Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Laws that require parental notification before an abortion can be obtained by a minor are overwhelmingly supported by the American people.

As recently as March 2005, 75 percent of over 1,500 registered voters surveyed favored requiring parental notification before a minor could get an abortion. In fact, the 2004 Democratic nominee for President said on ``Meet the Press'' this year, ``I am for parental notification.''

Across the country, medical personnel and others must obtain parental consent before performing routine medical services such as providing aspirin or including children in certain activities such as field trips and contact sports.

Yet, today, people other than parents can secretly take children across State lines in violation of parental notification laws for abortion without their parents even knowing about it.

Introduced by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, or CIANA for short, will protect the health and physical safety of young girls and protect fundamental parental rights. This legislation contains two central provisions, each of which creates a new Federal crime subject to $100,000 fine or 1 year in jail or both.

The first section of the bill makes it a Federal crime to transport a minor across State lines in order to circumvent a State law requiring parental involvement in the minor's abortion decision. Twenty-three States currently have such parental involvement laws. The purpose of this section is to prevent people, including abusive boyfriends and older men who may have committed rape, from pressuring young girls into receiving a secret out-of-State abortion that keeps the abuser's sexual crimes hidden from that minor's parents or law enforcement authorities.

The first section of the bill does not apply to a minor seeking the abortion themselves or to their parents.

It also does not apply in life-threatening emergencies that may require that an abortion be provided immediately.

The second section of CIANA applies to cases in which a minor who is a resident of one State presents herself for an abortion in another State that does not have a parental involvement law. In those circumstances, the bill requires the abortion provider to give one of the minor's parents, or a legal guardian, notice of the minor's abortion decision before the abortion is performed. The purpose of this section is to protect the fundamental right of parents to be involved in a minor's decision to undergo a potentially dangerous medical procedure. A parent will be familiar with their daughter's medical history and able to give that information to a health care provider to ensure that she receives safe medical care and necessary follow-up treatment.

This section of the bill does not apply where the abortion provider is presented with court papers showing that the parental involvement law in effect in the minor's State of residence has been complied with. It also does not apply where the minor states that she has been the victim of abuse by a parent and the abortion provider informs the appropriate State authorities of such abuse. Furthermore, it does not apply where a life-threatening emergency may require that an abortion be provided immediately.

The need for this section was provided by Marcia Carroll, who testified on behalf of H.R. 748 before the Committee on the Judiciary. In her testimony, Mrs. Carroll described how her daughter, without Mrs. Carroll's knowledge, was pressured by her boyfriend's stepfather to cross State lines to have an abortion she did not want and which she now regrets. Mrs. Carroll said, ``My daughter does suffer. She has gone to counseling for this. I just know that she cries and wishes she could redo everything, relive that day over. She has asked me to come here for her sake and for other girls' safety to speak and let you know what was happening.''

It is important to note that nothing in this legislation prevents a minor from obtaining an abortion. CIANA simply protects the right of parents to be given a chance to help their children through difficult times. The Supreme Court has described parents' right to control the care of their children as ``perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court.'' The Supreme Court has also observed that, ``The medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting,'' and that ``it seems unlikely that the minor will obtain adequate counsel and support from the attending physician at an abortion clinic where abortions for pregnant minors frequently take place.''

The House of Representatives has passed similar legislation by over 100-vote margins in recent Congresses, and I urge all my colleagues to again support this legislation, which is so vital to parental rights and to the health and safety of America's minor daughters.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Aderholt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I have to take issue with the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). She says this bill involves itself in the most personal of family decisions. How does it involve itself in a family decision when the family does not even know about it? And what this bill requires is that the family at least know about the fact that their daughter is being taken across a State line in circumvention of a State law requiring parental involvement.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my distinguished predecessor as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

(Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is it requires the involvement of parents or where State law requires the involvement of parents in the decision on whether or not a minor should have an abortion.

Now, minors have not reached the age of majority. They cannot sign contracts; they cannot serve on juries. Parents or legal guardians in every instance stand in the place of the minor and represent the minor's interests. And under the current law, a doctor cannot even treat a child for a hangnail without parental consent, or at least parental notification. But under the law, a doctor can perform an abortion.

