to favor uniformity in legislation, this bill is inconsistent 
with that purpose. Overall, H.R. 748 would force physicians to learn 
and enforce 49 other states' laws with respect to parental-involvement 
requirements. On its face, one of the policies that this bill seeks to 
enforce, the mandate that every parent will receive notice and can get 
involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy, is a good one. 
However, one of its harmful effects is that it is unnecessarily 
punitive. In the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, young 
women come to their parents before or while they consider abortion. A 
study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory 
parental consent or notice laws had knowledge of their daughter's 
pregnancy.
  Interestingly enough, a majority of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle supported less governmental intrusion in personal family 
matters in the recent case of Terry Schiavo (S. 653/H.R. 1332). 
However, in the case of a young girl's decision to have an abortion, 
the proponents of H.R. 748 seek to force family communication even 
where it does not already exist. Excessive governmental intrusion can 
have detrimental consequences as evidenced in the case of a 13-year-old 
sixth grade student from Idaho named Spring Adams who was shot to death 
by her father after he learned of her plan to terminate a pregnancy 
caused by his acts of incest.
  Some of the major health associations such as the American Medical 
Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health 
Association strongly oppose mandatory parental-involvement laws because 
of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential 
access to physicians. This legislation poses such a risk by increasing 
the risk of harm to adolescents by obstructing their access to 
healthcare that could save their lives.
  According to an article by Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, 
only 13 percent of U.S. counties have abortion providers. Therefore, 
the fact that many young women seek abortions outside of their home 
state is not solely attributable to an avoidance of home state law.
  I will offer an amendment with Mr. Nadler of New York, #9 that 
expands the exceptions to the prohibitions of this act to include 
``conduct by clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins.'' 
This amendment is a very simple but necessary dampening of the 
excessive punitive nature of this legislation. A young woman should not 
lose her right to seek counsel and guidance from a member of the 
clergy, her godparent, or the family member enumerated in the text of 
the amendment if she so desires.
  The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian 
framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My 
State, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, 
MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follows 
old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a 
federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across state lines for 
abortion services if a woman comes from a state with a strict parental-
involvement mandate. There are 10

[[Page H2601]]

states (CO, DE, IA, ME, MD, NC, OH, SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-
compliant,'' or require some parental notice but other adults may be 
notified, may give consent, or the requirement may be waived by a 
health care provider in lieu of the parental consent. Finally, there 
are 17 states (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, 
OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a woman's access to abortion 
in this case.
  Given the disparity in state law requirements for the parental-
notification requirement, not giving a young woman the right to seek 
assistance in deciding from a member of the clergy, a godparent, or 
family member could increase the health risks that she faces. I ask 
that my colleagues support this important amendment.
  Young women as a population group are more likely to seek abortion 
later in their pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have 
shown that adolescents obtain 30 percent of all abortions after the 
first trimester, and younger women are more likely to obtain an 
abortion at 21 weeks or more gestation. The provisions of H.R. 748 will 
exacerbate this dangerous trend, and the GAO study called for in my 
amendment would uncover this potential problem.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill will add an unnecessary layer of legality, 
travel time, and mandatory delay to the already difficult job that 
physicians have in providing quality care to their patients. My 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently advocated 
for protection of health care providers by way of tort reform. This 
legislation flies in the face of that initiative and is totally 
inconsistent with it. I ask my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is it requires the involvement of 
parents or where State law requires the involvement of parents in the 
decision on whether or not a minor should have an abortion.
  Now, minors have not reached the age of majority. They cannot sign 
contracts; they cannot serve on juries. Parents or legal guardians in 
every instance stand in the place of the minor and represent the 
minor's interests. And under the current law, a doctor cannot even 
treat a child for a hangnail without parental consent, or at least 
parental notification. But under the law, a doctor can perform an 
abortion.
  Now, let us look at it this way. Abortion is a very serious medical 
procedure. In many cases, complications arise from that abortion. And 
the parents or the guardian are legally responsible for providing 
medical care when medical care is needed for minors.
  So if you buy the argument of the people who are opposed to this 
bill, a parent of a minor who is not notified can end up being 
prosecuted for child neglect if complications ensue from the abortion 
and the parent does not know that they have a legal obligation to 
provide necessary medical care. That is why this bill should be passed, 
because parents ought to be involved in the medical decisions. They 
ought to have knowledge of the medical decisions. And we should not 
condone a system where a minor can run across a State line in order to 
get an abortion without the notification that is required by the State 
law of that minor's residence. This bill ought to pass.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my 
opposition to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, 
because this bill may reduce the likelihood that girls will seek family 
planning assistance when they are faced with a pregnancy and does not 
include an exemption to protect the health of the young mother.
  This bill is intended to ensure that parents are involved with a 
girl's decision to have an abortion, even if they cross a State line in 
an effort to avoid State parental notification laws. As the father of a 
teen-aged daughter I completely sympathize with the idea that parents 
be involved in helping their children through crises, including that of 
an unwanted pregnancy, and if my daughter found herself in this 
situation I hope that she would feel comfortable coming to me and my 
wife for guidance and support. Not every family functions with love and 
support, however, and if we intend to legislate in this area we must be 
careful to do so with an eye on the exception and not the rule.
  In some families, young women are the victims of parental abuse, 
including sexual abuse. In the case of unwanted pregnancy, these girls 
may have another trusted adult, often a relative like a grandparent, in 
whom they feel comfortable seeking support and guidance from, and will 
turn to for assistance when faced with a pregnancy. I would much rather 
see a girl seek the guidance of a trusted adult than no one at all. 
This bill will make it a crime for an adult who is not the parent to 
take a girl across State lines to obtain an abortion if the girl's home 
State requires parental notification. Girls will be less likely to seek 
the assistance of a trusted adult if they know the adult could face 
criminal charges for assisting in obtaining an abortion.
  I also have concerns that this bill does not include an exemption for 
the health of a mother. In t1e Supreme Court case Stenberg v. Carhart, 
the Court struck down Nebraska's Partial-birth abortion ban because it 
did not include such an exemption. This bill requires a physician to 
wait 24 hours before performing the abortion on a girl from a State 
with a parental notification law, even if the parent of the girl is 
present. If an abortion is needed to protect the health of the mother, 
a doctor would have to wait 24 hours before they could perform the 
procedure. Though I am not a lawyer, based on the precedent set in the 
aforementioned court case, I have concerns that this bill would be 
unconstitutional should it become law.
  The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act does not ensure that 
girls will seek the support and guidance of the parents when faced with 
a pregnancy. Instead it increases the likelihood that they will not 
seek the guidance of any adults, which could harm themselves and the 
fetus they are carrying. For these reasons, I cannot vote in support of 
H.R. 748.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 748, the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill creates criminal 
offenses that are long overdue at the Federal level and are needed to 
prevent the disregard of a parent's right to know when their child is 
seeking a major medical procedure--an abortion.
  The legislation makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor, for 
the purpose of obtaining an abortion, from a State that requires 
parental notification, across State lines to a State that does not 
require parental notification.
  Almost half of the States, including my home State of Texas, 
currently require parental notification before a minor can obtain an 
abortion. However these laws are being circumvented by individuals who 
want to undermine the rights of parents. Such individuals can include 
abusive boyfriends who pressure their young girlfriends into having an 
abortion, older men who rape young females and want to hide their 
crime, and minor females who may not know all of the emotional and 
physical repercussions of having an abortion.
  The bill also makes it a Federal crime for an abortion provider not 
to give the parent or legal guardian of a minor seeking an abortion 24 
hours' notice in advance of the procedure, if the minor crosses State 
lines to have the abortion. The 24-hour notice period will allow 
parents the time necessary to discuss the ramifications of an abortion, 
and possible options such as adoption, with their daughters.
  The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act protects a minor's 
ability to have an abortion in cases of parental sexual abuse as long 
as the abortion provider informs the appropriate State authorities of 
the abuse. The ability to have an abortion is also protected in cases 
in which the minor's life is threatened if the abortion is not 
performed immediately.
  There is a great deal of support and precedent for a law like this. 
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the constitutionality of 
State parental notification laws. According to a March 2005 Quinniac 
University poll, 75 percent of those polled agree that parental 
notification should be required before a minor can obtain an abortion. 
We in the House of Representatives have shown our support for such laws 
by passing legislation similar to the Child Interstate Abortion 
Notification Act three previous times--in 1998, 1999, and 2002. Now it 
is time for this legislation to pass again and be signed into law by 
the President.
  Mr. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I rise to strongly urge all of 
my colleagues to vote against H.R. 748.
  There are so many reasons to vote against this bill.

