[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 26, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7364-H7368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 403, CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1039 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1039

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (S. 403) to amend title 18, 
     United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State 
     lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of 
     parents in abortion decisions. The amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee 
     on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to commit with or 
     without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1039 is a closed rule which allows one hour of 
debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives 
all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides 
that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules 
Committee report shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule 
allows one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, before we begin debate on the rule for S. 403, the Child 
Custody Protection Act, I want to refresh the memories of some of my 
colleagues and offer historical context to Members who were not here in 
early 2005.
  Last year, on April 27, I sponsored and managed a rule to consider 
H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This rule 
passed by a vote of 234-192, including the support of eight Democrats. 
Two Democratic amendments were considered and failed by a recorded 
vote. No Republican amendments were considered to H.R. 748, and the 
legislation passed by a vote of 270-157, which included the support of 
54 Democrats.
  Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in support of the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act. However, this time we will consider the 
legislation passed by our colleagues in the Senate. S. 403 passed the 
Senate by a vote of 65-34 two months ago, and it is a very close 
facsimile to H.R. 748. Indeed, it is almost identical to the House 
bill.
  So, as I begin my remarks, I would like to recognize and thank 
Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her dedication and leadership 
not only on

[[Page H7365]]

the House version of this legislation but also on the overall issue of 
protecting children.
  Likewise, I would like to offer a special thank you to Senator John 
Ensign of Nevada for sponsoring today's legislation and both the Senate 
and House leadership for their willingness to address this vital issue.
  Mr. Speaker, like the debate we had in April of 2005, I anticipate 
that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it as an assault on a 
woman's so-called right to choose. Despite this allegation, S. 403 has 
nothing to do with Supreme Court imposed rights but simply ensures that 
no minor is deprived of protection by her parents under the laws of her 
State.
  S. 403 is a common sense bill that will prohibit the transportation 
of a minor under age 18 across a State line to obtain an abortion when 
the child's home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an 
exception in those rare cases in which the abortion is medically 
necessary to save the life of the minor.
  In addition, the Child Custody Protection Act affirms the 
responsibility of a physician prior to performing an abortion on a 
minor from another State to make sure that they are acting in 
accordance with the law. In other words, this bill not only ensures the 
protection of minors, but it also clarifies the responsibility of the 
physician to make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing 
an abortion on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her 
parent from her home State.
  The Child Custody Protection Act also affirms the principles of 
Federalism and it prevents the circumvention and violation of laws 
passed by State legislatures. Thirty-four States, let me repeat, 34 
States have passed parental notification laws. In fact, in my home 
State of Georgia, the legislature passed a new abortion notification 
law just last year in overwhelming and, I might add, bipartisan 
fashion. Now this legislative body has the responsibility to defend 
that Federalism and the integrity of State laws on interstate matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I can address this issue wearing three different hats. 
As an OB/GYN physician who has delivered many babies over the course of 
a 31-year medical career; as a Member of Congress; and, most 
importantly, as a proud father.
  I have four children, three of whom are grown women and two of them 
with children of their own. As a father, I have an obligation to defend 
my children and grandchildren against danger. As a Member of this body, 
of Congress, I have the same obligation to the children and 
grandchildren of every parent in this country. As a physician, I have 
the obligation under the Hippocratic Oath to, in the first place, do no 
harm.
  The Child Custody Protection Act recognizes this fundamental bond 
between parents and a child, and it reaffirms the obligation of a 
parent to be involved and help make important decisions affecting both 
