[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15388-15389]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                             HON. RON PAUL

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 30, 1999

  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause 
(preventing abortions 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

[[Page 15389]]

which prescribes a procedural structure by which the nation is 
protected from what is perhaps the worst evil, totalitarianism carried 
out by a centralized government. Who, after all, wants to be amongst 
those members of Congress who are portrayed as trampling parental 
rights or supporting the transportation of minor females across state 
lines for ignoble purposes.
  As an obstetrician of more than thirty years, I have personally 
delivered more than 4,000 children. During such time, I have not 
performed a single abortion. On the contrary, I have spoken and written 
extensively and publicly condemning this ``medical'' procedure. At the 
same time, I have remained committed to upholding the Constitutional 
procedural protections which leave the police power decentralized and 
in control of the states. In the name of protecting states' rights, 
this bill usurps states' rights by creating yet another federal crime.
  Our federal government is, constitutionally, a government of limited 
powers. Article one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative areas 
for which the U.S. Congress is allowed to act or enact legislation. For 
every other issue, the federal government lacks any authority or 
consent of the governed and only the state governments, their 
designees, or the people in their private market actions enjoy such 
rights to governance. The tenth amendment is brutally clear in stating 
``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the people.'' Our nation's history makes clear that 
the U.S. Constitution is a document intended to limit the power of 
central government. No serious reading of historical events surrounding 
the creation of the Constitution could reasonably portray it 
differently.
  Nevertheless, rather than abide by our constitutional limits, 
Congress today will likely pass H.R. 1218. H.R. 1218 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.

  Most recently, 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 stated in his year-end 
report ``The trend to federalize crimes that traditionally have been 
handled in state courts . . . threatens to change entirely the nature 
of our federal system.'' Meese stated that Congress' tendency in recent 
decades to make federal crimes out of offenses that have historically 
been state matters has dangerous implications both for the fair 
administration of justice and for the principle that states are 
something more than mere administrative districts of a nation governed 
mainly from Washington.
  The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized 
criminal code and a federal police force is that states may be less 
effective than a centralized federal government in dealing with those 
who leave one state jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the 
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the 
integrity of state sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via 
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as 
full faith and credit clause allow states to exact judgments from those 
who violate their state laws. The Constitution even allows the federal 
government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which 
allow states to enforce their substantive laws without the federal 
government imposing its substantive edicts on the states. Article IV, 
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from 
one state to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed 
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon 
states in working with one another rather than relying on a national, 
unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to 
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 
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. 1218.

                          ____________________