[[Page H2602]]

  To begin, the premise of CIANA violates the core constitutional 
principles of federalism.
  The ability to travel freely between states is fundamentally 
interwoven into the cloth of our country. The 50 states are not 50 
different countries and the founding fathers would not have wanted us 
to treat them as such.
  H.R. 748 violates the Constitutional right of every individual to 
travel freely from State to State. If we are to be a unified Nation, 
every citizen cannot be treated as a foreigner when visiting another 
State.
  Every young woman who will be affected by this bill is a citizen. 
Every young woman who will be affected by this bill deserves the 
protections of the Constitution of the United States of America that 
applies to everyone.
  CIANA treats a young woman who travels to a state or resides there 
temporarily (as in the case of a college student) differently than a 
young woman living in that State.
  The Supreme Court held in Doe v. Bolton that the Privileges and 
Immunities Clause requires a state to make abortions available to out-
of-state visitors on the same legal terms under which it makes them 
available to residents. CIANA would single handedly reverse this 
decision.
  CIANA is potentially dangerous from a health and safety perspective.
  CIANA contains no exception to the 24-hour waiting period for when an 
abortion may be necessary to protect a teenage girl's health. The only 
exception that exists is in cases where the minor's life is at risk. 
Even at that point, the bill contains no guidance as to how to draw the 
line between a lifethreatening situation and one that is a nonfatal 
medical emergency.
  CIANA imposes a mandatory 24-hour waiting period even if the 
teenager's parents accompanied her to the doctor. This means that 
anything short of a possible death, including a risk of infertility or 
nonfatal hemorrhaging, will not waive the 24-hour delay. These delays 
can impose logistical and financial hardships on functional families 
who are trying to support their daughter.
  A vote for this bill will signal that we do not even trust parents to 
make these incredibly personal and incredibly painful decisions with 
their daughters even in cases of medical emergency.
  CIANA is an extremely dangerous attempt to incrementally encroach 
upon the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade. Imposing the 
aforementioned restrictions on a young woman's ability to obtain an 
abortion essentially places those young women in the same place as 
young women were prior to the Roe decision.
  Most disturbing of all is that teenagers facing an unwanted pregnancy 
may turn to dangerous and drastic acts to avoid notifying their 
parents.
  A teenager facing an unwanted pregnancy is already in crisis. Those 
young women who are unwilling or unable to tell a parent about an 
unwanted pregnancy may resort to self-induced or illegal abortions with 
tragic results.
  I implore you to vote against this bill.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
  With this bill, the Republican Congress once again reaches 
inappropriately into the private lives of American citizens.
  H.R. 748 would make criminals out of doctors, nurses, and family 
members who help young people who are seeking legal abortion services. 
It will not prevent abortions--but it will force young women to make 
that decision alone, without the help of adults they can trust. It may 
even force them into seeking unsafe abortions that put their health or 
their lives at risk.
  Most minors seeking abortions involve their parents in the decision. 
But all too many young women live in emotionally or physically abusive 
households. Some have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. 
For them, it is unrealistic and cruel to make it a crime for them to 
seek the help of other adults they can trust, such as a clergy member, 
older sibling, or grandparent.
  H.R. 748 is blatantly unconstitutional. It restricts interstate 
travel and prevents young women from exercising their legal rights. It 
imposes undue burdens without making exception for emergencies where 
the young woman's health is threatened. It requires minors seeking 
judicial bypasses to go to court in not one but two States, even though 
this option is not even available in some States. Finally, this bill is 
another assault on federalism, usurping the laws of 27 states that have 
no parental notification laws or more reasonable laws.
  Once again, the Republican Congress is attempting to legislate family 
relationships and restrict the constitutional rights of American 
citizens. I urge the defeat of H.R. 748.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 748, the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005. This bill would not 
only jail grandparents, older siblings, and others who attempt to help 
minors who can't turn to their parents, but it would criminalize 
doctors, regardless of the laws of the State in which they practice.
  Today I stand here principally as a Californian. Republicans and 
Democrats in California have stood up for a woman's right to choose. 
They have defended the privacy and health of women. We do not have a 
parental consent law in California because we don't dare suggest that 
the decision to have an abortion is ever taken lightly or done in 
isolation unless it's absolutely necessary. We don't pretend that 
forcing girls who have been raped by their fathers to get their 
permission to terminate the pregnancy is somehow standing up for 
``family values.''
  The people of my home State have resisted the grotesque politics of 
the so-called ``culture of life.'' The politics of people who vote to 
cut $xx billion in health care for the poorest Americans and 
simultaneously intervene in private, end-of-life decisions and hide 
behind their hypocritical mandate of ``looking out for the most 
vulnerable.''
  Even though the people of California and their bipartisan elected 
leaders have judiciously worked to protect the privacy and health of 
women, some in Washington, DC, think they know better. This legislation 
would jail California doctors with out-of-state patients unless they 
inform the parents in person 24 hours in advance of the procedure. If 
the parents are unreachable, doctors would have to give notice ``by 
certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted delivery to the 
last known address of the person being notified, with delivery deemed 
to have occurred 48 hours following noon on the next day subsequent to 
mailing on which regular mail delivery takes place.'' This ludicrous 
meddling in medical decisionmaking would be a joke if it weren't so 
tragic.
  If enacted, the consequence for offending the religious right now 
carries with it up to a year in prison. God help the doctor who is as 
confused by that sentence as I am.
  Mr. Chairman, those of us who still believe in science know that the 
best way to reduce the number of abortions in this country is to have 
comprehensive sex education and provide full funding for family 
planning so that unintended pregnancies don't happen in the first 
place. It's no coincidence that the abortion rate, which hit a 24-year 
low when President Clinton left office, has risen throughout President 
Bush's first term. The ``culture of life'' philosophy of hypocrisy, 
fear, and shame works better on the campaign stump then it does in 
practice. If this is what the culture of life is really all about, then 
I want no part of it. I vote no on this shameful, unconstitutional 
bill.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I stand today in strong opposition to 
H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It is a 
direct attack on a woman's right to choose, it endangers women's 
health, and it forces young women facing unintended pregnancies to 
choose between dealing with it on their own or enlisting the help of a 
trusted adult who could possibly be put in jail as a result. This bill 
makes it a crime for anyone other than a parent, including a 
grandparent or a religious counselor, to accompany a minor across state 
lines for an abortion if the minor has not complied with her home 
state's mandated parental consent or notification law. This bill also 
makes it a federal crime for a doctor to perform an abortion on a young 
woman who is a resident of another state unless the doctor notifies the 
young woman's parent in person at least 24 hours before the procedure.
  I agree that, whenever possible, minors should go to their parents 
for help in difficult situations. And research tells us that the 
majority of the time, young women do talk with their parents when 
making difficult decisions about pregnancy, whether their state 
requires parental consent for an abortion or not. Unfortunately, H.R. 
748 ignores the reality of many situations where a young woman may 
choose not to go to her parents, possibly because she fears violence or 
because she was the victim of incest or because their parent is not 
available. Very often in those situations, young women seek help and 
guidance from other trusted adults in their lives, such as 
grandparents, aunts, and ministers. Yet, this law would deter many 
young women from seeking help and would instead tell them that they 
must deal with this situation on their own.
  The reality is that CIANA will not make more young women tell their 
parents about a pregnancy if they do not want to, nor will it reduce or 
prevent abortion. What it would do is endanger the health of young 
women who feel they have no other choice but to seek illegal or self-
induced abortions and who will be limited in their options for 
receiving health care. The American Medical Association has noted that 
``the desire to maintain secrecy has been one of the leading reasons 
for illegal abortion deaths.'' The American Academy of Pediatrics, 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society 
for Adolescent Medicine all oppose this bill because of the dangers 
they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to 
physicians. The coalition of health groups in their letter urging 
Congress to oppose this bill state, ``Our primary responsibility must 
be to our patients.

[[Page H2603]]

The potential health risks to adolescents if they are unable to obtain 
reproductive health services are so compelling that deference to 
parental involvement should not stand in the way of needed health care 
for patients who request confidentiality.''

  This bill would force minors to delay urgent health care and, 
contrary to proponents' claims, infringe on the rights of parents. 
There is no exception to either the waiting period or the notification 
requirement in cases where a person is facing a serious but not life-
threatening medical emergency. In a medical emergency, a young person 
would be forced to wait 24 hours for an abortion that could avert 
serious risks to her health. The abortion must be delayed even when the 
minor's parent accompanies her and requests medical help.
  Furthermore, many young women who obtain abortions outside of their 
home States do so for reasons that have nothing to do with avoiding 
their home States' laws. The most prevalent and compelling of these 
reasons is the lack of abortion providers. Only 13 percent of U.S. 
counties have an abortion provider. Several states, in fact, have only 
a single provider or a provider who may be located many hours away from 
a young woman's home.
  Lastly, CIANA violates the basic principle of federalism by attaching 
the laws of a woman's home State no matter where she travels in the 
Nation. The Supreme Court has held that States are required to make 
abortions available to visitors on the same legal terms under which 
they make them available to residents. Since Illinois has no parental 
involvement law in effect, this bill would impose tough and unrealistic 
requirements to Illinois providers for the first time. Under CIANA, 
doctors will be asked to comply with other State laws, verify the 
information provided by patients, and obtain in-person parental consent 
even if parents are abusive, guilty of incest or absent from the 
household. CIANA imposes a punitive and arbitrary federal parental 
notification requirement that will trump the public policy judgments of 
the 27 States that lack such requirements. It will mean that physicians 
who comply with their State's laws and provide medical care to their 
patients could be treated as criminals.
  Make no mistake, this law is a direct threat to a woman's right to 
make decisions about her reproductive health. We need to see this bill 
for what it really is--another attempt to chip away at Roe v. Wade and 
deny women choice.
  The Government cannot mandate healthy family communication where it 
does not already exist. We must face this reality and work to help 
teens receive the treatment, counseling, and support they need when it 
comes to reproductive health. I urge my colleagues to reject H.R. 748 
because it would endanger young women's health and force them to be 
alone at a time when they are most vulnerable and most in need of 
support from a trusted adult.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 748, the 
``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.''
  Over 20 years after Roe v. Wade, a woman's right to an abortion 
continues to be challenged and undermined. Amendments to appropriations 
bills have been added to restrict abortion coverage. A nationwide 
campaign of violence, vandalism, and blockades continues to curtail the 
availability of abortion services and endangers providers and patients. 
Anti-choice lawmakers continue to push for legislation that attempts to 
ban ``partial-birth'' abortions, reinstate ``global gag rule'' 
policies, restrict access to mifepristone and contraceptives, and 
protect those who participate in violence against abortion clinics 
through bankruptcy laws.
  Now, Congress is considering H.R. 748, legislation that would make it 
a Federal crime for doctors or family members to help young adults 
obtain an abortion.
  Like many of my colleagues, I believe that it is important for 
teenagers to talk to their parents about their decision to have an 
abortion, and research suggests that most do. Unfortunately, in the 
real world, parental involvement is not always in a minor's best 
interest. Many young women who choose not to involve their parents have 
valid reasons. One study concluded that one-third of teens who do not 
involve their parents are victims of family violence and fear its 
recurrence or they are forced to leave their homes due to their 
pregnancy.
  To make matters worse, this legislation would endanger a young 
woman's health by delaying the abortion until later in the pregnancy 
when it is less safe by turning them to possible dangerous 
alternatives.
  It is for all of these reasons that we must protect the rights of 
young women to access safe, affordable and appropriate health care.
  We need to ensure that instead of making abortion more difficult and 
dangerous for young women, Congress should make abortion less necessary 
by providing opportunities for young women to make educated choices 
through comprehensive sex education and ensuring young women have 
access to a range of family planning options.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 748.
  Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 748, the 
``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.'' I do this because I 
believe this is bad public policy that will hurt young women.
  Most young women today readily involve their parents in a decision to 
end a pregnancy. They do this because they come from loving homes where 
there is healthy communication and support, not because there is a law 
requiring them to do so.
  Unfortunately, some young women come from homes where these support 
structures are not in place. Some young women come from families with 
absentee parents, or abusive parents. This is an unfortunate reality.
  Rather than ensuring healthy communication between parents and their 
teenage daughter about the difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy, 
this bill may isolate these young women even further. This bill may 
cause a young woman to either delay care, when the risk of 
complications from an abortion will be greater, or cause her to avoid 
going to a doctor in the first place and consider unsafe alternatives.
  By attempting to legislate on family dynamics, this bill puts the 
health of young women from troubled homes in jeopardy. I cannot believe 
we want to do this.
  In discussing this issue, the American College of Obstetricians and 
Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatricians, and the Society 
of Adolescent Medicine have joined together in a letter opposing this 
bill. They say:

