[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 125 (Friday, September 29, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10616-S10618]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I oppose cloture on the Child Custody 
Protection Act, S. 403, because there are not adequate safeguards for 
young women seeking abortions, particularly in cases of rape, incest, 
or health of the minor.
  On September 22, 1998, I voted against cloture on a similar bill. On 
July 25, 2006, I voted against a similar bill.
  Those bills, like the one now pending, made it a crime to take a 
minor across state lines for purposes of obtaining an abortion without 
parental consent or notification. I opposed that legislation because of 
my concern for minor girls who have an abusive or bad relationship with 
their parents, including circumstances of incest. Such a relationship 
makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the girl to admit to being 
pregnant or to express her desire to obtain an abortion. Additionally I 
am concerned with the delay this bill poses on young girls seeking 
abortions in the case of rape or health risks.
  Proponents of this legislation have urged me to support it on the 
ground that the state judicial bypass laws provide a sufficient means 
for young girls who have such a bad relationship with their parents, to 
receive judicial authorization to secure an abortion without their 
parents' knowledge or consent.
  It has been suggested to me that there may be compelling data that 
the judicial bypass procedures provide a sufficient means for such 
girls' interests to be protected. On the current state of the record, 
however, I believe that the judicial bypass procedures are not 
adequate, so I do not believe that a Federal crime should be legislated 
for those who take minor girls across state lines to secure an 
abortion.
  To those who have urged me to support the legislation and have asked 
me to review such data, I have replied that I would be willing to study 
any such information. As noted, on this date of the record, I could not 
support legislating a Federal crime on this issue.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I cannot support the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act, CIANA. First, I object to the decision to 
bring this bill directly to the floor, circumventing the

[[Page S10617]]