the life and health of a minor child.
  In a society where children cannot be given aspirin at school without 
their parents' permission, I cannot comprehend how anyone could 
possibly believe that having an abortion is less traumatic than taking 
an aspirin. However, I understand that this is exactly what the 
opponents of this bill are saying through their opposition to S. 403.
  During this debate I want to encourage my colleagues to remain 
focused on the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks 
to uphold the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their 
minor children.
  I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and pass this much-
needed underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. 
Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider an amendment 
in the nature of a substitute to S. 403, the Child Custody Protection 
Act. It provides for only one hour of debate and, as usual, it is 
closed to any amendments.
  I would appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as a 
matter of principle to vote against this rule. There is an addiction 
with this leadership to close processes, and it has to stop. This is 
not good for our democracy, this is not what this House of 
Representatives is about, and unless people on both sides of the aisle 
start coming together to vote no on these closed rules, you are going 
to see more and more closed rules. So let me begin by again urging all 
my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.
  Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle would like us to believe 
that their bill only has in mind the needs of desperate and troubled 
teens. If that were genuinely the case, if they were indeed truly 
interested in children's welfare, then this House would have already 
passed legislation to provide America's young men and women with 
comprehensive pregnancy prevention and education.
  As a father, I would like to think that we live in a world where 
incest, rape and unintended pregnancies did not occur. Sadly, Mr. 
Speaker, that is simply not the case. All too often, young women find 
themselves in difficult situations with few, if any, sympathetic people 
to turn to for advice.
  Like all my House colleagues, I would hope that the first person to 
come to mind would be a parent. But, Mr. Speaker, every single Member 
of this Chamber knows that that is not always the case. Research shows 
that at least 60 percent of minors considering an abortion freely turn 
to and involve their parents. Those who do not, however, are often 
victims of violence and have multiple reasons for not doing so. 
Currently, 23 States have some type of parental involvement laws, 
including my own State of Massachusetts. Twenty-seven do not.
  This bill pretends to open the lines of communication between parents 
and teens, but daily we are shown examples of parents who not only may 
not know what is best for their child but who may themselves be part of 
the problem.
  I am reminded of Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, a Episcopal priest from 
Massachusetts who spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004. 
She recounted a story of a young girl who became pregnant as a result 
of date rape. Afraid to tell her father, the girl went to her school 
nurse. The nurse agreed that it was in the girl's best interests not to 
tell her father for fear of the girl's safety.
  While driving an hour into Boston, Reverend Hancock Ragsdale chatted 
with the girl, who divulged that she felt very guilty about becoming 
pregnant. Compassionate about these feelings of guilt, the Reverend 
spoke with the girl about the incident. She told the priest about ``a 
really cute boy'' from her school she had met and who had asked her 
out. He asked her to have sex and she refused. He asked her again and 
again. Then he pushed her down and forced himself on her. Since he did 
not threaten her with a weapon or cause any bodily harm, she did not 
know to call it rape. She blamed herself for not knowing he wasn't a 
nice guy and she blamed herself for getting pregnant.
  Reverend Hancock Ragsdale offered solace and advice. In her most 
desperate hours, this girl was able find the comfort she so desperately 
needed. In addition to providing emotional support, the Reverend was 
able to help this girl fill out the mountains of paperwork and fill the 
necessary prescriptions. The advice and guidance a child would hope to 
receive from a parent was administered in this case by a trusted 
spiritual leader.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Association, the American Academy 
of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American 
College of Physicians all, all agree that mandatory parental consent 
notification can be highly detrimental to young women.
  Shouldn't we be inviting the experts in health care to help us in 
drafting and making these recommendations and protocol? Instead, we 
come to the House floor under a closed rule, stand on our soapboxes, 
and declare that we know what is best for every single child under 
every single circumstance in America.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle will claim 
that this

[[Page H7366]]