       The potential health risks to adolescents if they are 
     unable to obtain reproductive health services are so 
     compelling that deference to parental involvement should not 
     stand in the way of needed health care for patients who 
     request confidentiality.

  The American Medical Association has also weighed in on the 
consequences of parental notification:

       Because the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may 
     be driven to desperate measures to maintain the 
     confidentiality of the pregnancies. They may run away from 
     home, obtain a ``back alley'' abortion, or resort to self-
     induced abortion.

  Surely we do not want to support legislation which has such adverse 
consequences for young women.
  Mr. Chairman, many years ago I had the honor to work with Senator 
Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). In his classic work, The Conscience of a 
Conservative, Goldwater wrote:

       Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his 
     society, is responsible for his own development. The choices 
     that govern his life are choices he must make: they cannot be 
     made by any other human being, or by a collectivity of human 
     beings.

  He went on to say:

       The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of 
     achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that 
     is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The 
     Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of 
     freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible 
     for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the 
     exercise of his freedom.

  And he concluded:

       Thus, for the American Conservative, there is no difficulty 
     in identifying the day's overriding political challenge: it 
     is to preserve and extend freedom.

  Finally he said that:

       Throughout history, government has proved to be the chief 
     instrument for thwarting man's liberty.

  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a prime example of government inserting 
itself into the lives of our people, invading their privacy, and 
thwarting their liberty. This is unacceptable.
  I urge a vote against this bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 748, the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
  I support encouraging--not requiring--parental notification for 
minors seeking contraceptive services. This legislation proposes a 
variety of new mandates on women, families, and doctors.
  For example, the bill forces doctors to learn and enforce 49 other 
States' laws, under the threat of fines and prison sentences. In many 
cases, it forces young women to comply with two states' parental-
involvement mandates. It also requires a doctor to notify a young 
woman's parents in person, in another State, before abortion services 
can be provided.
  Finally, in some cases, even if a parent travels with his or her 
daughter to obtain abortion care, the doctor must still give ``notice'' 
to the parent and wait 24 hours before providing the care. In such 
cases, this requirement acts as a built-in mandatory delay--which makes 
it more difficult logistically, more expensive, and more burdensome all 
around for the family. It may even endanger the young woman's health.
  Not only does H.R. 748 include these negative provisions, it also 
could be found unconstitutional for three reasons. First, it contains 
no health exception.

[[Page H2604]]

  Second, in some cases, it offers young women no judicial bypass. 
Judicial bypass is required by the Supreme Court and allows another 
responsible adult to consent instead of a parent.
  Finally, it forces states to enforce other States' laws by forcing 
inaIv carry their home State laws with them when they travel.
  Every parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the 
advice and counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In 
fact, even in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many 
young women do turn to their parents when they are considering an 
abortion. One study found that 61 percent of parents in States without 
mandatory parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's 
pregnancy.
  In a perfect world, all children would have open, clear communication 
with their parents. Unfortunately, this is not the case in every 
family. I believe this legislation would dissuade young women from 
turning to other trusted adults, such as an aunt or older sibling, in a 
time of need.
  While this bill might be well intentioned, it is a deeply flawed 
attempt to curb young women's access to private, confidential health 
services under the guise of protecting parental rights.
  I would like to see abortion remain safe and legal, yet rare. 
Whatever one's views on abortion, I believe we all can recognize the 
importance of preventing unintended pregnancies. When women are unable 
to control the number and timing of births, they will increasingly rely 
on abortion. Making criminals of advisors, however, is simply not the 
way to accomplish this goal.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago I voted against a bill that 
is similar to what is being considered in the House today. My position 
on the bill has not changed. In fact, H.R. 748, the ``Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act'' is worse. Not only will this anti-choice 
bill make it illegal for friends and relatives to assist young women 
with one of life's most difficult decisions, it will require physicians 
to notify a young woman's parents in person, regardless of whether they 
live in a different State, before the abortion services can be 
provided. The physician will be responsible for following the abortion 
laws of both the State where he is performing services and the State 
from which the patient has traveled. In effect, doctors will have to 
know the abortion laws of 50 different States.
  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.
  Measures like H.R. 748 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. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, H.R. 748. This bill would 
create a complex maze of State and Federal parental notification and 
consent requirements that impact young women, family members, and 
doctors differently depending on the young woman's State of residence 
and the State in which she is seeking abortion care. It would preempt 
State laws by imposing parental notification and a 24-hour mandatory 
waiting period that could result in criminal penalties for health care 
providers and citizens. This unwise legislation will endanger the 
health of teens, compromise the ability of doctors to provide the best 
treatment in a timely manner, and fail to actually prevent teen 
pregnancies or abortions.
  Abortion is an extremely difficult, personal decision that should be 
made with the advice of trusted advisors like doctors, partners, 
parents, friends, or anyone else with whom the woman wishes to discuss 
her decision. Unfortunately for some young women, especially those 
whose families have histories of physical and emotional abuse, they 
cannot consult their parents on this complicated issue.
  I wish that all young women would be able to discuss this decision 
with their parents, but in reality, this is simply not always the case. 
In these situations, we should encourage grandparents, adult siblings, 
religious advisors, and mentors to provide support for these young 
women. By making the people who offer teens help during this extremely 
difficult time, subject to criminal prosecution and lawsuits, Congress 
is isolating young women who desperately need the help and advice of 
trusted adults. This isolation will unnecessarily add to the emotional 
distress of a young woman facing an unintended pregnancy, and could 
contribute to her failure to seek timely medical care.
  This legislation contains a complicated web of 24-hour waiting 
period, parental notification requirements, and judicial bypass 
procedures that will vary depending on the different State laws already 
in place. These intricate provisions will result in confusion and delay 
for a young woman who does not have the support of a trusted adult as 
she tries to navigate this system in order to receive safe and timely 
medical treatment.
  In addition, H.R. 748 fails to provide an exemption to protect the 
health of the pregnant woman. Based on the Supreme Court decisions in 
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania vs. Casey and Stenberg 
vs. Carhart, it is unconstitutional to interfere with a woman's choice 
to have an abortion if continuing the pregnancy is a threat to her 
health.
  The restrictions and requirements in H.R. 748 clearly interfere with 
a woman's choice to have an abortion. It is an unconscionable and 
unconstitutional that this legislation would endanger the health of 
young women.
  If H.R. 748 becomes law, doctors will face unprecedented mandates and 
infringements on their responsibilities to provide safe and timely 
medical care. The goal of doctors should be to provide the most 
unbiased, safe and personal medical care possible for each of their 
patients. Unfortunately this legislation forces doctors to spend more 
of their time focusing on the intricacies of State law rather than the 
well-being of their patients. The effect of this legislation on the 
complex web of State parent notification laws will force doctors to 
become legal experts in all States' laws, and in some cases doctors 
would be forced to personally travel to another State to inform a young 
woman's parents, in-person, of her intent to have an abortion. H.R. 748 
establishes a confusing bureaucracy that threatens doctors with 
imprisonment while diminishing the quality and timeliness of the health 
care doctors are able to provide.
  This legislation attempts to address teen pregnancy and abortion as 
issues of interstate commerce, but we are not talking about products or 
trade. We are talking about people; our nieces, granddaughters and 
friends who are in desperate need of help and advice from trusted 
adults. H.R. 748, deprives our young women of this needed support and 
counsel. The real issue we should be addressing today is how to prevent 
unwanted teen pregnancies, which is the only real way to decrease the 
number of abortions. I urge my colleagues to support comprehensive sex 
education so that young women have the information to prevent 
pregnancies. I urge my colleagues to support Title X funding that 
provides reproductive health care to low-income young women around the 
country. I urge my colleagues to support over-the-counter status for 
emergency contraception so that a young woman that is the victim of 
rape or incest can prevent a pregnancy.
  We must do more to protect our teens and their health, but H.R. 748 
only creates more roadblocks for vulnerable young women and the trusted 
adults and doctors that are attempting to help them.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to co-sponsor H.R. 748, the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
  This bill makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor 
across State lines with the intent to circumvent parental notification 
laws so that the minor can obtain an abortion.
  It is imperative that we stop the victimization of young girls who 
are transported across State lines to undergo abortions without their 
parents' knowledge. Not only does this practice endanger the lives of 
our daughters, imagine how parents would feel if their daughter was 
transported across State lines without their knowledge and pressured to 
have an unwanted abortion.
  Across the country, officials must obtain parental consent before 
performing routine medical services such as providing aspirin, and 
before including children in field trips and contact sports. Some 
States require written parental consent before a minor can get a tattoo 
or a body piercing. Despite all this, in some States people other than 
parents can secretly take minor girls across State lines for abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act protects 
the rights of parents to be involved in the medical decisions of their 
minor daughters and protects the health and safety of young girls by 
preventing valid constitutional State parental involvement laws from 
being circumvented. I am pleased to support this bill, which protects 
our daughters and supports our families.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is a tangled web of 
legal intricacies, which I found to be a muddled attempt to impose 
specific laws of individual States. After a careful reading of the 
bill, I am forced to rise in opposition to the legislation.

