[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 19826-19837]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1039, I 
call up the Senate 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, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the Senate bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1039, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in House 
Report 109-679 is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is 
considered read.
  The text of the Senate bill, as amended, is as follows:

     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.
``2432. 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 or a foreign 
     nation 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 unless the parent has committed an act of 
     incest with the minor subject to subsection (a).
       ``(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, to terminate an 
     ectopic pregnancy, 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
       ``(5) the term `State' includes the District of Columbia 
     and any commonwealth, possession, or other territory of the 
     United States, and any Indian tribe or reservation.

     ``Sec. 2432. Transportation of minors in circumvention of 
       certain laws relating to abortion

       ``Notwithstanding section 2431(b)(2), whoever has committed 
     an act of incest with a minor and knowingly transports the 
     minor across a State line with the intent that such minor 
     obtain an abortion, shall be fined under this title or 
     imprisoned not more than one year, or both. For the purposes 
     of this section, the terms `State', `minor', and `abortion' 
     have, respectively, the definitions given those terms in 
     section 2435.''.

     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
``2435. Child interstate abortion notification

     ``Sec. 2435. 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, or cause his or her agent to 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, in force, a law 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;
       ``(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, or because in the reasonable medical 
     judgment of the minor's attending physician, the delay in 
     performing an abortion occasioned by fulfilling the prior 
     notification requirement of subsection (a)(2) would cause a 
     substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily 
     function of the minor arising from continued pregnancy, not 
     including psychological or emotional conditions, but an 
     exception under this paragraph does not apply unless the 
     attending  physician or an agent of such physician, within 24 
     hours after completion of the abortion, notifies a parent in 
     writing that an abortion was performed on the minor

[[Page 19827]]

     and of the circumstances that warranted invocation of this 
     paragraph; or
       ``(5) the minor is physically accompanied by a person who 
     presents the physician or his agent with documentation 
     showing with a reasonable degree of certainty that he or she 
     is in fact the parent of that minor.
       ``(c) Civil Action.--Any parent who suffers harm from a 
     violation of subsection (a) may obtain appropriate relief in 
     a civil action unless the parent has committed an act of 
     incest with the minor subject to subsection (a).
       ``(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, to terminate an 
     ectopic pregnancy, 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, by the physician or any agent of 
     the physician;
       ``(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, and any Indian tribe or reservation.''.

     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..................2435''.

     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) This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take 
     effect 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) each will 
control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill, S. 
403, currently under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 403, the Child Custody 
Protection Act. As amended by the rule, the legislation before us 
contains provisions substantially similar to H.R. 748, the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which overwhelmingly passed the 
House in April of 2005 by a vote of 270-157.

                              {time}  1645

  Laws that require parental notification of a minor's abortion are 
overwhelmingly supported by the American people. A 2005 poll by Pew 
Research Center found that large majorities believe that girls under 18 
should receive parental consent before an abortion. According to the 
poll, half of self-described liberal Democrats favor requiring young 
women to get the consent of at least one parent before getting an 
abortion, and nearly three-quarters of moderate or conservative 
Democrats favor requiring parental consent.
  Across the country, parental consent is required before performing 
routine medical services, such as providing aspirin, before permitting 
children to go on field trips or participate in contact sports, or 
before a minor can get a tattoo or body piercing. Yet people other than 
parents can secretly take children across State lines for abortion 
without their parents' knowledge.
  The legislation we consider on the floor today addresses this absurd 
dichotomy by establishing clear rules to protect the health and 
physical safety of young girls, while safeguarding fundamental parental 
rights.
  The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or CIANA, for short, 
contains two central provisions. The first makes it a Federal crime to 
transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion in another 
State or foreign country in order to avoid a State law requiring 
parental involvement in a minor's abortion decision. Twenty-six States 
currently have such parental involvement laws. This provision will 
prevent abusive boyfriends and older men who may have committed rape 
from pressuring young girls into receiving secret out-of-State 
abortions to keep the abuser's sexual crimes hidden from authorities.
  It is crucial to emphasize that the first section of CIANA does not 
apply to the minors themselves, nor to their parents, nor does it apply 
in life-threatening emergencies that may require an immediate abortion.
  The second section of CIANA contains a parental notification rule 
that applies in cases in which a minor is a resident of one State and 
presents herself for an abortion in another State that does not have a 
parental involvement law. In these circumstances, CIANA makes it a 
Federal crime for the abortion provider to fail to give one of the 
minor's parents or legal guardian 24 hours' notice of the minor's 
abortion decision before the abortion is performed. This section 
protects fundamental parental rights by giving parents a chance to help 
their young daughters in difficult circumstances. This includes giving 
a health care provider the daughter's medical history to ensure that 
she receives safe medical care.
  The second section of CIANA would not apply if an applicable parental 
law in the State where the abortion is being performed is complied 
with. In addition, Section 2 would not apply if the physician is 
presented with documentation that a court in the minor's home State has 
authorized an abortion.
  Further exceptions to this section include if the minor states that 
she has been the victim of abuse by a parent and the abortion provider 
informs the State authorities of such abuse, or if a life-threatening 
or other medical emergency requires that the abortion be performed 
immediately.
  As previously noted, the amendment in the nature of a substitute to 
S. 403 is substantially similar to H.R. 748 but also includes 
clarifying provisions adopted in the other body and other technical 
changes which further improve the legislation.
  The amendment would prevent a parent who has committed incest from 
being able to obtain money damages under the bill's provisions, and it 
makes it a Federal crime for someone who has committed incest to 
transport a minor across a State line to obtain an abortion.
  In addition, the substitute contains an exception to the notification 
requirement if a parent is physically present when the minor obtains 
the abortion. The amendment also makes clear that the parental 
notification need not be provided by the abortion

[[Page 19828]]