Senate's committee process, and to prevent Senators from offering 
amendments. This bill contains provisions that have never been debated 
in the Senate not in committee, and not on the floor. Part of the bill 
we are considering today consists of the Child Custody Protection Act, 
which did pass the Senate earlier this year although without being 
considered in committee. But this bill also contains a number of 
additional troubling provisions that should go through the committee 
process. At a minimum, Senators should have an opportunity to offer 
amendments to legislation that could have such a serious impact on 
young women's lives.
  I voted against the Child Custody Protection Act when it came before 
the Senate in July because the bill is an overreach of federal power 
that comes at the expense of the health and safety of young women. The 
notion that one state may not impose its laws outside its territorial 
boundaries is a core federalist principle, and I believe this bill 
might very well violate the Constitution. States should retain their 
right to enact and implement appropriate policies within their 
territorial boundaries. The Child Custody Protection Act would preempt 
these rights by allowing the laws of certain states to essentially 
trump the laws in other states.
  The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, in addition to 
containing the language of the Child Custody Protection Act, includes a 
number of other, even more problematic, provisions. It would implement 
onerous new Federal notification and consent requirements in states 
whose existing state laws do not meet the bill's standards, raising 
serious federalism concerns, and would subject providers to criminal 
penalties for failing to comply. In addition, these requirements would 
vary for teens and providers according to the state in which the minor 
lives and the state to which she travels, making them extremely 
difficult to comply with. Not only that, but the new federal 
requirements do not include a judicial bypass procedure, and do not 
have an adequate health exception.
  In an ideal world, all young women who face this difficult decision 
would be able to turn to their parents. But we do not live in an ideal 
world, and the reality is that there are young women who feel they 
cannot turn to a parent out of fear of physical abuse or mental abuse, 
getting kicked out of the house, or worse. This bill would deny these 
young women the ability to turn to another trusted adult for help.
  Our focus in the Senate should be on ensuring that unintended 
pregnancies do not happen in the first place. For these reasons, I 
intend to continue my work in the Senate to ensure that all women have 
access to the best information and reproductive health services 
available. If we do that, abortions will become even more rare, as well 
as staying safe and legal.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Child Custody 
Protection Act, which will protect the rights of our Nation's parents 
and their children's well-being.
  I was very pleased with the work of this body when the Child Custody 
Protection Act came before the Senate in July. Through the hard work of 
my colleagues, I believe we were able to come up with an even stronger 
bill designed to protect our young daughters.
  The only successful amendment offered to the Child Custody Protection 
Act contained two important clarifying provisions dealing with parents 
who commit incest.
  Senator Boxer and I worked together to ensure that parents who have 
committed the heinous act of incest are unable to sue, and therefore 
profit from, someone else who has transported their minor across State 
lines for an abortion.
  The Ensign-Boxer amendment also added a new provision making it 
Federal crime for someone who has committed incest to transport their 
victim across State lines for an abortion.
  Recognizing the importance of preserving parent's rights, the Senate 
passed the Child Custody Protection Act by a vote of 65 to 34.
  The support of 14 Democrats reflects the reality that this not an 
issue divided on pro-life or pro-choice lines.
  There is broad and consistent support to preserve the rights of 
parents.
  An overwhelming number of States have recognized that a young girl's 
parents are the best source of guidance and knowledge when making 
decisions regarding serious surgical or medical procedures, like 
abortion.
  Forty-five States have adopted some form of parental notification or 
consent law, proving their widespread support for protecting the rights 
of parents.
  The people that care the most for the child should be involved in 
these kinds of health care decisions and, if there is aftercare needed, 
be fully informed in order to care for their young daughter.
  Additionally, a huge majority support parental consent laws. In fact, 
most polls show that consent is favored by almost 80 percent of 
Americans.
  These numbers do not lie; the American people agree that parents 
deserve the right to be involved in their minor children's decisions.
  The bill before us today makes it a Federal offense to knowingly 
transport a minor across a State line, for the purposes of an abortion, 
in order to circumvent a State's parental consent or notification law.
  It specifies that neither the minor transported nor her parent may be 
prosecuted for a violation of this act.
  The purpose of the Child Custody Protection Act is to prevent people, 
including abusive boyfriends and predatory older males who may have 
committed rape, from pressuring young girls into having secret 
abortions without their parents consent.
  The bill also requires an abortionist to give 24 hours' notice to a 
parent of the minor from another State before performing the abortion. 
Several exceptions are made, including exceptions related to parental 
abuse and the life and bodily health of the mother.
  Should the abortionist fail to do so, they could face a fine or jail 
time.
  We are reminded how important parental notification is when we hear 
the story of Marcia Carroll and her daughter, from Pennsylvania.
  Ms. Carroll's daughter was, without her mother's knowledge, pressured 
by her boyfriend's stepfather to take a train and cross State lines and 
have an abortion she didn't want to have and which she now regrets and 
seeks continual counseling for.
  The abortion provider who performed an abortion on Mrs. Carroll's 
daughter had a long history of abusing his patients.
  Mrs. Carroll should have been given an opportunity to learn about the 
history of her child's doctor, who had been professionally disciplined 
multiple times for having sex with a patient in his office, for 
performing improper rectal and breast exams on two others, and for 
indiscriminately prescribing controlled dangerous substances.
  The parents of America should be given the chance to make sure their 
children's doctors are not potential sexual abusers and controlled 
substance pushers, and this legislation would give them that chance.
  As Mrs. Carroll testified, ``I felt safe when [the police] told me my 
daughter had to be . . . of age in the State of Pennsylvania to have an 
abortion without parental consent . . . It never occurred to me that I 
would need to check the laws of other States around me.
  I thought as a resident of the State of Pennsylvania that she was 
protected by Pennsylvania State laws. Boy, was I ever wrong.''
  Dr. Bruce A. Lucero, an abortion provider, has supported this 
legislation because ``patients who receive abortions at out-of-state 
clinics frequently do not return for follow-up care, which can lead to 
dangerous complications.''
  Sure enough, the abortion provider who performed an abortion on Mrs. 
Carroll's daughter failed to schedule a followup visit with her to help 
ensure there were no postabortion complications.
  Speaking as the father of three young children, including a daughter, 
I understand how difficult the challenges of raising children can be.
  In most schools across the country, our children cannot go on a field 
trip, take part in school activities, or participate in sex education 
without a signed permission slip. An underage child cannot even receive 
mild medication, such as aspirin, unless the school nurse has a signed 
release form. Some states even require parental permission to use 
indoor tanning beds.
  Nothing, however, prevents this same child from being taken across 
State