[[Page H2605]]

  H.R. 748 is a two-part bill. The first part makes it a crime for 
anybody other than a parent to accompany a minor across State lines for 
an abortion if the minor's State of residence has parental notification 
laws. We have seen this language, known as the Child Custody Protection 
Act, in past Congresses and I have hesitantly voted in favor of it. I 
say hesitantly because I have always been concerned that: the bill 
violates the constitutional principles of federalism; there are no 
exceptions for another responsible adult family member to accompany the 
minor; and the language is so broad that it would allow a cab or bus 
driver to be prosecuted.
  You are probably wondering, Mr. Chairman, why I voted for the bill 
even with these concerns. Well, as a parent, I feel strongly that 
parents should be involved in major decisions concerning the health and 
well-being of their children. The most knowledgeable resource regarding 
the minor's medical history is often their parent. Moreover, as is the 
case with any medical procedure, it is important that someone in the 
household be aware of the situation should there be side effects. Thus, 
I voted to move the process forward with the hope that my concerns 
would be addressed before the final legislation was sent to the 
President for signature. This did not happen because the Senate has 
never acted on the legislation.
  The second part of the bill is new and would hold a doctor criminally 
liable for performing an abortion on a minor from another State. This, 
Mr. Speaker, is where the web gets really tangled. You see, in some 
cases, the minor would have to comply with the laws of two States, and 
in all cases, the doctor would have to get consent from the parent in 
person and a mandatory 24-hour waiting period would be instituted.
  Probably the most striking scenario would be a minor who traveled 
between States with no parental consent law. In this case, the doctor 
would have to obtain consent in person from the parent, the mandatory 
24-hour waiting period would be instituted, and in this specific case 
there would be no judicial bypass option.
  This creates quite a burden on doctors, who would be required to have 
a near-encyclopedic knowledge of the parental involvement laws in each 
of the 50 States, their specific requirements and their judicial 
procedures.
  Some States have strict parental consent laws, some have parental 
consent laws with reasonable bypass mechanisms, and some States have no 
consent laws at all. If this bill passes, we are saying to some States, 
``your law is good.'' To others we are saying, ``your law is OK, but it 
is not quite good enough.'' And to still other States we are saying, 
``your law, or lack thereof, is wholly inadequate.'' This is no way to 
legislate in our federalist system.
  While reading over the bill, Mr. Chairman, I tried to think of what 
precedent there is for this kind of law. It took awhile, but the only 
law I could come up with was the Fugitive Slave Act. Going back to laws 
like this, Mr. Chairman, is not something this Congress should even 
consider.
  Mr. Chairman, I often wonder why we do not focus more of our effort 
on preventing unwanted pregnancies. Reducing the number of abortions 
performed in this country is certainly a goal we can all agree on and 
strive for. As such, I would ask that all of my colleagues to come to 
the table to discuss the ways we can further this mutual goal.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the Scott and 
Jackson-Lee amendments and no on the underlying bill.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind my 
colleagues that what we are talking about are young girls who are in 
trouble, young girls who are unmarried, young girls who invariably, 
according to the statistics, have been impregnated by older men 
exploiting them. While it should be common for parents to be 
responsible, to be nurturing and not to be punitive, it unfortunate is 
not always the case.
  Proponents of this measure claim that this bill will ``give parents a 
chance to help their daughters during their most vulnerable times'' and 
would require doctors to give 24 hours' notice to the minor's parent 
before allowing her to have an abortion.
  It is not quite as simple as that. In a perfect world, teenagers 
would be able to tell their parents that they are pregnant, but many 
are unable to due to fear of rejection at home, threats of physical and 
emotional abuse, and in the most troubling of situations, because it 
was a family member, such as a stepfather, that put them in that 
position in the first place.
  These teenage girls should have a right to seek help from a trusted 
adult, such as a grandmother or a member of the clergy.
  This bill will create a complicated patchwork of State and Federal 
law that will apply differently depending on the minor's State of 
residence and the State where the abortion is performed.
  More importantly, it will be nearly impossible for teenagers to 
understand and physicians to comply with.
  While this measure includes all the provisions of the Child Custody 
Protection Act, a measure considered in previous Congresses which would 
make it a Federal crime for a caring adult other than a parent to 
accompany a young woman across State lines for an abortion, the Child 
Interstate Notification Act, CINA, goes even further by mandating that 
doctors be fully aware and knowledgeable of the mandatory parental 
involvement laws in each of the 50 States, their specific requirements, 
their judicial-bypass procedures, and their interaction with the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act or face criminal fines.
  CIANA would make it a Federal crime for a doctor to perform an 
abortion on a minor who is a resident of another State unless the 
doctor notifies the minor's parent, in person, a minimum of 24 hours 
before the procedure.
  It is also disturbing that this measure, not unlike the partial-birth 
abortion ban law, does not include an exception for emergency 
circumstances where a minor's health would be threatened by this delay. 
It is no wonder that the constitutionality of this law is being 
challenged in several Federal courts as we speak.
  The intent of this measure is not to ensure that caring parents have 
access to their teenage daughters who are contemplating having an 
abortion. The true intent is to make it so difficult for doctors to 
comply with this law that they simply give up.
  What would be compassionate of teenage girls is for this body to 
consider legislation such as the Prevention First Act, H.R. 1709, which 
would help to reduce the number of unintended teenage pregnancies by 
providing annual funding to both public and private entities to 
establish or expand teenage pregnancy prevention programs.
  This measure would also require these entities to incorporate teenage 
pregnancy prevention programs that have been proven to delay sexual 
intercourse or sexual activity, increase contraceptive use or reduce 
teenage pregnancy, such as comprehensive sexual education.
  Why are we not doing more to help the 820,000 teen girls who get 
pregnant each year?
  This is the second time in as many months that the House of 
Representatives is legislating morals when we do not know the 
individual circumstances that may apply. We should leave this to the 
States.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote against the Child Interstate 
Notification Act, a regressive measure, which will have no impact on 
reducing the number of unintended teenage pregnancies and will do more 
harm than good.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, 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 almost 40 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 parental rights, this bill 
usurps States' rights by creating yet another Federal crime.
  Our Federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited 
powers, article I, section 8, 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 10th 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

[[Page H2606]]

pass H.R. 748. H.R. 748 amends title 18, United States Code, to 
prohibit taking minors across State lines 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's 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 10th 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. 748.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). All time for general debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill 
for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule and shall be 
considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                                H.R. 748

       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 Interstate Abortion 
     Notification Act''.

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

       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 a minor across a State line, 
     with the intent that such minor 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 minor 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 or induced on the minor, in a State other than the 
     State where the minor 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 minor 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) A minor transported in violation of this section, and 
     any parent of that minor, 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--
       ``(1) reasonably believed, based on information the 
     defendant obtained directly from a parent of the minor, that 
     before the minor obtained the abortion, the parental consent 
     or notification 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 minor resides; or
       ``(2) was presented with documentation showing with a 
     reasonable degree of certainty that a court in the minor's 
     State of residence waived any parental notification required 
     by the laws of that State, or otherwise authorized that the 
     minor be allowed to procure an abortion.
       ``(d) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers harm from a 
     violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in 
     a civil action.
       ``(e) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `abortion' means the use or prescription of 
     any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or 
     device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female 
     known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase 
     the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or 
     health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead 
     unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous 
     abortion, accidental trauma or a criminal assault on the 
     pregnant female or her unborn child;
       ``(2) the term a `law requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's abortion decision' means 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;
       ``(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;
       ``(4) 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; and

[[Page H2607]]

       ``(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States.''.

     SEC. 3. CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION.

       Title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     chapter 117A the following:

         ``CHAPTER 117B--CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION

``Sec.
``2432. Child interstate abortion notification.