provider personally but by an agent of the abortion provider.
  The amendment also contains a technical change to the definition of 
abortion that excludes treatment for potentially dangerous pregnancies 
and creates a new medical emergency exception to ensure that the 
legislation will withstand any constitutional challenge.
  Finally, it makes clear that the bill's provisions apply when State 
lines are crossed to enter any foreign nation or Tribal lands.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this crucial legislation 
to protect the health and safety of America's minor daughters.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation, which we have already considered in 
this Congress, poses a real threat to the lives and health of young 
women. It would require a minor who is pregnant, possibly as a result 
of parental abuse, incest, to carry the parental notification laws of 
her home State on her back to another State and hold doctors, 
grandparents, clergy and anyone else who tries to help her a criminal. 
The sponsors, not satisfied with extending State laws into other 
States, now want to enforce those State laws in other countries.
  Not since the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850 have we 
used the power of the Federal Government to enforce the laws of one 
State on the territory of another.
  This latest crazy quilt of restrictions obviously has but one 
purpose, to impede the practice of medicine, to ensure that young women 
will have as few options as possible, to make criminals of relatives 
and adults, or minors, for that manner, who try to help them, and to 
teach those States, such as mine, that do not believe that these laws 
promote adolescent health, that Congress knows best and our citizens 
and our States do not.
  Often, that adult assisting the minor is a grandparent, a sibling or 
member of the clergy. In some cases, the young woman may not be able to 
go to her parents because the parents are a danger to her.
  We all agree that, ideally, a young woman faced with a choice of 
having abortion should go to her parents. But in some cases she may not 
be able to. That is what happened to Spring Adams, a 13-year-old from 
Idaho. She was shot to death by her father after he found out that she 
planned to terminate a pregnancy, a pregnancy caused by his own act of 
incest. But, under this bill, anyone who helped her cross the State 
line to get an abortion without telling her father so she could get 
shot would be guilty of a crime.
  This bill also uses a narrow definition of medical emergency that 
seems to have been lifted from one of Attorney General Gonzalez's 
infamous torture memos. The prohibition ``does not apply if 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 or because in the reasonable medical 
judgment of the minor's attending physician the delay in performing the 
abortion occasioned by fulfilling the prior requirement would cause a 
substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of 
the minor arising from continued pregnancy, not including psychological 
or emotional condition,'' so long as the physician notifies the parent 
within 24 hours.
  The bill now also excludes ectopic pregnancies and the removal of a 
dead fetus, for which I suppose civilized people should be grateful.
  It is progress, although it still falls far short of the protection 
for a woman's health required by the Constitution, which the courts 
have ruled requires an explicit exception to protect the life or health 
of the woman, not just those few conditions a few extremists find 
acceptable.
  No mental health exception? That is the only justification for 
helping a young woman who has been raped by her father. There is 
certainly no physical risk, yet this bill would require a doctor to 
seek that father's permission.
  There are many things far short of death or a substantial and 
irreversible impairment of a major bodily function that can endanger a 
young woman. She deserves prompt and professional medical care, and no 
matter how much some people don't like it, the Constitution protects 
her right to receive that care.
  In a perfect world, loving, supportive and understanding families 
would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in 
the majority of cases, with or without a 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 or 
to a grandparent or a sibling or some other trusted adult. And this 
bill would turn those people into criminals.
  If a 16-year-old girl was accompanied across a State line by her 16-
year-old boyfriend for an abortion, this would make the boyfriend a 
criminal. If a rabbi or priest or minister helped her across the State 
line, knowing that her father or mother were violent and therefore they 
couldn't dare ask for parental notification, this would turn them into 
a criminal. The same thing with a grandfather or a brother or a sister. 
We should not be turning people who are helping people in distress into 
criminals. That is wrong.
  This bill, although slightly modified, is as wrong and as dangerous 
today as it was when this House considered this last time.
  There is another thing, too. We believe in 50 different States in 
this country. We believe in State sovereignty within the Federal 
limits. We call the States laboratories of democracy.
  Many States, I think more than half, have chosen to have parental 
consent notification laws. Other States have chosen not to. We ought to 
respect the States that have chosen not to, as well as those that have 
chosen to do so. And to say that because someone comes from a State 
with a parental notification law, if she goes to a State without a 
parental notification law, someone who helps her to go there is 
committing a crime, I think that is unconstitutional and is a violation 
of the right to interstate commerce, to interstate travel.
  But it also, as I said before, is an attempt to say to New York, 
which does not require parental notification and consent, that the law 
of some other State which does must prevail in your State as long as 
the person comes from that State. She can't escape it. She carries it 
with her on her back.
  We have never tried to enforce the laws of one State in another like 
that since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. It is not a good 
precedent. This bill deserves to be rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the author of 
the bill, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank our distinguished chairman of 
the Judiciary Committee for his leadership throughout the years that 
this bill has been before us.
  I rise in support of S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, a bill 
that has indeed passed the House in 1998, in 1999 and in 2002, making 
it a Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines in order 
to circumvent that State's abortion parental notification laws.
  The legislation before us today, Mr. Speaker, is a commonsense one. 
It protects minors from exploitation from the abortion industry, it 
promotes strong family ties, and it helps foster respect for State 
laws.
  A minor who is forbidden to drink alcohol, to stay out past a certain 
hour or to get her ears pierced without parental consent is certainly 
not prepared to make a life-altering, hazardous and potentially fatal 
decision such as an abortion without the consultation or consent of at 
least one parent.
  Language included in this legislation will also require that an 
abortion provider notify a parent when a minor is transported to a 
State where no parental notification laws exist. This provision is a 
central component to my legislation, the Child Interstate Abortion

[[Page 19829]]

Notification Act, CIANA, which passed in the House with a vote of 270 
in favor and 157 against.
  I am truly pleased and honored that my colleagues in the House and 
Mr. Sensenbrenner have given this important bill further consideration, 
and I urge them once again to join me in supporting legislation that 
speaks to the well-being of all of our daughters.
  This legislation will put an end to the abortion clinics and family 
planning organizations that are really exploiting young, vulnerable 
girls by luring them to recklessly disobey State laws.
  About 80 percent of the public favors parental notification laws. 
Over 50 percent of our States have enacted such laws. Yet sometimes 
these laws can be evaded by interstate transportation of minors, openly 
encouraging them to do so in advertising by abortion providers.
  Parental consent and parental notification laws may vary from State 
to State, but they have all been made with the same purpose in mind, 
Mr. Speaker, to protect frightened and confused adolescent girls from 
harm.
  I urge my colleagues to once again support this vital piece of 
legislation, uphold the safety laws designed by individual States and 
protect the parents' rights to be involved in decisions involving their 
minor daughters.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for 
yielding and for his steadfast support on behalf of women's health and 
a woman's right to choose.
  I rise today to defend once again a woman's right to choose what is 
best for her own body. Prohibiting interstate travel for an abortion 
and punishing those who participated in that travel fails to protect 
the health and safety of women and their children.
  This bill subjects taxi drivers and bus drivers and other 
transportation professionals to jail time, mind you, jail time, 
although they had no knowledge of the activity. Are we in good 
conscience going to legislate penalties against innocent people who do 
not have knowledge or control over the actions of their customers? Are 
we encouraging cabbies and bus drivers to start asking every person, 
every woman that gets into a cab or on a bus, if they are pregnant or 
are they going to have an abortion, because they want to limit their 
liability?