Now, let us look at it this way. Abortion is a very serious medical procedure. In many cases, complications arise from that abortion. And the parents or the guardian are legally responsible for providing medical care when medical care is needed for minors.

So if you buy the argument of the people who are opposed to this bill, a parent of a minor who is not notified can end up being prosecuted for child neglect if complications ensue from the abortion and the parent does not know that they have a legal obligation to provide necessary medical care. That is why this bill should be passed, because parents ought to be involved in the medical decisions. They ought to have knowledge of the medical decisions. And we should not condone a system where a minor can run across a State line in order to get an abortion without the notification that is required by the State law of that minor's residence. This bill ought to pass.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated for a number of reasons, most specifically of which, it is once again drafted overly broadly and will allow the immunization of people who really are a part of a scheme to transport people across State lines in violation of a State parental involvement law.

The amendment would allow the creation of an entire for-profit, interstate taxicab network specifically designed to thwart State parental notification laws. For example, we heard from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that there are ads in the Pennsylvania Yellow Pages for abortion clinics in New Jersey, since New Jersey does not have a parental notification or involvement law but Pennsylvania does.

So if this amendment were adopted, an ad could advertise the abortion clinic in New Jersey and then have a phone number of a cab company that is under contract with that New Jersey abortion clinic to pick up the minor and cross the State line for the abortion. And I do not think that is what we want to foster with this amendment.

The allegations that taxicab drivers would be inadvertently caught up under this bill I think is misstated. They are not generally liable under the bill which allows for the conviction of an individual who knowingly transports a minor across State lines with the intent that such an individual obtain an abortion. Although a taxicab driver or a bus driver or whoever may have the knowledge that the minor that he or she is transporting will obtain an abortion as soon as she arrives at her destination, his or her intent is not that the minor obtain the abortion. Rather, it is to transport the minor to the destination of choice, whether it is an abortion clinic or a shopping mall.

In other words, the taxicab driver's reason for transporting the minor is to receive the fare, not to ensure that he or that she obtain an abortion. So a taxicab driver will generally not have the requisite criminal intent necessary for prosecution under the bill.

On the other hand, there are some instances in which the taxicab driver does have such criminal intent; and this amendment, if adopted, would mean that even if they had that intent they could not be prosecuted. The driver may have the intent that a minor obtain an abortion across State lines perhaps because the minor has been the victim of statutory rape at the hands of the cab driver himself and he wants to erase any evidence of his impregnating her.

This amendment, if adopted, will allow such misconduct and that is wrong. A taxicab license should not be a license to commit crimes and avoid prosecution.

The amendment should be defeated for reasons I have stated. It seeks to address a problem that does not exist, and, in doing so, opens a huge loophole that can be exploited by those who would seek to keep parents in the dark and conceal criminal misconduct. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) has no further speakers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, one standard element of obtaining a criminal conviction is that the defendant has the appropriate criminal intent.

Now, under the bill without the Scott amendment, if the taxicab driver does not have the criminal intent which includes knowledge of what is going on, then the taxicab driver and the company cannot be convicted. If they do have the criminal intent to evade a State parental involvement law, then they ought to be convicted of transporting the minor across the State line.

What the Scott amendment does is effectively immunize transporters who have criminal intent, and that is why the amendment ought to be defeated. I urge the membership to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I am the only speaker on this amendment, and I will reserve my time so I can close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the time given to me in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first, both sections of the bill do provide an exception for incest, and all of the arguments that have been made to the contrary are simply not correct.

Furthermore, this amendment should be defeated because it would codify the circumvention of parental involvement when the overwhelming majority of Americans support parental involvement. In some polls, over 80 percent of the public supports parental involvement. As recently as March 2005, 75 percent of over 1,500 registered voters

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

Under current law, grandparents and clergy do not have the authority to authorize a medical procedure for a minor child, or even ear piercings or the dispensing of aspirin at schools. So why should such a fundamental parental right be thrown aside for the abortion procedure alone? This amendment would sever the essential parent-child relationship. Grandparents and undefined clergy are not parents. It is that simple.