     ``Sec. 2432. Child interstate abortion notification

       ``(a) Offense.--
       ``(1) Generally.--A physician who knowingly performs or 
     induces an abortion on a minor in violation of the 
     requirements of this section shall be fined under this title 
     or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
       ``(2) Parental notification.--A physician who performs or 
     induces an abortion on a minor who is a resident of a State 
     other than the State in which the abortion is performed must 
     provide at least 24 hours actual notice to a parent of the 
     minor before performing the abortion. If actual notice to 
     such parent is not possible after a reasonable effort has 
     been made, 24 hours constructive notice must be given to a 
     parent.
       ``(b) Exceptions.--The notification requirement of 
     subsection (a)(2) does not apply if--
       ``(1) the abortion is performed or induced in a State that 
     has a law in force requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's abortion decision and the physician complies with the 
     requirements of that law;
       ``(2) the physician is presented with documentation showing 
     with a reasonable degree of certainty that a court in the 
     minor's State of residence has waived any parental 
     notification required by the laws of that State, or has 
     otherwise authorized that the minor be allowed to procure an 
     abortion;
       ``(3) the minor declares in a signed written statement that 
     she is the victim of sexual abuse, neglect, or physical abuse 
     by a parent, and, before an abortion is performed on the 
     minor, the physician notifies the authorities specified to 
     receive reports of child abuse or neglect by the law of the 
     State in which the minor resides of the known or suspected 
     abuse or neglect; or
       ``(4) the abortion is 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.
       ``(c) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers harm from a 
     violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in 
     a civil action.
       ``(d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       ``(1) the term `abortion' means the use or prescription of 
     any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance or 
     device intentionally to terminate the pregnancy of a female 
     known to be pregnant with an intention other than to increase 
     the probability of a live birth, to preserve the life or 
     health of the child after live birth, or to remove a dead 
     unborn child who died as the result of a spontaneous 
     abortion, accidental trauma, or a criminal assault on the 
     pregnant female or her unborn child;
       ``(2) the term `actual notice' means the giving of written 
     notice directly, in person;
       ``(3) the term `constructive notice' means notice that is 
     given by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted 
     delivery to the last known address of the person being 
     notified, with delivery deemed to have occurred 48 hours 
     following noon on the next day subsequent to mailing on which 
     regular mail delivery takes place, days on which mail is not 
     delivered excluded;
       ``(4) the term a `law requiring parental involvement in a 
     minor's abortion decision' means 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;
       ``(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;
       ``(5) the term `minor' means an individual who is not older 
     than 18 years and who is not emancipated under State law;
       ``(6) 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;
     as determined by State law;
       ``(7) the term `physician' means a doctor of medicine 
     legally authorized to practice medicine by the State in which 
     such doctor practices medicine, or any other person legally 
     empowered under State law to perform an abortion; and
       ``(8) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States.''.

     SEC. 4. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

       The table of chapters at the beginning of part I of title 
     18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the 
     item relating to chapter 117 the following new items:

``117A. Transportation of minors in circumvention of certain laws 
    relating to abortion..........................................2431 
``117B. Child interstate abortion notification..................2432''.

     SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

       (a) The provisions of this Act shall be severable. If any 
     provision of this Act, or any application thereof, is found 
     unconstitutional, that finding shall not affect any provision 
     or application of the Act not so adjudicated.
       (b) The provisions of this Act shall take effect upon 
     enactment.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. No amendment to the committee amendment is in 
order except those printed in House Report 109-56. Each amendment may 
be offered only in the order printed in the report, by a Member 
designated in the report, shall be considered read, shall be debatable 
for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by 
the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in House 
Report 109-56.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia:
       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       (3) The prohibitions of this section do not apply with 
     respect to conduct by taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, 
     medical providers or others in the business of professional 
     transport.
       Redesignate succeeding subsections accordingly.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 236, the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Scott) and a Member opposed each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor 
across State lines with the intent that the minor obtain an abortion if 
the parental-involvement laws of the State were circumvented.
  Now, transport is not defined in the bill. But it obviously includes 
taxicabs, buses, ambulance drivers and others that may transport a 
minor across State lines to get an abortion or return from an abortion 
under the bill. And it makes them criminals for the simple task of 
doing their job, transporting someone between two places.
  Now, the bill also makes conspiracy and accessory after the fact 
criminal violations, so a nurse or receptionist or sorority sister who 
calls the cab could also be prosecuted for the Federal crime.
  That is why, Mr. Chairman, I have introduced the amendment, which 
says that the prohibitions of this section do not apply with respect to 
the conduct of taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical providers 
or others in the business of professional transport.
  Now, even if a prosecutor uses commonsense prosecutorial discretion 
and does not prosecute a cab driver or a sorority sister in this 
situation, there are other problems with the bill, because a technical 
violation of the bill, such as one committed by the taxicab driver, 
automatically exposes that taxicab driver or the sorority sister who 
calls the cab, did not even go on the trip, to civil liability. That 
means that the parents can sue them for what they did.
  The civil liability provisions of the bill create a blanket Federal 
cause of action for a parent that suffers ``legal harm,'' compounding 
the massive intimidation effects of the bill. Based on the language of 
the bill, the cab driver, receptionist, sorority sister could be held 
civilly liable for helping to provide safe and legal transportation 
assistance to the minor.
  Moreover, based on the agency principles, not only is the cab driver 
exposed to civil liability, but the entire cab company is similarly 
exposed.
  Now, you may say that the cab driver probably did not know. But what 
happens when the passenger gets into the cab and says, take me to the 
abortion clinic which happens to be across State lines. And during the 
trip, he hears the minor discuss with a friend where she is going and 
why. It becomes clear what the deal is.
  Now, in prior discussions with the amendment, it has been suggested 
that the bill will immunize someone who may be a taxicab driver and 
also a sexual predator.
  Let us not insult each other. If someone is a sexual predator, and 
the prosecutor evidence of that, this will be the last code section 
that they will be looking at because these are misdemeanors. The code 
is full of felonies for sexual predators.

[[Page H2608]]

  And so if the parent finds out that the minor went across State lines 
by taxicab and gets mad, and the child has to explain what happened, 
how they got to the clinic, and what was said in the cab, obviously, 
the parent can sue the cab driver.

                              {time}  1715

  Now, an overwhelming portion of minors already discuss the situation 
with their parents. This will not reduce teen pregnancy. This will not 
increase the number of children that discuss the situation with their 
parents. This will make no exceptions for dysfunctional families. It 
will just make criminals out of friends and relatives and allow the 
parents to sue them.
  I just do not think, Mr. Chairman, that the taxicab drivers ought to 
get caught up in that controversy and that is why I hope the amendment 
is adopted.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my team.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated for a number of 
reasons, most specifically of which, it is once again drafted overly 
broadly and will allow the immunization of people who really are a part 
of a scheme to transport people across State lines in violation of a 
State parental involvement law.
  The amendment would allow the creation of an entire for-profit, 
interstate taxicab network specifically designed to thwart State 
parental notification laws. For example, we heard from the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that there are ads in the Pennsylvania 
Yellow Pages for abortion clinics in New Jersey, since New Jersey does 
not have a parental notification or involvement law but Pennsylvania 
does.
  So if this amendment were adopted, an ad could advertise the abortion 
clinic in New Jersey and then have a phone number of a cab company that 
is under contract with that New Jersey abortion clinic to pick up the 
minor and cross the State line for the abortion. And I do not think 
that is what we want to foster with this amendment.
  The allegations that taxicab drivers would be inadvertently caught up 
under this bill I think is misstated. They are not generally liable 
under the bill which allows for the conviction of an individual who 
knowingly transports a minor across State lines with the intent that 
such an individual obtain an abortion. Although a taxicab driver or a 
bus driver or whoever may have the knowledge that the minor that he or 
she is transporting will obtain an abortion as soon as she arrives at 
her destination, his or her intent is not that the minor obtain the 
abortion. Rather, it is to transport the minor to the destination of 
choice, whether it is an abortion clinic or a shopping mall.
  In other words, the taxicab driver's reason for transporting the 
minor is to receive the fare, not to ensure that he or that she obtain 
an abortion. So a taxicab driver will generally not have the requisite 
criminal intent necessary for prosecution under the bill.
  On the other hand, there are some instances in which the taxicab 
driver does have such criminal intent; and this amendment, if adopted, 
would mean that even if they had that intent they could not be 
prosecuted. The driver may have the intent that a minor obtain an 
abortion across State lines perhaps because the minor has been the 
victim of statutory rape at the hands of the cab driver himself and he 
wants to erase any evidence of his impregnating her.
  This amendment, if adopted, will allow such misconduct and that is 
wrong. A taxicab license should not be a license to commit crimes and 
avoid prosecution.
  The amendment should be defeated for reasons I have stated. It seeks 
to address a problem that does not exist, and, in doing so, opens a 
huge loophole that can be exploited by those who would seek to keep 
parents in the dark and conceal criminal misconduct. I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has 6 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Scott amendment 
and in opposition to H.R. 748. I commend the work of my colleagues, the 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from 
Colorado (Ms. DeGette) in the work on this bill as well.
  Here we go again. The party that talks about States rights is 
stepping on the rights of States. The party that talks about family 
values wants to put Grandma and Aunt Jane in jail.
  Supporters of this bill argue that it will help reduce the number of 
abortions in this country or protect the health and well-being of our 
Nation's youth and families. But while these types of bills may look 
good for politics for some, they make very bad policy for all.
  It is sad that the U.S. has the highest rates of teen pregnancy in 
the western civilized world, and I think everyone here agrees that we 
should take steps to counter that. That is why we should support 
programs that improve the health of our young people, improve 
communication among families, prevent teen pregnancy and reduce the 
number of abortions.
  Fortunately, these programs like those under Title X do exist. 
Unfortunately, these programs are not what we are focusing on here 
today. Congress should work to find common ground on real solutions to 
problems of unintended pregnancies and abortions. Funding for programs 
like Title X is one way to reduce abortions. Passage of H.R. 748 is 
not, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  This amendment, as the chairman previously indicated, is just 
unnecessary. If you go to the language of the bill itself, it indicates 
it is essentially illegal to knowingly transport a minor across the 
State line with the intent that such minor obtain an abortion, and so 
on.
  Now, clearly the taxicab driver's intent is to obtain the fare, not 
that the young girl receive an abortion. So this is really unnecessary. 
I might add, during the course of this debate we have heard a number of 
things. We had heard that parents, for example, that a girl is not 
protected under this proposed bill because perhaps there is a case of 
incest; perhaps the father is the one that actually was responsible for 
the girl becoming pregnant. Judicial bypass, as we all know, as it does 
under the various State laws, protects that particular situation so 
that is really not an issue.
  I think the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) was exactly right when 
he said that in essence when you have somebody secreting a girl who is 
pregnant to have a secret abortion in another State, that is an assault 
on the family, and that is what we are trying to prevent.
  Again, the parents are in the best position to be able to determine 
what is in the best interest of that child.
  Finally, I just wanted to say we have heard this bill, which I think 
is a very good pill and has passed in this House three times before, we 
have heard it called by some folks on the other side ludicrous, 
laughable, cruel; but I just might note that the last time this bill 
was before this House, 58 Democrats, 58 folks on the other side of the 
aisle voted for this bill. And so that is a little more than 1 in 4 
supported this bill.
  I think it is great legislation. I am very pleased we will once again 
take it up.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) who has been very careful about what he has said 
and