                              {time}  1700

  Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, how could anyone support this bill knowing 
that some of these minors, knowing this, that some of these minors may 
have decided to have an abortion because they have been raped by a 
family member or a guardian? This is simply bad public policy. It will 
turn back the clock not only on choice but on privacy for young women.
  The best way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent 
unintended pregnancies, and the best way to do that is through access 
to contraception and comprehensive sex education. So if my colleagues 
really wanted to reduce abortions, they would support H.R. 2553, the 
Responsible Education About Life Act, or REAL Act, which would allow 
full and comprehensive sex education for our young people. 
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues would rather put cabbies and 
drivers in jail than take real steps to reduce the number of unwanted 
pregnancies in this Nation.
  This bill is nothing short of a public misinformation campaign from 
the conservative religious right to hinder the safety and the health of 
women and girls throughout the country. This bill is intentionally 
dangerous, it is vague, it is harmful to women, it is harmful to 
women's health and the decisions that she must make about her body.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I appreciate the gentleman's work on this bill and 
many bills throughout the years. I rise today in support of the Child 
Custody Protection Act because it returns the fundamental right of 
parenting back where it belongs: to parents.
  Eight in 10 Americans favor parental notification laws. Forty-four 
States have recognized the important role of parents in a minor child's 
decision to have an abortion by enacting parental involvement statutes. 
Even so, many of these laws are being circumvented by individuals who 
simply transport girls across State lines to another State without 
parental notification laws. And, too often, these individuals are grown 
men who have sexually preyed on underaged girls and use abortions to 
cover up their crimes.
  The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that a parent's right to 
control the care of their children is among the most the fundamental of 
all liberty interests. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized 
that parents have a legal right to be involved in their minor 
daughter's decision to seek medical care, including abortion.
  The Supreme Court has also observed that, and I quote, ``the medical, 
emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious 
and can be lasting. It seems unlikely that the minor will obtain 
adequate counsel and support from the attending physician at an 
abortion clinic where the abortions for pregnant minors frequently take 
place.''
  The Supreme Court has also stated that, and I quote, ``minors often 
lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid 
choices that could be detrimental to them.''
  Mr. Speaker, no one has a child's best interest at heart more than 
their parents. Minors have to have parental permission to be given an 
aspirin by the school nurse. Twenty-six States have laws requiring 
parental consent before minors can get body piercings or tattoos. 
Parents must be able to play a role when their minor daughter is 
contemplating such an important decision as what to do with an 
unplanned pregnancy.
  Please join me in supporting the Child Custody Protection Act.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his great leadership on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, young girls desperately need the modest protections 
against exploitation contained in the Child Interstate Abortion 
Notification Act, and they need these protections now, without any 
further delay.
  It is inhumane and unjust that abortion mills in New Jersey and some 
other States aggressively advertise and market secret abortions for 
pregnant minors living in States that have enacted and enforce parental 
involvement statutes. The Yellow Pages in Pennsylvania, for example, 
are filled with ads for children to procure secret abortions in my home 
State. That is unconscionable.
  The fact that older men, including statutory rapists, can secretly 
transport and perhaps pressure or coerce teenagers to go to abortion 
mills for an abortion even as late as 6 months is wrong.
  Who protects the teenagers from abuse? The abortionist? The male who 
wants the baby dead to evade responsibility?
  Policies that enable abortion clinics to circumvent State parental 
involvement laws recklessly and irreversibly endanger the health, 
safety, and well-being of young girls.
  Mr. Speaker, not only are babies being slaughtered at abortion 
clinics, and let's not kid ourselves, the soothing rhetoric of the 
abortion industry has anesthetized many people to the inherent violence 
against children of every abortion. Chemical poison and dismemberment 
is violence against children. But minor girls as well have become 
physically wounded and emotionally wounded by the abortion. They become 
the walking wounded.
  Ask yourselves, when health or emotional complications occur, do we 
really think a young girl and her shocked and broken parents return to 
the abortion mill? I think not.
  Finally, I want to commend Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff for 
the exemplary work they have done on this bill, especially the highly 
persuasive, heavily footnoted majority commentary in the report 
accompanying

[[Page 19830]]

the bill. I wish more Members had the time or made the time to read it. 
It makes a cogent case for this bill, and I urge support for this 
important bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Schmidt).
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I strongly rise in support of the Child 
Custody Protection Act.
  Every State has laws that require minors to get parental consent 
before they are allowed to do simple things like getting an aspirin or 
going on field trips. In many States, parents must give permission 
before their children can get tattoos and body piercings. There are 
reasons for placing these restrictions on minors' freedom, because 
minors often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to 
recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them. One of 
the main roles of parents is to protect children from their own 
inexperience, lack of perspective, and judgment.
  Twenty-six States have considered this issue and determined that it 
is not appropriate for minors to have abortions without any parental 
involvement. Yet the considered judgment of those State legislatures 
and parents in general are easily circumvented by the simple act of 
driving across a State line.
  It is time to restore the rights of parents and States. As a wife and 
a mother, I agree. We in Congress have a duty. I ask for your support.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I have two questions about this bill that are completely 
aside from the merits. One is, why are we doing this bill? We passed 
the bill earlier. We passed essentially this bill earlier this session, 
the Senate passed a bill, and now we are passing a bill that isn't the 
same as the Senate bill. Why? So that no law, so nothing becomes law 
this year.
  So I would like to ask the chairman, the distinguished chairman, why 
we are not passing the same bill the Senate passed? Because, otherwise, 
there is no possibility, as I see it, of getting an agreement before we 
leave.
  I will yield.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The Senate bill has loopholes wide enough to drive a 18-wheeler 
through. If we are doing something, we might as well do something that 
means a bit rather than simply passing a piece of paper.
  Mr. NADLER. Then why are we passing a bill again that we already 
passed earlier this year if the Senate bill is not the same and is not 
satisfactory?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will further yield, this is in 
the hopes that the Senate will look at this modified bill in prayerful 
reflection and send it on to the President.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time. In other words, we pass the bill, the 
Senate passed a different bill which the distinguished chairman thinks 
has many loopholes, and may have, I haven't read it, and so we are 
coming back.
  Here we are, the last week before we adjourn, we haven't passed any 
of the appropriations bills into law, not one, and we are spending time 
on this bill when we have already passed it. And if the Senate has not 
passed it and they want to, they should negotiate with the Senate, they 
should have a conference committee. Instead, we are passing it again.
  And I have to assume that the real reason we are doing it is just for 
political reasons, to rev up the troops of the antiabortion people for 
the election, and there is no real intent to pass a bill.
  I have another question. This bill says in the key line: Whoever 
knowingly transports a minor across a State line with the intent that 
such minor obtains an abortion, blah, blah shall be fined or 
imprisoned.
  My question, sir, and I will yield to you, is what does ``transport'' 
mean?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, it means the same 
thing as the transportation of someone across the State line in 
violation of the Mann Act.
  Mr. NADLER. Well, then reclaiming my time, I think that this bill is 
simply not very well drafted in that case, because in the Mann Act 
certain things are obvious.
  Let's assume that you have a young woman and a young man, her 
boyfriend, who jointly go across State lines to get her an abortion. 
She is driving. She is transporting him, not the other way around. 
Should someone be guilty or not guilty depending on who is driving and 
who is not driving? That doesn't seem to make sense.
  Mr. Speaker, the arguments against this bill are manifold.
  Number one, the arguments against parental notification and consent 
are where you have a violent parent or where you have a parent that the 
child cannot confide in, you shouldn't require that. Ninety percent of 
the time there is no problem, it is fine. Sometimes there is, and you 
risk the life or the health of the child to require that she tell the 
parent that she is pregnant.
  Number two, in such a situation, the child may confide, hopefully, 
there is someone she can confide in, her brother, her sister, her best 
friend, her clergyman, her teacher, and we would make them criminals if 
they help her.
  The gentleman from New Jersey talked about the abortionist conspiring 
to take her across State lines. It is not the abortionist. It is a 
friend or a colleague or a clergyman or a grandparent. You shouldn't 
make criminals of them. Nor should we seek to enforce the law of one 
State in another State.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. And. Finally, and after this statement I will yield, this 
law also says that if someone is asked to perform, if a doctor is asked 
to perform an abortion on a young woman, on a minor from another State, 
he must notify the parents in that State whether or not that State 
requires parental notification. So we are expanding, we are now putting 
the Federal Government and saying to a State when only two States are 
involved, neither which have a parental notification law, you must 
because we say so. There is no justification for that.
  I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Let me make it very clear. What I just said was that if you go to the 
Yellow Pages and look at some of the ads and in newspapers and in other 
media, the abortionists actively try to solicit young girls 13, 14, 15, 
16, to go across State lines. And you know as well as I do adult males, 
including predatory males, read those ads and act. All they have to do 
is go to New Jersey or some State other than Pennsylvania, where there 
is no parental involvement law, and thereby circumvent the parental 
notification, parental consent in that particular State.
  Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time. I can understand that particular 
concern if this bill made it a crime to transport a minor across State 
lines for the purpose of getting an abortion, et cetera, et cetera, for 
money. If that person transporting that young girl were being paid to 
do it, then I think that there might be something we would want to do 
about that. But we are not talking about that. Well, we may be talking 
about that, but the bill is certainly not limited to that.
  The bill applies to the situation where the person, quote, unquote, 
transporting her may be her boyfriend, her brother or sister, her 
grandmother, her uncle, her aunt, her best friend or clergyman or a 
teacher. Anyone who is doing it with the best motives to help her, with 
whom some of us here may disagree that that is the best motive, but it 
is not a predatory motive.
  So if you want to write a bill against a predatory person, write a 
bill against the predatory person. Write a bill against someone who 
does it for a commercial reason, for pay, but not against all these 
other people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for a while to 
yield a minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. I want to thank the chairman for his leadership on this 
issue and his perseverence in allowing this bill to come to the floor.