[[Page S10618]]

lines, in direct disobedience of State laws, for the purpose of 
undergoing a life-altering abortion.
  In many cases, only a girl's parents know her prior medical and 
psychological history, including allergies to medications and 
anesthesia.
  The harsh reality is our current law allows for parents to be left 
uninformed about their underage daughter's abortion, which can be 
devastating to the physical and mental health of the child.
  Parental notification serves another vital purpose--ensuring 
increased protection against sexual exploitation of minors by adult 
men.
  All too often, our young girls are the victims of the predatory 
practices of men who are older, more experienced, and in a unique 
position to influence the minor's decisions.
  According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, ``almost two-thirds 
of adolescent mothers have partners older than 20 years of age.''
  Rather than face a statutory rape charge, these men or their families 
use the vulnerability of the young girl against her, exerting pressure 
on the girl to agree to an abortion without talking to her parents.
  In fact, in a survey of 1500 unmarried minors having abortions 
without their parents' knowledge, 89 percent said that a boyfriend was 
involved in the decision.
  The number goes even higher the younger the age of the minor.
  Allowing secret abortions do nothing to expose these men and there 
heinous conduct.
  In the unfortunate instance of abuse or where there is rape or incest 
involved within a family, minors may be afraid to go to one of the 
parents. In response, judicial bypass laws have been written across the 
country to protect the minor.
  This legislation is a commonsense solution to defeat the legal 
loophole that currently results in parents being denied the right to 
know about the health decisions of their minor daughters--a fact which 
the Supreme Court upheld in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which states, 
that it is the State's right to declare that an abortion should not be 
performed on a minor unless a parent is consulted.
  This is not an argument on the merits of abortion; rather, this is a 
debate about preserving the fundamental right of parents to have 
knowledge about the health decisions of their minor daughters.
  Parental permission is so important because parents are the most 
intimately involved people in their children's lives.
  We cannot allow another young girl's life to be irreparably damaged 
because of a legal loophole that keeps parents from being involved in 
one of the most major decisions their daughter may make in her life.
  It is time for Congress to step up and commit to protecting our 
daughters by assuring that a parent's right to be involved is 
protected.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am a proud cosponsor of S. 403, the 
Child Custody Protection Act. This bill has strong bipartisan support 
as illustrated by its vote of 65 to 34 that occurred in July. 
Unfortunately, due to political maneuvers by its opponents, the 
enactment of this critical legislation is being blocked.
  This is one of the most important pieces of legislation to be 
considered during the 109th Congress. Why is this legislation so 
important? Because despite the fact that 23 States require a minor to 
receive parental consent prior to obtaining an abortion, these 
important laws are being violated. Today, minors, with the assistance 
of adults who are not their parents, are being transported across State 
lines to receive abortions without obtaining parental consent. We must 
end this circumvention of State laws and, more importantly, the 
consequences such actions have on life.
  S. 403 would make it a Federal offense to help a minor cross lines 
for the purpose of obtaining an abortion, unless it is needed to save 
the life of the minor. Its enactment is critical, and we cannot allow 
its opponents to continue to stall needlessly its progress.
  Earlier this month, I joined with 40 of my colleagues in urging the 
majority leader to take action to enable this legislation to continue 
through the legislative process. The leader has now taken such action. 
On Wednesday, a cloture motion was filed to break the opponents logjam, 
and I applaud and support this action. We must do all that we can to 
move this critical legislation to the President's desk.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, under rule XXII, the 
clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     concur in the House amendment to S. 403: a bill 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.

         Bill Frist, John Ensign, Tom Coburn, Craig Thomas, Jim 
           DeMint, Wayne Allard, Mitch McConnell, Trent Lott, Jim 
           Bunning, Conrad Burns, Ted Stevens, Johnny Isakson, 
           John Cornyn, Jeff Sessions, Larry Craig, Mike Crapo, 
           John Thune.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to concur in the amendment of the House to S. 403, the Child 
Custody Protection Act, shall be brought to a close.
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Kennedy) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 263 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Alexander
     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Burr
     Byrd
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     DeWine
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Talent
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner

                                NAYS--42

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Clinton
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Obama
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1
                                    

     Kennedy
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this question, the yeas are 57; the nays 
are 42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having 
voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

                          ____________________