[[Page H2609]]

written about this bill, and his amendment is very thoughtful.
  Now, for anybody that thinks this is the same bill you have voted on 
three times, I want to tell you it is not. This bill goes far further 
and federalizes more things than any of the legislation we have ever 
had. And as the bill is drafted now, and as the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) has perceived, anyone involved in any way with the 
transportation of a minor would have violated the law if they were 
going to get an abortion, whether he knows it or not.
  That is because the bill does not require proof of any intent to 
avoid State parental consent laws. Just simply transporting a minor, a 
driver, a taxi man, a bus driver, a family member, could be jailed up 
to a year or fined, or both. The same applies to emergency medical 
personnel.
  As the gentlewoman pointed out, doctors who may be aware that they 
are taking a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion but would 
have no choice if a medical emergency was occurring, what about the 
Supreme Court requirement for medical emergencies for abortion? Does 
that not mean anything to anybody here?
  Similarly, a nurse at a clinic just providing directions to a minor 
or her driver could be convicted as an accessory. We have never had 
that in the bills before us before. A doctor who procures a ride home 
for a minor and a person accompanying her because of car troubles, 
coupled with the minor's expressed fear of calling her parents for 
assistance, could be convicted as an accessory after the fact. A 
sibling of the minor who merely agrees to transport a minor across 
States lines without knowledge of any intent to evade the resident 
State's parental consent or notification laws could be thrown in jail 
and convicted of a conspiracy to violate the statute.
  Let us pass this amendment that brings just a little bit of humanity 
back into a very mean-spirited bill. We need this amendment to protect 
these individuals who are innocently swept into the young woman's 
abortion act and are not made innocent victims of the law.
  Support the Scott amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has no further speakers.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me read the operative language of the bill. 
``Whoever knowingly transports a minor across a State line with the 
intent that such minor obtain an abortion,'' clearly covers a taxicab 
driver who knows where he is going and has heard the discussion behind 
him.
  I just do not think the bill ought to apply to the taxicab driver. If 
the others do not think it applies, then just pass the amendment. I 
think it is a commonsense amendment. The taxicab driver ought not get 
caught up into an interfamily dispute over who did what and he get sued 
and the cab company get sued because he did not know it was illegal to 
take the fare to the nearest abortion clinic which happened to be 
across the State line.
  The taxicab driver could clearly know and he could hear the 
discussion about where they were going and why. That would make him 
guilty, the taxicab company guilty, the sorority sister that called the 
taxicab guilty for conspiracy.
  This is a commonsense amendment. I do not think the taxicab driver 
ought to be part of this discussion, ought not be sued by a mad parent, 
and I hope we will adopt the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, one standard element of obtaining a criminal conviction 
is that the defendant has the appropriate criminal intent.
  Now, under the bill without the Scott amendment, if the taxicab 
driver does not have the criminal intent which includes knowledge of 
what is going on, then the taxicab driver and the company cannot be 
convicted. If they do have the criminal intent to evade a State 
parental involvement law, then they ought to be convicted of 
transporting the minor across the State line.
  What the Scott amendment does is effectively immunize transporters 
who have criminal intent, and that is why the amendment ought to be 
defeated. I urge the membership to vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) will be postponed.

                              {time}  1730

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). It is now in order to consider 
amendment No. 2 printed in House Report 109-56.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 4, after line 11, insert the following:
       ``(3) The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply with 
     respect to conduct by a grandparent of the minor or clergy 
     person.

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 236, the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the 
cosponsor of this legislation, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, but I 
also wanted to point out that at the end of the last debate the 
chairman of the committee suggested that there needs to be a criminal 
intent for the evasion of the parental consent laws, but we do not need 
intent for that. If, in fact, you have circumvented the parental 
consent laws, then there is a violation. You do not even have to know 
you violated them if, in fact, you did; and I think the chairman would 
acknowledge that.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member 
of the subcommittee.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be offering this amendment 
with my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the amendments that the committee report 
lied about. This amendment would prevent terrible and, I assume, 
unintended injustices. The amendment creates an exception to the 
provisions that make it a crime to accompany a minor across State lines 
who is seeking abortion services if the person accompanying the minor 
is a grandparent or a member of the clergy.
  These are responsible adults to whom young people often turn when 
they are in trouble and cannot go to their parents. In an ideal world, 
that would never happen; but where that is the case, where they feel 
they cannot turn to their parents, I think we want our young people to 
able to turn to a grandparent or their minister, priest, or rabbi.
  At the very least, I do not think Members want to put grandmothers 
and members of the clergy behind bars simply because they did not want 
to leave a young person alone and unaided during a very difficult 
moment.
  Do we really want to put grandmothers and clergy in jail? Surely the 
supporters of this bill would not want to put a grandmother or reverend 
in jail who is only trying to help a minor.
  I know they argue that the evil abortion providers are spiriting them 
away, but we are not talking about if that ever occurred. We are 
talking about the grandmother of the minor. We are talking about the 
trusted minister, priest, or rabbi of the minor whom she seeks out and 
confides in.

[[Page H2610]]