[[Page 19831]]

  Imagine a nation that has to rush to embrace abortion so much that a 
parent isn't notified that an individual that that family doesn't know 
is transporting their child, their minor teenager across State lines. 
It is the idea that the parents don't know who may be transporting 
their children and the parents don't know that their child is having an 
abortion that we debate today. This measure brings parental rights back 
into reasonable norms.
  There are many groups out there working to influence our children. As 
the gentleman from New Jersey talked about, there is one Web site right 
now from the Coalition for Positive Sexuality, a charade that informs 
teens about abortions by stating, ``usually you can get around telling 
your parents by going to a clinic in a State without these restrictions 
or explaining your situation to a judge. But this takes time. So call 
us right away.''
  In my own State of Arizona, there is currently a parental consent law 
that requires permission of at least one parent. So even if you do have 
a violent parent, you can still go to one of your other parents. But it 
means nothing. Because you can go to our neighboring States, California 
and New Mexico, and have an abortion. In many cases, our teenagers are 
being driven by people their parents don't even know.
  This is reasonable to protect the rights of our children. Let's pass 
the bill.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and commend him for his leadership in this area. I rise in strong 
support of this amendment.
  Despite widespread support for parental involvement laws and clear 
public policy considerations justifying them, substantial evidence 
exists that such laws are regularly evaded by individuals who transport 
minors to abortion providers in States that do not have parental 
notification and consent laws.
  Confused and frightened young girls are routinely assisted by adults 
in obtaining abortions and are encouraged to avoid parental involvement 
by crossing State lines. Often these girls are guided by those who do 
not share the love and affection that most parents have for their 
children. Personal accounts indicate that sexual predators recognize 
the advantage they have over their victims and use this influence to 
encourage abortions in order to eliminate critical evidence of their 
criminal conduct and in turn allowing the abuse to continue undetected.
  Although not an interstate abortion, in my district in Cincinnati 
there is an ongoing court case involving parental rights. A teenage 
girl, 13 at the time of the abortion, was given parental consent by a 
man posing as her stepbrother. This man, her abuser, was later 
convicted on seven charges of sexual battery.
  Most recently, a judge ordered Planned Parenthood to turn over 
medical records in determining whether there was a pattern and practice 
within the clinic of violating parental consent laws.
  Public policy is clear that parents should be involved in decisions 
that their daughters make regarding abortions. CIANA will assist in 
enforcing existing parental involvement laws that meet the relevant 
constitutional criteria and will provide for parental involvement when 
minors cross State lines to have abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to support CIANA. There is no question that 
parents are the ones that should be involved in this type of critical 
decision. It shouldn't be the abuser or the rapist. I thank the 
chairman for pushing this legislation.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, first, this bill does nothing to 
prevent unwanted pregnancies and does nothing to stop a minor from 
crossing State lines to get an abortion on her own. Rather, it creates 
criminal penalties for those trusted confidants whom the woman turns to 
when she find herself in a difficult situation.
  In an ideal world, young women should turn to their parents for 
advice, guidance, and comfort. But in the real world, this is not 
always the case. And in some scenarios, parental involvement is not 
even in the best interest of the girl.
  This bill would impose criminal penalties on anyone who assists a 
young woman to cross a State line in order to obtain an abortion, 
whether it is a grandparent, an aunt, older sibling, or trusted friend. 
In addition, because of the way the law is written, it would even 
impose criminal penalties on a cab driver who drops off a young woman 
at an abortion clinic if that clinic happens to be across the State 
line.
  Further, there are unrealistic and unworkable mandates involving the 
notice provisions in the bill which also potentially violate principles 
of confidentiality. And so this bill threatens to increase the risk of 
harm to young women in difficult family situations by delaying access 
to appropriate medical care, and that is why the bill is opposed by the 
American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, 
the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians 
and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American 
Public Health Association.
  Mr. Speaker, finally, the bill raises numerous constitutional 
questions. The Supreme Court has made clear that any valid abortion law 
must have an adequate medical emergency exception. The Court has also 
ruled that access to medical care in emergencies must also be 
maintained. The provisions contained in the bill have limited access in 
situations, and so the bill is clearly inconsistent with established 
constitutional law.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill sets a dangerous precedent. It does not 
prevent unwanted pregnancies or abortions. Rather, it encourages young 
girls to make difficult decisions on their own without help, increasing 
the potential harm to their physical and emotional well-being. That is 
why it is not supported by medical organizations with expertise in this 
field. Furthermore, it raises serious constitutional questions. I urge 
my colleagues to oppose the bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, just in reference 
to comments that were made several times by people on the other side of 
the aisle that this would cover a cab driver or bus driver, I would 
hope that they would look at the language of the bill. It says whoever 
knowingly transports a minor across State line with the intent that the 
minor obtain an abortion, and thereby in fact abridges the right of a 
parent. So that is not just someone who gives them transportation, 
someone who intentionally brings them across a State line with the 
intent that they obtain an abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, since merely identical legislation passed the House in 
April 2005 by a vote of 270-157, there have been several developments 
that make it clearer of the need to pass this bill. First, a Pew 
Research Center poll found that large majorities in all religious 
groups and about two-thirds of nonchurchgoers believe girls under 18 
should receive parental consent before an abortion.
  According to the Pew Research Center poll, as has been the case for 
more than a decade, most of the public favors requiring women under age 
18 to obtain the consent of at least one parent before being allowed to 
get an abortion. Nearly three-quarters of Americans support such a 
requirement, while just 22 are opposed.
  The point I make on this is that this bill is not out of the 
mainstream. This bill is right in the mainstream. This bill is to allow 
the enforcement of State laws that are constitutional with respect to 
parental notification. To evade parental notification laws by means of 
taking a young girl across a State line is what this bill is aimed at. 
Nothing more, nothing less than that. It is appropriate. It is 
consistent with