bill makes improvements to the Senate bill, that this bill provides 
protections for victims of incest, that this bill is somehow good 
policy. The truth is this bill weakens an already bad Senate bill.
  While it is true that the Sensenbrenner amendment would preclude an 
incestuous parent from suing a person who accompanies a minor to a 
doctor out of State for abortion care, this bill still makes it a 
Federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a teenaged 
incest survivor for abortion care out of State. In other words, grandma 
can go to jail for years just for taking her granddaughter across State 
lines to abort a pregnancy caused by the young girl's father, but the 
father can't sue the grandmother in court.
  Who in this Chamber believes that a child should be forced to go 
forward with a pregnancy caused by her father or brother or her uncle 
or her stepfather? I wish I never had to think about such scenarios, 
but they occur all too frequently. And it would be foolish for us to 
compound the horror of this child by joining all the other adults who 
turned a blind eye to her desperate situation.
  Yes, we should reduce the number of children having sex. Yes, we 
should reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. Yes, we should all 
work together to reduce the number of abortions. But this bill does not 
address these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a reason we are considering this bill one week 
before the House adjourns for the midterm elections: Politics. It is 
the political season, and anything that gets the juices flowing on the 
so-called hot button issues is fair game. But that is not the way we 
should be legislating. This isn't the first time the sensitive issue of 
abortion will be used for political purposes, and it won't be the last, 
and I urge my colleagues to reject politics as usual and defeat this 
closed rule.
  Even if there are individuals in this House who are sympathetic in 
terms of supporting this bill, again, reject this rule. This habit of 
closing everything down, of basically locking out democracy has to end, 
and Members of both sides need to have the guts to stand up and vote 
``no'' on these rules.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to speak on 
behalf of the rule, supporting the rule, that would move this 
legislation to the floor.
  We have been debating this issue for a number of years, since 
certainly before I came to Congress in 2001, and it is a very important 
issue. It is an issue of respect.
  My colleagues and I, many of us, served in State legislatures before 
we came here; and we had the opportunity to move forward legislation 
that would require parental notification, parental consent before a 
minor girl could be subjected to the procedure called abortion.
  Unfortunately, there are still some States that do not have such 
laws, though they are in the minority. My State of Pennsylvania is one 
that does have one of these laws, and the people in the Commonwealth 
are overwhelmingly supportive of it. Unfortunately, some neighboring 
States don't have these laws, and we have heard terrible stories in 
recent years of young girls as young as 12 brought across the border by 
often the perpetrator of a rape to be given an abortion, to hide the 
crime, to hide the relationship and, unfortunately, further providing 
further damage to that young girl.
  What this bill would do is prevent this from happening. If a State 
has the requirement for parental notification or consent before a minor 
girl can have an abortion, then other States must respect the home 
State's law.
  It only makes sense, Mr. Speaker, for government to respect the 
relationship between the parent and the child. It is most important for 
us to respect that relationship, because that is the relationship that 
will guide that girl into responsible adulthood. Currently, 
unfortunately, we allow many States to interject and interrupt and 
really disrespect that relationship.
  This bill will remedy the problem. This remedy will make it a 
criminal offense to transport a child across the State lines for the 
purpose of having an abortion. In many of these cases, it has been an 
adult male who has exploited the teenager who then becomes pregnant and 
is, of course, pressuring her to get an abortion and sometimes is the 
one to transport her across the State lines.
  The idea of doing so defies all logic. Critics argue that these young 
girls are in the worst possible situation, like rape or incest should 
be exempted from this law, that this is especially cruel to them. But 
these girls are in the worst situation of all, and it is certainly most 
important for us to protect these girls, because rape and incest could 
be hidden if we don't pass this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and in support of 
the bill, and I am sure my colleagues will do the same, especially now 
that the Senate has agreed to it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York, the ranking member on the House Rules Committee, Ms. 
Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have been standing on the floor of this House for years talking 
about this very issue. And thinking about what I have just heard: If a 
young girl 10 or 12 years old, as I understand it, was victimized by 
rape or incest, we should not help her to do something not to carry a 
child but to support her. I wish I had time to elaborate on that 
further. What kind of support do you give a 10-year-old pregnant girl? 
What do we do for her?
  But I rise today in strong opposition to this bill, because, once 
again, we are playing politics with women's lives. We could be spending 
this week before adjournment working to help Americans in real ways by 
raising the minimum wage, for example, or making higher education more 
accessible, or reducing the national debt. But, instead of doing that, 
this Congress could think of nothing better to do than to meddle with 
one of the most private decisions that women have to make in their 
lives.
  The Child Custody Protection Act is almost exactly the same as the 
bill we voted on earlier in the year, and I guess it was found to be 
such a crowd pleaser we would like an encore. That bill, like this one, 
was an invasion into the private lives of American families as well as 
an attack on the legal rights afforded to all women in this country. We 
do have legal rights as women.
  Not only will this bill fail to enhance the health of young women in 
America, it will fail to reduce the number of abortions that take place 
each year. It will force vulnerable young women to seek out illegal and 
unsafe venues for terminating pregnancies, and most of us in my 
generation know women who had to do that.
  Now, if we really wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies, in Congress, 
we could pass the Prevention First Act which is just lying around in 
limbo here. It would reduce the abortions by expanding teen education 
about preventing pregnancy and approve their access to contraception.
  And this bill is not going to do anything to promote healthy 
families. It will criminalize grandparents. Imagine sending Granny to 
jail. Other caregivers are also subject to great penalties, while 
letting the people who committed the real crime, the rapists, the 
person who committed incest, they go scot free, and they can even sue 
the girl.
  In all the years that I have spent working on behalf of women's 
health, I have never seen a single drop of evidence that supports this 
supposed epidemic we are going to talk about here today. There is no 
evidence that young women are being transported in great numbers across 
State lines for abortions.
  So why are we here? Why are we here? Because this is a crowd pleaser, 
as I said before. It is not about protecting young women. It is gaining 
political points. We have a duty in this body to maximize the freedom, 
the quality, and the rights of our citizens, the strands that form the 
fabric of our society. But to toss these fundamental rights away simply 
to score a few points at the polls is indefensible. We can do better. I 
urge all the Members to oppose this bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes 
to