  The opponents of this amendment have argued that it is the 
fundamental right of a parent to be involved in any decision concerning 
the pregnancy of their child. This is certainly true.
  But in the real world, there are situations where it is impossible 
for a minor to tell a parent about a pregnancy, for instance, in cases 
of incest, where the parents physically abuse their children or in the 
case that I mentioned while in general debate of the young 13-year-old 
girl whose father had raped her, found out she was pregnant, and 
murdered her. In these cases, a minor needs to be able to turn to a 
responsible adult, such as a grandparent or a clergy member, for 
assistance. We should not criminalize this assistance. We should not be 
throwing caring grandmothers, grandparents, or ministers in jail.
  Now, it may be that a properly drafted amendment that would say if it 
was a ring of people doing this for money, maybe that would be 
reasonable, but not a grandparent or a clergy member who was helping a 
young person in trouble.
  Some have argued that we should defeat this amendment because there 
are cases, albeit few and isolated, where a grandparent or a member of 
the clergy may be a sexual predator. Sadly, this is true sometimes. 
Thankfully, it is rarely true. It is also true that sometimes a parent 
is a sexual predator, and this bill not only does not protect the minor 
in those cases. It requires the doctor to ring the sexual predator's 
doorbell to tell him what is going on, and it gives the sexual predator 
the ability to sue the doctor. That is what the bill does.
  Even with this exception, with the exception in this amendment, any 
sexual predator will still face the full force of the law. Those crimes 
can, and should still, be punished. This amendment in no way shields 
these criminals from the consequences of their acts. It does, however, 
protect caring grandparents and clergy from going to jail just because 
they cared enough about a young person to stand with them in a 
difficult time.
  Mr. Chairman, it should be the duty of the government and Congress to 
provide help to young women in these trying times, not to make life 
more difficult than it needs to be.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am the only speaker on this 
amendment, and I will reserve my time so I can close.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking 
member. And may I ask how much time is remaining.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has 
6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) is 
recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman from 
Texas, whose amendment, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), 
helps to bring a little sensitivity, a little care, understanding, 
concern about the awful problem behind the necessity that is thought to 
be needed for this bill.
  The Jackson-Lee/Nadler amendment seeks to give the young women who 
are already in desperate situations an opportunity to turn to a trusted 
adult. Specifically, it creates an exception for grandparents and 
clergy members from civil or criminal liability.
  Now, one could almost, in a more rational circumstance, ask who could 
be against that. The alternative to this, without this amendment, would 
be to leave the young women at the mercy of their peers and adults who 
do not have their best interests at heart or leave them alone.
  So the amendment is absolutely vital. Even further, some young women 
justifiably fear they would be physically abused if forced to disclose 
their pregnancy to their parents. Nearly one-third of minors who choose 
not to consult with their parents have experienced violence in their 
family or feared violence or feared being forced to leave home. So 
enacting this legislation and forcing young women in these 
circumstances to notify their parents of their pregnancies will only 
exacerbate the dangerous cycle of violence in dysfunctional families.
  This is the lesson of Spring Adams, an Idaho teenager who was shot to 
death by her father after he learned she was planning to terminate a 
pregnancy he caused. It is clear that when a young woman believes that 
she cannot involve her parents in her decision to terminate a 
pregnancy, the law cannot mandate healthy, open family communications.
  I urge my colleagues to support Jackson-Lee/Nadler.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, in an ideal world, teens would talk to 
their parents if they found themselves pregnant. I guess some would 
even go so far as to say, 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 would do anything not to tell their parents about an 
unintended pregnancy, even if it means putting their own life in 
jeopardy.
  Make no mistake, I strongly support measures that will help foster 
healthy relationships between parents and their children; but 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. 
It is not going to curb abortion. Rather, this bill will only encourage 
young girls to seek unsafe, illegal abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment; vote against H.R. 
748.
  I thank the gentlewoman very much for yielding time to me.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of 
the time.
  I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her leadership. I thank the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his leadership, and I thank 
him very much for the fight that he has put forward for a fair and 
balanced response to what could be a very tragic set of circumstances.
  I am delighted to follow the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Woolsey) because I want to reinforce the fact that we want healthy 
relationships between parents. We want a young woman to be able, a 
girl, a minor to be able to consult with her parents in a prayerful 
manner with her clergy and with her physician in this potentially 
tragic set of circumstances.
  But allow me to read into the Record a circumstance that does occur 
in America. In Idaho, a 13-year-old girl named Spring Adams was shot to 
death by her father after he learned that she planned to terminate her 
pregnancy caused by his acts of incest. Might I repeat it again, Mr. 
Chairman, by his acts of incest. One more time. By his acts of incest.
  This is what the debate is about. This particular legislation, 
although it may be well intended, does not have an exemption for 
incest, does not have an exemption for incest. The amendments that my 
colleagues offered in the Committee on the Judiciary all went to the 
idea of providing the greater safety for this minor, not to eliminate 
the responsibility of a parent, nor to eliminate the relationship 
between parent and child.
  Let me for the record, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) 
did indicate in his remarks, that the amendment that I offered in the 
Committee on the Judiciary did not exempt sexual predators, and I am so 
terribly offended and offended for this institution for the untruths 
that were reported in the report language.
  The Jackson-Lee amendment that offered to include aunts, uncles and 
cousins and godparents to be able to provide counsel to that minor was 
to speak to the question of incest, in case a parent was engaged in 
incest. Unfortunately, we could not get our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle to understand the clarity of trying to provide an 
additional person cover, counsel if you will, so that if the parent 
perpetrated incest, that child had somewhere to go.
  The untruth of the representation in the report language needs to be 
qualified and corrected. I hope my colleagues will see fit very shortly 
to have that corrected; but I would simply say that H.R. 748, as it is 
drafted, does not provide protection for that minor child.
  Our amendment, the Nadler/Jackson-Lee amendment, allows for the 
grandparent and the clergy to be exempted

[[Page H2611]]

from being sued by the parents when they can stand instead to provide 
counsel, religious counsel, social counsel, comfort counsel to that 
minor child; and that they should be subjected to a lawsuit by a parent 
who may have perpetrated incest is an insult and a travesty.
  This legislation will not improve family communication or help young 
women facing crisis pregnancies. We all hope that loving parents will 
be involved in their daughters' lives, and I will tell my colleagues 
that 61 percent seek counsel. Ninety-three percent who do not get 
counsel from their parent do seek to from a close associate, friend, 
grandparent.
  It is important, even in the absence of laws mandating parental 
involvement, many young women do turn to their parents. I would argue 
that this is a poorly drafted legislative initiative. I would ask my 
colleagues to support this amendment because there is no incest 
exemption.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer and support an amendment on which my 
colleague from New York, Mr. Nadler has joined me.
  My amendment, in particular, made no mention of sexual predators. One 
can infer virtually anything about amendments until they are taken into 
context. In fact, one can infer a myriad of negative things from what 
is not included in the base legislation. The report was, frankly, 
ludicrous as to this matter. We must take it upon ourselves to 
accurately interpret our colleagues' amendments; lest we turn ourselves 
into a body of mud-slinging, vindictive individuals.
  As Chair of the Children's Caucus, the report has risen to an 
inflammatory inference that must be corrected because justice requires 
it. However, one thing about this debate is different. The 
unprofessional way in which our committee colleagues have elected to 
report out the amendments that were offered by Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, 
and me has morphed from the simple reiteration of the precise idea of 
the amendment two years ago when we last debated this to an abomination 
that insinuates that our amendments would protect sexual predators. As 
my colleague and partner in offering the amendment I will present today 
stated before the Committee on Rules, our committee colleagues have 
behaved in an unfair manner and have made a clear partisan attack when 
the lives of minor females are at stake.
  The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), while good in 
its intention, was written with several areas of vagueness, overly 
punitive nature, and constitutional violations that very much deserve 
debate in order to save lives and to obviate the need for piles upon 
piles of legal pleadings.
  The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian 
framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My 
state, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, 
MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follows 
old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a 
federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across state lines for 
abortion services if a woman comes from a state with a strict parental-
involvement mandate. There are 10 states (CO, DE, IA, ME, MD, NC, OH, 
SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice 
but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement 
may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental 
consent. Finally, there are 17 states (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, 
NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a 
woman's access to abortion in this case. The base bill, if passed, 
would take away the States' rights to make their own determination as 
to legislating the abortion issue for minors with respect to parental 
notification.

  Our amendment to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, 
would change the prohibitions to exempt grandparents of the minor or 
clergy persons. This must be done because some minors want the counsel 
of a responsible adult, and are unable to turn to their parents. In 
Idaho, a 13 year old girl named Spring Adams was shot to death by her 
father after he learned that she planned to terminate a pregnancy 
caused by his acts of incest. This is an exact situation where the help 
of a grandparent or clergy would have been more helpful. Spring Adams 
may still be with us today if she could have found someone more 
compassionate and caring to confide in.
  H.R. 748, as drafted, will not improve family communication or help 
young women facing crisis pregnancies. We all hope that loving parents 
will be involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy. Every 
parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the advice and 
counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, even 
in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many young women 
do turn to their parents when they are considering an abortion. One 
study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory 
parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's pregnancy.
  Unfortunately, some young women cannot involve their parents because 
they come from homes where physical violence or emotional abuse is 
prevalent or because their pregnancies are the result of incest. In 
these situations, the government cannot force healthy family 
communication where it does not already exist--and attempts to do so 
can have tragic consequences for some girls.
  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 longstanding policies opposing mandatory 
parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young 
women and the need for confidential access to physicians. These 
physicians see young ladies on a daily basis and hear their stories. 
They would not protest this law unless they felt there were severe 
stakes.
  CIANA criminalizes caring adults--including grandparents of the 
minor, who attempt to assist young women facing crisis pregnancies. In 
one study, 93 percent of minors who did not involve a parent in 
their decision to obtain an abortion were still accompanied by someone 
to the doctor's office. If CIANA becomes law, a person could be 
prosecuted for accompanying a minor to a neighboring state, even if 
that person does not intend, or even know, that the parental-
involvement law of the state of residence has not been followed. 
Although legal abortion is very safe, it is typically advisable to 
accompany any patient undergoing even minor surgery. Without the 
Jackson Lee-Nadler Amendment, a grandmother could be subject to 
criminal charges for accompanying her granddaughter to an out-of-state 
facility--even if the facility was the closest to the young woman's 
home and they were not attempting to evade a parental involvement law.

  In a statement given by Dr. Warren Seigel, a member of the Physician 
for Reproductive Choice and Health, to the House Judiciary Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, he says ``I recognize that parents ideally should 
be--and usually are--involved in health decisions regarding their 
children. However, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act does 
nothing to promote such communication. Instead, CIANA places incredible 
burdens on both young women and physicians; infringes on the rights of 
adolescents to health care that does not violate their safety and 
health; makes caring family, friends and doctors criminals; and could 
be detrimental to the health and emotional well-being of all 
patients.''
  Although this legislation is supposedly aimed at increasing parent-
child communication, the government cannot mandate healthy families 
and, indeed, it is dangerous to attempt to do so. Research has shown 
that the overwhelming majority of adolescents already tell their 
parents before receiving an abortion. In fact, the younger the woman 
is, the more likely she is to tell her parent. The American Academy of 
Pediatrics, a national medical organization representing the 60,000 
physician leaders in pediatric medicine--of which I am a member and 
leader--has adopted the following statement regarding mandatory 
parental notification:
  Adolescents should be strongly encouraged to involve their parents 
and other trusted adults in decisions regarding pregnancy termination, 
and the majority of them voluntarily do so. Legislation mandating 
parental involvement does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting 
family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the 
adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care.
  It is important to consider why a minority of young women cannot 
inform their parents. The threat of physical or emotional abuse upon 
disclosure of the pregnancy to their parents or a pregnancy that is the 
result of incest make it impossible for these adolescents to inform 
their parents. My amendment would allow other trusted adults to be a 
part of this process. Support the Jackson Lee-Nadler amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the time given to me 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, first, both sections of the bill do provide an 
exception for incest, and all of the arguments that have been made to 
the contrary are simply not correct.
  Furthermore, this amendment should be defeated because it would 
codify the circumvention of parental involvement when the overwhelming 
majority of Americans support parental involvement. In some polls, over 
80 percent of the public supports parental involvement. As recently as 
March 2005, 75 percent of over 1,500 registered voters

[[Page H2612]]

surveyed favored requiring parental notification before a minor gets an 
abortion, and only 18 percent opposed parental notification.