[[Page 19832]]

the vast majority of people in the United States. It is consistent with 
the 33 States in the Union that have enacted such legislation.
  What it does is it requires intent on the part of the actor, that is, 
they must intentionally act to evade the law in order to assist in 
procuring an abortion for a young person in a State where notification 
is required. Nothing more, nothing less.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, our colleagues that are 
listening to this debate will probably claim its defining moment as 
redundancy. It is redundant because this is a bill that has been 
debated and discussed, and now it is an amendment to S. 403 which 
creates a lack of opportunity for any legislative initiative to get to 
the President's desk.
  Far be it for any of us who happen to be parents and have young women 
as daughters in our family to try to allow legislation to drive a 
barrier between a child and her parents. Nor can we morally allow the 
creation of chilling factors that prevent a youth from seeking help 
when they desperately need it. There lies the angst and the confusion 
and the misrepresentation of this debate.
  This is not a helpful legislative initiative. This is, in fact, a 
divisive initiative because we find that more than 61 percent of 
parents in States without mandatory parental consent or at least 61 
percent with notice laws have knowledge of their daughter's pregnancy. 
The normal relationship of child and parent proceeds along a very 
helpful manner as long as we do not provide unnecessary intrusion 
beyond what has been accepted by the individual States.
  The State of Texas has provided that kind of barrier. Twenty-three 
States have, but another 23 have not committed to dividing parent from 
child.
  The greatest downside of this particular legislation is that it 
doesn't come to this floor with clean hands. If it did, it would have 
allowed us to have amendments, and this was a closed rule.
  I offered just a year ago or so an amendment with Mr. Nadler that 
expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions in this act of being able 
to assist a young lady in her time of trouble, to give exemptions to 
clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, and first cousins, family members 
and clergy that would be giving comfort to this particular individual 
who may be a victim of incest or rape and afraid and confused about the 
utilization or the act of going to their parents. Although I said that 
61 percent do have that relationship, there may be others that don't.
  And so that would have been a responsible approach so that clergy 
would not become felons, as well as godparents and aunts or uncles, 
close family members. This country is used to and welcomes an extended 
family, families of different configurations. And so this legislation 
attempts to ignore that.
  And, sadly, what it does is it makes a political point just days away 
from elections, but it doesn't help our young people who may be 
suffering with the decision that they have to make. It may be because 
of incest or rape, or maybe they have been brutalized or they may be 
frightened, and the comfort this particular relative can give them is 
the kind of nurturing advice that will help them make a right decision.
  Maybe we want to subject our young people who may be subjected to 
decisions by parents who are forcing an abortion. It happens on either 
side, and it happened in the case of a 19-year-old girl from Maine 
because she was impregnated by an incarcerated person. So this is not a 
question of getting an abortion or not getting an abortion. This is a 
question of imploding family relations, and also altering the health 
system of America.
  It is a health issue. It is a health issue if the individual is 
injured, a health issue if it is jeopardizing the life of the young 
lady. And the American Medical Association, the American College of 
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, 
and the American Public Health Association, all oppose mandatory 
involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and 
the need for confidential access to physicians.
  So we are being redundant because this is around and around and 
around. This is over and over again. But there is no sincerity in 
passing this legislation because instead of taking S. 403, we have 
offered an alternative. That alternative will have to go back to the 
Senate. There is some tongue-in-cheek comment about we hope the Senate 
will consider our bill. Well, they are four days before the end of the 
session before we go off for our work in the district. Then, of course, 
there is a lame duck because this majority, Republican majority, has 
not finished its work, as usual. I don't think this is a reality that 
is going to happen.
  My prayer is that we will come together for the young people and for 
those impacted by this great tragedy and allow families to make 
decisions as they should. Vote down this bill. It serves no purpose, 
and it hurts the young people of America and divides families.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the legislation before the House, S. 403, the 
Child Custody Protection Act. The provisions contained within this 
proposal are very inflexible and unreasonably punitive.
  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, S. 403 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.
  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.
  In addition, well-respected organizations such as Planned Parenthood, 
Pro Choice America, and People for the American Way have expressed 
their opposition to this bill, which effectively isolates young women 
in need of help, and forces to seek alternative illegal and unsafe 
venues for terminating their pregnancy. After all, if you cannot trust 
your parents or your doctor to help you, what are your alternatives?
  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.
  The last time we saw this bill, I offered an amendment with Mr. 
Nadler of New York that expanded the exceptions to the prohibitions of 
this act to include ``conduct by clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or 
first cousins.'' This amendment was a very simple but necessary 
dampening of the excessive punitive nature of this legislation. This 
amendment is also demonstrative of the negative consequences this bill 
would directly and inadvertently cause. 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 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 follow 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, OR, 
SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice 
but other adults may be

[[Page 19833]]

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.
  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 S. 403 will 
exacerbate this dangerous trend.
  Mr. Speaker, 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.
  We cannot let legislation drive a barrier between a child and her 
parents, nor can we morally allow the creation of chilling factors that 
prevents a youth from seeking help when it is desperately needed. I ask 
my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said before, some States have chosen to enact 
parental consent and notification laws, others haven't. There is a case 
against parental notification laws and consent laws because basically 
there are a certain number of parents, certain families where you can't 
ask the young girl to confide in her parents because they may subject 
her to violence. Or she feels she can't.
  But you do want a young woman to confide in somebody, not to be alone 
in this time of great strain for her. You want her to be able to 
confide in a brother or sister or clergyman or priest or rabbi or uncle 
or aunt or grandparent or a teacher. And those people want to be able 
to help her.
  Now, as I said before, there may be room for legislation to say that 
you shouldn't take people across State lines for the purpose of getting 
an abortion for commercial purposes.