[[Page H7367]]

the author of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule 
on Senate bill 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. I would like to 
commend Chairman Sensenbrenner for his continued leadership on this 
bill throughout the years, as well as Majority Mr. Leader Boehner for 
his help in bringing this crucial legislation to the floor this 
morning.
  Abortion is perhaps one of the most life-altering, obviously, and 
life-threatening of procedures. It leaves lasting medical, emotional, 
and psychological consequences, especially for young girls.
  The Child Custody Protection Act makes it a Federal offense to 
transport a minor girl across State lines in order to circumvent that 
State's abortion parental notification or consent laws.
  This legislation has passed the House of Representatives once, twice, 
three times; and it passed the Senate this Congress by a bipartisan 
vote of 65-34.
  In April of 2005, this Chamber overwhelmingly passed my bill, the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, CIANA. CIANA incorporates 
all of the provisions that were previously contained in the Child 
Custody Protection Act and requires that, in a State without a parental 
notification requirement, that abortion providers notify a parent. This 
important provision will be included in this legislation, and I urge my 
colleagues to support this provision and ensure that we pass a more 
comprehensive bill.
  There are many rules and regulations in our society that work to 
ensure the safety of our Nation's youth through parental support, 
parental guidance. In most schools, an under-aged child is prohibited 
from attending a school field trip without first obtaining a signed 
permission slip from a parent or a legal guardian. I have signed many 
for my daughters. But the decision of whether or not to obtain an 
abortion, a life-changing, potentially fatal and serious medical 
procedure, that seems to be an exception to these rules.
  As a mother of two young ladies, I want to know what is going on with 
my girls on something as significant and as medically life-altering as 
an abortion. This legislation closes a loophole that allows adults to 
help minors break State laws by obtaining an abortion without parental 
consent. It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, that such a bill would even be 
necessary, because transporting a minor across State lines without 
parental permission for any other reason but to have an abortion is 
already a crime.
  Therefore, I ask my colleagues to join me once again in supporting 
this commonsense legislation and the substitute amendment to strengthen 
the bill to ensure that our precious children are protected and that 
the right of our parents are upheld.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond by making a 
couple of points.
  I have heard a number of people get up here and say they strongly 
support a rule. How can you strongly support a closed process? How can 
you not be in favor of allowing Members of this House, who have various 
concerns about this bill and different opinions about this bill and 
different opinions about how we can best deal with some of these very 
delicate issues, how can you be proud and strongly in support of a 
process that says that nobody has any right to come here and make any 
suggestions and offer any amendments? I find that appalling. I find it 
appalling.
  And the fact of the matter is this bill amends the Senate bill. The 
Senate bill was a bad bill. This makes it even worse. And somehow to 
claim that what we are doing is trying to make the lives of troubled 
teenaged girls easier in dealing with horrible circumstances, I mean, 
does anybody believe that a young girl who is a victim of incest or a 
young girl who has been raped by her stepfather or her brother is going 
to feel that she can go to her mother? Maybe. But, in many cases, I 
don't believe that is what will happen. So you are taking a tragic 
situation and adding more tragedy to it.
  So I find that puzzling, that we have people coming to the floor 
telling us how this is the right thing to do and that we should somehow 
praise this process that closes off any amendments and any real debate. 
This is a bad bill, and it is a bad process under which it is coming to 
the floor. I don't care what you believe on the issue of choice. The 
fact of the matter is this notion that these bills should come to the 
floor under closed rules I think is just wrong.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I want to let the gentleman from 
Massachusetts know I have no other requests for time, and I will 
reserve for the purpose of closing.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me close by once again urging all 
Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``no'' on 
this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule regardless of what you believe 
about the underlying bill, because we have a broken process in this 
House of Representatives.
  It is wrong for a bill like this or even the previous bill, bills 
that are controversial, to come to this floor under a closed process. 
It is wrong.