                              {time}  1745

  Under current law, grandparents and clergy do not have the authority 
to authorize a medical procedure for a minor child, or even ear 
piercings or the dispensing of aspirin at schools. So why should such a 
fundamental parental right be thrown aside for the abortion procedure 
alone? This amendment would sever the essential parent-child 
relationship. Grandparents and undefined clergy are not parents. It is 
that simple.
  It is instructive that the Supreme Court has always held that the 
important duty to ensure and provide for the care and nurture of minor 
children lies only with the parents, a conclusion which arises from the 
traditional legal recognition that ``the natural bounds of affection 
lead parents to act in the best interest of their children.'' That was 
Parham v. J.R., 1979, of the Supreme Court. And as Justices O'Connor, 
Kennedy, and Souter observed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, parental 
consent and notification laws related to abortions are ``based on the 
quite reasonable assumption that minors will benefit from consultation 
with their parents and that children will often not realize that their 
parents have their best interests at heart.''
  Significantly for CIANA, the Supreme Court recently struck down a 
Washington State visitation law under which grandparents were granted 
visitation of their grandchildren over the objection of the children's 
mother. That State visitation law was struck down precisely because it 
failed to provide special protection for the fundamental right of 
parents to control with whom their children associate.
  The amendment also excludes from the bill any clergy, and the 
amendment leaves the word ``clergy'' undefined. Just last year, one 
State court ominously described the dangers of using the term 
``clergy'' in the law without providing any clear definition. That 
court stated, ``Almost anyone in a religious organization willing to 
offer what purports to be spiritual advice would qualify for clergy 
status.'' That is Waters v. O'Connor, 2004, the Court of Appeals of 
Arizona. That means that under this amendment, an impressionable and 
vulnerable minor could be sexually exploited by a cultist and the 
cultist could escape liability and prosecution under this legislation 
because the cultist claims clergy status.
  In fact, when the Federal Rules of Evidence were being debated in 
Congress, Congress specifically rejected using the word clergy in those 
rules. Doing so would have invited courts, just as this amendment 
would, to allow all matter of cult figures to fall under the term.
  Parents, and not anyone else, know and can provide their dependent 
minor children's complete and accurate medical histories. Before 
children undergo medical procedures, parents are required to provide 
this critical information. Without that medical history, an abortion 
could be devastating to a child's health.
  As the Supreme Court has made clear, ``the medical, emotional, and 
psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be 
lasting. An adequate medical and psychological case history is 
important to the physician. Parents can provide medical and 
psychological data, refer the physician to other sources of medical 
history, such as family physicians, and authorize family physicians to 
give relevant data.'' That is H.L. v. Matheson, 1981.
  And in addressing the right of parents to direct the medical care of 
their children, the Supreme Court has stated, ``Our jurisprudence 
historically has reflected western civilization concepts of the family 
as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases 
have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system has 
long rejected any notion that a child is a mere creature of the 
State.'' And, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally ``have 
the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their 
children for additional obligations. Surely this includes the high duty 
to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek and follow medical advice. 
The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents 
possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for 
judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.'' Parham v. 
J.R., 1979.
  Parents, not grandparents or undefined clergy, are legally, morally, 
and financially responsible for their children's follow-up medical 
care. If parents are kept in the dark by others, they will not be able 
to recognize potentially dangerous consequences of abortions.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defend the integrity of the 
parent-child relationship, which this amendment does so much to undo; 
to protect the rights of young girls from potential medical harm by 
defeating this amendment. Please vote ``no.''
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). All time for debate on this 
amendment has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the 
noes appeared to have it.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed in the following order: amendment No. 1, offered by Mr. Scott 
of Virginia, and amendment No. 2, offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas.
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote.


            Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Scott) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 245, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 141]

                               AYES--179

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt

[[Page H2613]]


     Stark
     Strickland
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--245

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     English (PA)
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Olver
     Pearce
     Rothman
     Westmoreland
     Wicker

                              {time}  1817

  Mr. KING of Iowa changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. ISRAEL, SCHWARZ of Michigan, LYNCH and MOORE of Kansas 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). The pending business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177, 
noes 252, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 142]

                               AYES--177

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--252

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown, Corrine
     Istook
     Rothman
     Westmoreland
     Wicker

[[Page H2614]]



                              {time}  1827

  Mr. SAXTON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gillmor). There being no further amendments, 
the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The Acting CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Gillmor, Acting Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 748) to 
amend title 18, United States Code, to prevent the transportation of 
minors in circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 236, he reported the bill 
back to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. NADLER. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am most certainly opposed to the 
bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Nadler moves to recommit the bill H.R. 748 to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report the 
     same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Page 5, line 5, insert after ``(a)'' the following: ``, 
     other than a parent who caused the minor to become pregnant 
     as a result of rape or incest''.
       Page 9, line 2, insert after ``(a)'' the following: ``, 
     other than a parent who caused the minor to become pregnant 
     as a result of rape or incest''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill allows a father to sue the person 
who accompanied the young woman or, if he did not receive the required 
notice, to sue the doctor who provided the abortion even if he himself, 
the father, that is, caused the pregnancy by rape or incest.
  If adopted, my motion to recommit would simply ensure that this right 
to sue does not extend to a parent who caused the pregnancy through 
rape or incest. The motion to recommit would ensure that this bill 
would not enable such rapists to profit from their wrongdoing.
  I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) will say that 
the bill already prohibits suits by rapists, but the so-called 
prohibition in the bill applies only to suits against the doctor, not 
against the person who accompanied her, and even against the doctor 
only in the unlikely event that the minor declares the rape in a signed 
written statement to the doctor.

                              {time}  1830

  Aside from that exception, the rapist under this bill will profit 
from the newly established rights to sue the doctor or the unlimited 
newly established right to sue the person who accompanied her.
  I cannot believe that any Member of this House, even those who 
support parental-consent laws, could really want to enable a criminal, 
a father who raped his daughter and caused the pregnancy, to be able to 
profit from his wrongdoing by suing doctors, grandmothers, and 
clergymen. This motion would correct this obvious mistake; and I think, 
or at least I hope, that the sponsors of this bill would agree that 
this amendment should be adopted.
  Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of loose talk over the last 
few days about sexual predators and the need to protect young women. We 
may not agree in this House on the best way to protect these young 
women, but we should all be able to agree that a father who rapes his 
daughter should not profit from his crime. This bill as presently 
constituted gives him that power. The motion to recommit would take 
that ability away from him and would do nothing else at all.
  The motion to recommit simply says a father who rapes his daughter or 
commits incest with her and causes that pregnancy cannot then sue 
someone who performs an abortion or who accompanies her to an abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the motion to recommit with 
instructions. This motion is necessary in order to correct a glaring 
deficiency in H.R. 748. In its current form, H.R. 748 would permit a 
parent who impregnated his daughter nonetheless to bring an action 
under the bill against a health provider or a person accompanying a 
young girl across State lines for violation of the bill's notification 
provisions when a young girl travels across State lines to seek an 
abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, this is about incest. My friends on the opposite side of 
the aisle would have you believe that there is an exception in this 
bill, that somehow they have taken care of this. It is not true. They 
have not made an exception for someone, a parent, that could now sue 
because the young girl did not come to them and get their permission, 
or if a person assisted this young girl, taking her across State lines.
  The Nadler-Waters motion to recommit would prohibit a parent who 
caused his daughter's pregnancy from bringing an action under the bill 
against a health care provider or any person accompanying the minor 
across State lines when that minor travels across State lines to obtain 
an abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, a parent who has molested his child and left her facing 
pregnancy should not be allowed to sue a medical care provider who 
aided this child in her moment of need or sue someone who accompanied 
his child across State lines to help her safely address this tragic 
situation. Nor should that parent have any role in his daughter's 
decision to seek an abortion, unless the daughter chooses to give her 
parent such a role. A person who has violated his daughter in such a 
horrible way simply must not be entitled to any relief.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit 
H.R. 748 to the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions so that, 
at the very least, the committee may correct the obvious miscarriage of 
justice that the bill produces in its current form. And if my 
colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle continue to insist that 
they made an exception, make them show it to you in the bill. Make them 
prove it to you.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from Wisconsin is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, what the two proponents of the motion 
to recommit are arguing is something that simply is not going to 
happen. If the father of a young girl impregnates her as a result of an 
incestuous act, filing a lawsuit will expose that crime and the 
evidence that would have to be submitted by the defendants would end up 
very clearly showing that that father did commit a crime.
  What would happen as a result of this bill not passing, with or 
without the amendment, is that the father who did commit that crime of 
incest would want to destroy the evidence of that crime without 
alerting the authorities. This bill prevents that, and the bill 
requires the alerting of appropriate authorities to protect young girls 
from future abuse.
  Those who oppose this bill and are supporting this motion to recommit 
would doom the victims of rape and incest to continued abuse. 
Supporters of this bill want to prevent that abuse from continuing.

[[Page H2615]]

  Vote down the motion to recommit, and vote for the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 183, 
nays 245, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               YEAS--183

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NAYS--245

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Bishop (GA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown, Corrine
     Rothman
     Westmoreland
     Wicker

                              {time}  1855

  Mr. COX and Ms. FOXX changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 270, 
noes 157, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               AYES--270

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boustany
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Clay
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar

[[Page H2616]]


     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--157

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Blumenauer
     Brown, Corrine
     Camp
     Rothman
     Westmoreland
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)

                              {time}  1903

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________