                              {time}  1730

  But to make a criminal out of anybody who is trying to help a young 
girl, as they see helping her, as she sees helping her because she 
cannot confide in her parents, and especially if that helper may be the 
grandparent or the brother or the sister or a clergyman is simply 
wrong.
  So this legislation is far too broad. It will place young women who 
need help in a situation where they cannot get help. It doesn't serve 
any useful purpose, and it should be defeated.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is fairly simple and straightforward. It says 
that if a minor woman who is a resident of a State that requires some 
type of parental involvement is taken to another State that does not 
have a parental involvement law, it is a crime to do that. And it is as 
simple as that.
  Now the only reason why a woman would be taken from a State with a 
parental involvement law to one that doesn't is to prevent the parents 
from knowing that the woman is having an abortion. Now we are talking 
about minors here, girls under the age of 18. A parent is responsible 
for providing for the health, safety, and welfare of minor children 
that are either their own children or that they have been named as 
guardians of by a competent court; and to avoid the parents' 
responsibility of providing medical care by hiding the fact that the 
woman is going across a State line to have an abortion is wrong.
  Now I think a lot of people don't like parental involvement laws. The 
polling shows exactly the opposite. In my opening remarks, I pointed 
out that half the people who call themselves liberal Democrats believe 
that the parents ought to be involved in this decision; and three-
quarters of those who call themselves moderate or conservative 
Democrats feel the same way.
  I think that this House ought to empower parents to at least know 
about these decisions, particularly if their minor daughters are taken 
across a State line; and the way to deal with that issue is to pass the 
bill.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Child Custody Protection Act, which purports to ``give parents a 
chance to help their daughters during their most vulnerable times'' and 
would require doctors to give 24 hours' notice to a minor's parent 
before allowing her to have an abortion.
  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, 
unfortunately that is not always the case or quite as simple.
  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.
  It will be nearly impossible for teenagers and physicians alike to 
understand.
  This measure 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. In addition, the Child Custody Protection Act, goes even 
further by mandating that doctors be fully aware and knowledgeable of 
the mandatory parental involvement laws in each of the 50 States, under 
the threat of fines and prison sentences.
  The Child Custody Protection Act 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, unless she is accompanied by 
a parent.
  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 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.
  Instead of debating a bill that may not meet constitutional muster, 
we should be considering the Prevention First Act 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 
activity or reduce teenage pregnancy, through programs such as 
comprehensive sexual education.
  Why are we not doing more to help the 820,000 teen girls who get 
pregnant each year?
  I urge all my colleagues to vote against the Child Custody Protection 
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. Speaker, in the name of a truly laudable cause 
(preventing abortion and protecting parental rights), today the 
Congress could potentially move our Nation one step closer to a 
national police state by further expanding the list of Federal crimes 
and usurping power from the States to adequately address the issue of 
parental rights and family law. Of course, it is much easier to ride 
the current wave of criminally federalizing all human malfeasance in 
the name of saving the world from some evil than to uphold a 
Constitutional oath which prescribes a procedural structure by which 
the nation is protected from

[[Page 19834]]

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 one, Section eight, enumerates the legislative area 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 S. 403. S. 403 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 unconstitutionally expanding the 
Federal criminal justice code is that it seriously increases the danger 
that one will be subject to being tried twice for the same offense. 
Despite the various pleas for Federal correction of societal wrongs, a 
national police force is neither prudent nor constitutional.
  We have been reminded by both Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and 
former U.S. Attorney General Ed Meese that more Federal crimes, while 
they make politicians feel good, are neither constitutionally sound nor 
prudent. Rehnquist has stated that ``The trend to federalize crimes 
that traditionally have been handled in State courts . . . threatens to 
change entirely the nature of our Federal system.'' Meese stated that 
Congress' tendency in recent decades to make Federal crimes out of 
offenses that have historically been State matters has dangerous 
implications both for the fair administration of justice and for the 
principle that States are something more than mere administrative 
districts of a nation governed mainly from Washington.
  The argument which springs from the criticism of a federalized 
criminal code and a Federal police force is that States may be less 
effective than a centralized Federal Government in dealing with those 
who leave one State jurisdiction for another. Fortunately, the 
Constitution provides for the procedural means for preserving the 
integrity of State sovereignty over those issues delegated to it via 
the tenth amendment. The privilege and immunities clause as well as 
full faith and credit clause allow States to exact judgments from those 
who violate their State laws. The Constitution even allows the Federal 
Government to legislatively preserve the procedural mechanisms which 
allow States to enforce their substantive laws without the Federal 
Government imposing its substantive edicts on the States. Article IV, 
Section 2, Clause 2 makes provision for the rendition of fugitives from 
one State to another. While not self-enacting, in 1783 Congress passed 
an act which did exactly this. There is, of course, a cost imposed upon 
States in working with one another rather than relying on a national, 
unified police force. At the same time, there is a greater cost to 
State autonomy and individual liberty from centralization of police 
power.
  It is important to be reminded of the benefits of federalism as well 
as the costs. There are sound reasons to maintain a system of smaller, 
independent jurisdictions. An inadequate Federal law, or an 
``adequate'' Federal law improperly interpreted by the Supreme Court, 
preempts States' rights to adequately address public health concerns. 
Roe v. Wade should serve as a sad reminder of the danger of making 
matters worse in all States by federalizing an issue.
  It is my erstwhile hope that parents will become more involved in 
vigilantly monitoring the activities of their own children rather than 
shifting parental responsibility further upon the Federal Government. 
There was a time when a popular bumper sticker read'' It's ten o'clock; 
do you know where your children are?'' I suppose we have devolved to 
the point where it reads'' It's ten o'clock; does the Federal 
Government know where your children are.'' Further socializing and 
burden shifting of the responsibilities of parenthood upon the Federal 
Government is simply not creating the proper incentive for parents to 
be more involved.
  For each of these reasons, among others, I must oppose the further 
and unconstitutional centralization of police powers in the national 
government and, accordingly, S. 403.
  Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying bill, S. 403--the Child Custody Protection Act.
  For too long, individuals have exploited State borders to disrupt and 
undercut important parental involvement laws that have been enacted to 
protect minors.
  A teenage girl needs a parent's consent to get an aspirin at school. 
The decision to kill an unborn child is life-altering, and often 
results in unintended psychological and physical problems. So, I find 
it unconscionable that an individual would deliberately transport a 
minor across State lines for an abortion without a parent's consent. 
This type of exploitation has rendered State laws toothless, and in 
light of this situation, there is a strong demand for Congressional 
action.
  In my home State of Missouri, we have a parental consent law that 
requires the involvement of a parent when a minor is seeking an 
abortion. Across the State line from my district is Kansas.
  In Kansas, there is a parental notification law but not a consent 
law. This means that if the parent of a minor in Missouri denies 
permission for that minor to have an abortion in Missouri, that same 
minor--usually with the aid of a co-conspirator--can go to Kansas, 
notify that parent of the intention to have an abortion, and go forward 
against the will of the parent. In Illinois, it was reported that the 
mother of a 14-year-old from Missouri was denied the opportunity to 
even speak with her daughter as she waited for an abortion in an 
Illinois clinic just over the State line.
  Congress must act to prevent the evasion of parental involvement 
laws. In Missouri, you can bring a civil action against any individual 
that assists a minor in evading the State parental consent law, but 
that is not enough, Mr. Speaker. Only a tough, Federal criminal statute 
will deter individuals from transporting teenagers across state lines 
in order to willfully violate the parental involvement laws of the 
teenager's home State.
  Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to support H.R. 748, the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act when it was considered by the House in April 
of last year. This rule gives us the opportunity to restore an 
important provision that was not included in S. 403, specifically the 
provision that places responsibility on the abortion provider to give a 
parent or guardian 24 hours' notice of a minor's abortion decision.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this resolution and the Child Custody 
Protection Act. It is time for Congress to take action against all 
those who assist minors in circumventing a parent's right of 
involvement in the most serious decision a minor can make.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, 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 19835]]