                              {time}  1200

  That has become a pattern in this House of Representatives. In this 
Congress, with the exception of appropriation bills, every bill that 
has come to this floor has been under a restricted process with the 
exception of one open rule.
  What a horrendous record. That is not good for this democracy. That 
does not result in good legislation. It is an insult to all of the 
Members of this House, Democrat and Republican, who have good ideas who 
want to be able to legislate. That is what we are sent here for. If we 
want this to end, Members of both sides of the aisle need to stand up 
and have the guts to vote ``no'' on some of these closed rules.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, as I close this debate, I want to respond 
to some of the points that my good friends on the other side of the 
aisle have stated. They stated their concern about situations where a 
minor has been raped or a minor has been abused by her own parent, 
indeed, a case of incest and what do you want to do about that. I want 
to make sure that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
indeed, on both sides of the aisle understand that there are clear 
exceptions in this bill. And they are important. They are very 
important exceptions, and I don't argue with that point that is made.
  Let me, Madam Speaker, enumerate a couple of those exceptions. It 
allows an out-of-state abortion to be performed without parental 
notification if it is done to save the life of the minor. And it allows 
an out-of-state abortion, and this is most important to that point, an 
out-of-state abortion to be performed where a physician is given 
documentation showing that the court in the minor's home State has 
waived parental notification requirements which certainly would be 
waived in those situations.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, let me reemphasize the importance of 
Senate bill S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, as a safeguard of 
parental rights and protection for our minors. Almost 80 percent of 
Americans favor parental notification laws according to a poll 
conducted by the New York Times, yet current State laws can be 
circumvented and violated through the interstate transportation of 
minors. Allowing our children to be carted across State lines by 
nonguardians to get an abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally 
wrong.
  I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and 
we can talk about process all day long, you have a right, but to vote 
against this rule and this bill is just beyond my imagination.
  With over 30 States already requiring some type of parental 
notification, Congress cannot turn a blind eye to those who would 
violate the law and endanger our children.
  Madam Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and a moral duty to 
children and to their parents to make sure State laws are upheld to 
prevent nonguardians from making medical decisions for our children.
  Frankly, Madam Speaker, our Nation's parents and children deserve 
better, and this bill will ensure that they get the care and 
consideration that they need. Again, I would like to thank

[[Page H7368]]

the sponsors of this legislation, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen in the House and Mr. 
Ensign in the Senate; and I want to thank all of my colleagues who 
support efforts to preserve the authority of parents to oversee the 
well-being of their own children.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule 
and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________