  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:
  (1) The bill violates the Constitutional principles of federalism;
  (2) There are no exceptions for another responsible adult family 
member to accompany the minor; and
  (3) The language is so broad that it would allow a cab or bus driver 
to be prosecuted.
  You are probably wondering, Mr. Speaker, 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 okay, 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. Speaker, I tried to think of what 
precedent there is for this kind of law. It took a while, but the only 
law I could come up with was the Fugitive Slave Act. Going back to laws 
like this, Mr. Speaker, is not something this Congress should even 
consider.
  Mr. Speaker, I often wonder why we don't 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 come to the 
table to discuss the ways we can further this mutual goal.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Scott and 
Jackson-Lee amendments and ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am in a time wrap today. We 
already voted on and debated basically the same bill last year. We must 
be close to an election if this Republican Congress is bringing up an 
anti-choice piece of legislation that they have already passed.
  While these types of bills may make good politics for some, they make 
bad policy for all.
  We should all be in agreement on the need to lower the numbers of 
unintended pregnancies and abortions in the U.S.
  While this bill purports to put the interests of minors and their 
parents first, as well as reduce the number of abortions--the facts 
over the last few years of the Bush Administration have demonstrated 
that the numbers of abortions increased from the numbers during the 
previous 8 years of policymaking under President Bill Clinton.
  In fact, studies show the abortion rate, which hit a 24-year low when 
President Bush took office, and has risen throughout President Bush's 
first term of so-called anti-abortion policymaking.
  Instead of focusing on this fact, addressing why hundreds of millions 
of taxpayer dollars have been spent on abstinence only programs with 
little result, and pushing programs to expand contraception, this 
majority wants to criminalize aunts and cousins. It just doesn't make 
any sense.
  Fortunately, there are laudable programs that work with young people 
to help ensure that they get accurate and relevant information on how 
to protect themselves from pregnancy.
  We should work to find common ground on real solutions to the 
problems of unintended pregnancies and abortions.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against this mean-spirited 
legislation.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill.
  True to form, in the pre-election rush, the majority is pushing 
through legislation that does nothing to protect the health and safety 
of our children but instead harms them. We already voted on this 
legislation in April. Why are we voting on the bill today? It's simple, 
the Child Interstate Notification Act is a sweet treat for the anti-
choice right, the exact group the Majority is courting these next 6 
weeks.
  This bill harms families by encouraging relatives to seek civil 
action against each other. It tells young women that if they cannot 
confide in their parents, they are simply out of luck and must face 
this difficult situation alone. And, it prevents minors from counting 
on the adults they trust: their counselors, their older siblings, their 
friends and their clergy.
  Mr. Speaker, in a perfect world, children would openly communicate 
with their parents. In a perfect world, we would not be faced with 
unintended pregnancies. But these are tumultuous times, and the world 
is far from perfect. That does give us license to pass imperfect laws.
  The bill before us provides no exception for the health of the 
mother, as required by the Supreme Court. And, it violates States 
rights by forcing the laws of one State onto another.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill. I urge you to oppose this bill and 
put the safety and well-being of America's young women before the 
political agenda of the anti-choice majority.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Custody 
Protection Act (S. 403). This important legislation protects our 
children by imposing stiff penalties on adults who evade State parental 
consent laws to transport a minor across State lines for the sole 
purpose of having an abortion.
  I believe we must protect our children from being exploited or 
coerced into having an abortion and reaffirm the rights of parents to 
be involved in the important decisions of their lives. We currently 
require parental consent forms for field trips, sports and other 
activities. It's only common-sense that these important laws are not 
circumvented for the purpose of performing an abortion.
  With over 50 percent of States having parental consent laws on the 
books, I believe it is imperative the Child Custody Protection Act 
become law to protect those who may not be able to protect themselves 
from harm as well as to ensure that these important state laws are 
respected.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 403, the Child 
Custody Protection 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 S. 403 include these negative provisions, it also could 
be found unconstitutional for three reasons. First, it contains no 
health exception.
  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 
individuals to 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

[[Page 19836]]

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. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA).
  As a cosponsor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act 
(CIANA) and having voted for its passage in the House on April 27, 
2005, I remain committed to this important piece of legislation and 
hope to see it passed into law promptly. The Child Interstate 
Notification Act prohibits circumventing state parental involvement 
laws by transporting a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion 
and places additional responsibilities on the abortionist.
  Not surprisingly, parental involvement laws are overwhelmingly 
supported by a significant majority of the American people. Parents 
desire to know Parent's rights and state's rights are being violated. 
Children are secretly being transported across state lines without the 
consent of their parents for abortions. Abortion clinics in states 
where there is no parental involvement law advertise their services in 
states which have parental laws in place. ``No Parental Consent 
Required'' one advertisement read.
  Children should be protected. Transporting a minor across state lines 
in order to obtain an abortion without parental notification or consent 
is more than troublesome. Pregnancy isn't something to be taken lightly 
and teenagers should not be isolated in their decision making. Instead, 
their parents should be involved in their decision on whether to have 
an abortion. My home state of Kansas is one of the 22 states that 
require parental consent with 2 of those states requiring both parents 
to consent.
  Parental notification laws are critical to protect the life and 
health of minors. Parents deserve to be informed about their daughter's 
abortion decision as they are the ones who would be responsible for 
paying any medical bills due to complications from an abortion. Parents 
must give their consent in order for their minor to obtain certain 
medical procedures including ear piercing and to receive aspirin at 
school yet they can acquire an abortion--a major medical procedure that 
could be fatal or result in complications without the consent of a 
parent? That is a dangerous exception that should be eliminated in all 
states.
  The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is good legislation 
that will protect minors and inform parents. Today, I hope to see CIANA 
pass the House for the second time this Congress and be sent to the 
Senate without further ado. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to not 
hold up this bill and to pass the language as it is written.
  I will vote in favor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification 
Act today and encourage my colleagues to join me. I also encourage my 
colleagues in the Senate to promptly pass this piece of legislation so 
minors are better protected and parents are informed.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the Child 
Custody Protection Act. The text of the bill that we are considering is 
quite similar to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, which 
the House considered in April of last year and I opposed. It is yet 
again another attempt by Congress to try to interfere in the personal 
health decisions of young women.
  The question of whether or not to have an abortion is one of the most 
difficult decisions any woman can face. Some issues cannot be 
legislated and I believe that this is one of them. Reproductive health 
care is a personal matter that should be left to individuals, their 
doctors, and their families without interference from the government.
  This bill will force mature young adults who have sought help from 
individuals other than their parents--including grandparents, aunts, 
uncles, older siblings and clergy members--to act alone in a time when 
loving support is needed. I believe that adolescents should be 
encouraged to seek their parents' advice and counsel when facing a 
difficult decision. However, the government cannot mandate healthy 
family communication where it does not already exist. We need to 
encourage our youth to seek the counsel of individuals that they do 
trust and that will advocate for their best interests and not encourage 
them to go through this difficult process and draining procedure alone.
  Not only does this bill discourage our youth from seeking adult 
counsel, this bill will also put the health of young women in jeopardy. 
A provision of this bill seeks to delay the abortion process by 
demanding that doctors go through a detailed and complex scheme to 
notify a parent. Doctors who do not comply and conduct an abortion 
before this notification will face fines and federal criminal 
penalties.
  I would guess that my colleagues on both sides of this issue agree 
that having an abortion should be the last option for an adolescent. 
But it is a reality that young women are going to continue to have to 
make life-altering decisions regarding their bodies regardless of 
restrictions the federal government places on them. Taking away the 
support of responsible adults in whom teens trust is not the way to 
stop abortions.
  I have consistently opposed legislation of this type because I want 
to make sure that we protect young women who are facing unintended 
pregnancies by providing them with assistance from adults they trust. I 
certainly prefer an open dialogue between parents and teens, so that a 
hushed, last-minute decision is not necessary. Unfortunately, parental 
consent is not always a viable option and teens will still make 
decisions that are difficult for any woman regardless of age. By 
passing this legislation, we will force trusted adults to turn their 
backs on their nieces, sisters and granddaughters and we will also be 
turning our back to the young women of this Nation.
  Instead of debating a measure that will impose federal punishments on 
family members and doctors who assist young women who are making 
difficult choices and considering another measure that attempts to fix 
a symptom, we should be having a constructive dialogue that gets at the 
root of this issue.
  This bill is an injustice to young women across this Nation who need 
all the support that they can get. I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this legislation because it will severely harm young women at one of 
the most important times in their lives.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 
403.
  S. 403 makes it a Federal crime for anyone other than a young woman's 
parent to take her across State lines for an abortion unless the 
parental notification and involvement requirements of her home State 
have been met. In States without a current parental notification law, 
the Federal law applies. This legislation also requires a physician to 
notify, in person, the parents from another State about a medical 
procedure the doctor will be performing.
  I will continue to work to do more to reduce abortion, but this is 
the wrong approach. Criminalizing health care providers and clergy 
while further victimizing young women who are already facing major 
challenges will not reduce abortions, will not reduce teen pregnancy, 
and will certainly not help to protect young women in this country. It 
is unfortunate that this legislation does not contain a judicial bypass 
process for young women who cannot, through no fault of their own, 
discuss this issue with their parents, as in cases of abuse or incest. 
This bill even criminalizes a victim's support network, the 
grandparents, aunts and uncles, adult siblings, religious counselors, 
and other trusted adults whom a young woman might turn to for help in 
this time of crisis. It also requires doctors to know the notification 
laws in all 50 States or face criminal penalties. S. 403 undermines 
Minnesota's authority, forcing all States to comply with and enforce 
other States' laws.
  This legislation is opposed by a wide variety of individuals and 
organizations including physicians, public health experts, women's 
organizations, religious groups, and think tanks. Simply put, S. 403 
imposes significant barriers to young women's emotional and physical 
health. The reality is that marginalizing and isolating these 
vulnerable young women will not protect them in their time of need, but 
rather force them to seek risky and unsafe ways to terminate their 
pregnancy. Instead, we must do more to support families and to work to 
reduce unwanted pregnancies through comprehensive education, adoption 
assistance, and family planning.
  Mr. Speaker, S. 403 is a dangerous bill, harmful to those young women 
most in need of help. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this 
legislation, which poses a serious

[[Page 19837]]

threat to young women's access to safe reproductive health choices.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Aderholt). All time for debate has 
expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1039, the previous question is ordered 
on the Senate bill, as amended.
  The question is on the third reading of the Senate bill.
  The Senate bill was ordered to be read a third time, and was read the 
third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the Senate 
bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. 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, this 15-
minute vote on passage of Senate 403 will be followed by 5-minute votes 
on passage of H.R. 2679, motion to suspend the rules and adopt House 
Resolution 723, and motion to suspend the rules and adopt House 
Resolution 992.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264, 
nays 153, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 479]

                               YEAS--264

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Bilbray
     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
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     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
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     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 Rodgers
     McNulty
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     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
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     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
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--153

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bass
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kucinich
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Rothman
     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--15

     Brown (OH)
     Castle
     Davis (FL)
     Evans
     Ford
     Green (WI)
     Istook
     Jefferson
     Lewis (GA)
     Meehan
     Millender-McDonald
     Ney
     Nussle
     Pombo
     Strickland

                              {time}  1800

  Messrs. BUTTERFIELD, NEAL of Massachusetts, PASCRELL, Ms. LINDA T. 
SANCHEZ of California, Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, and Mrs. JONES of 
Ohio changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the Senate bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________