It is instructive that the Supreme Court has always held that the important duty to ensure and provide for the care and nurture of minor children lies only with the parents, a conclusion which arises from the traditional legal recognition that ``the natural bounds of affection lead parents to act in the best interest of their children.'' That was Parham v. J.R., 1979, of the Supreme Court. And as Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter observed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, parental consent and notification laws related to abortions are ``based on the quite reasonable assumption that minors will benefit from consultation with their parents and that children will often not realize that their parents have their best interests at heart.''

Significantly for CIANA, the Supreme Court recently struck down a Washington State visitation law under which grandparents were granted visitation of their grandchildren over the objection of the children's mother. That State visitation law was struck down precisely because it failed to provide special protection for the fundamental right of parents to control with whom their children associate.

The amendment also excludes from the bill any clergy, and the amendment leaves the word ``clergy'' undefined. Just last year, one State court ominously described the dangers of using the term ``clergy'' in the law without providing any clear definition. That court stated, ``Almost anyone in a religious organization willing to offer what purports to be spiritual advice would qualify for clergy status.'' That is Waters v. O'Connor, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Arizona. That means that under this amendment, an impressionable and vulnerable minor could be sexually exploited by a cultist and the cultist could escape liability and prosecution under this legislation because the cultist claims clergy status.

In fact, when the Federal Rules of Evidence were being debated in Congress, Congress specifically rejected using the word clergy in those rules. Doing so would have invited courts, just as this amendment would, to allow all matter of cult figures to fall under the term.

Parents, and not anyone else, know and can provide their dependent minor children's complete and accurate medical histories. Before children undergo medical procedures, parents are required to provide this critical information. Without that medical history, an abortion could be devastating to a child's health.

As the Supreme Court has made clear, ``the medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting. An adequate medical and psychological case history is important to the physician. Parents can provide medical and psychological data, refer the physician to other sources of medical history, such as family physicians, and authorize family physicians to give relevant data.'' That is H.L. v. Matheson, 1981.

And in addressing the right of parents to direct the medical care of their children, the Supreme Court has stated, ``Our jurisprudence historically has reflected western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system has long rejected any notion that a child is a mere creature of the State.'' And, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally ``have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations. Surely this includes the high duty to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek and follow medical advice. The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.'' Parham v.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, what the two proponents of the motion to recommit are arguing is something that simply is not going to happen. If the father of a young girl impregnates her as a result of an incestuous act, filing a lawsuit will expose that crime and the evidence that would have to be submitted by the defendants would end up very clearly showing that that father did commit a crime.

What would happen as a result of this bill not passing, with or without the amendment, is that the father who did commit that crime of incest would want to destroy the evidence of that crime without alerting the authorities. This bill prevents that, and the bill requires the alerting of appropriate authorities to protect young girls from future abuse.

Those who oppose this bill and are supporting this motion to recommit would doom the victims of rape and incest to continued abuse. Supporters of this bill want to prevent that abuse from continuing.

Vote down the motion to recommit, and vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I just simply want to come to the floor and wish upon my colleagues the ability to look at a bill that really denies a young person the comfort of clergy, of grandparents, and the ability to make a fair decision about a choice that should be the family, the doctor, and the religious leader.

This parental consent that confuses the issue of State laws is going to cost lives. I ask my colleagues to consider that we want to save lives. We want that young person to have someone to have comfort. And if their parent is incestuous, if their parent has created incest, then that is not the person for parental consent.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the legislation before the House, H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The provisions contained within this proposal are very inflexible and unreasonably punitive. This legislation completely eliminates State rights and creates a maze of confusion during a troubling time.

Given the usual slant of my good colleagues on the other side of the aisle to favor uniformity in legislation, this bill is inconsistent with that purpose. Overall, H.R. 748 would force physicians to learn and enforce 49 other states' laws with respect to parental-involvement requirements. On its face, one of the policies that this bill seeks to enforce, the mandate that every parent will receive notice and can get involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy, is a good one. However, one of its harmful effects is that it is unnecessarily punitive. In the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, young women come to their parents before or while they consider abortion. A study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory parental consent or notice laws had knowledge of their daughter's pregnancy.

Interestingly enough, a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle supported less governmental intrusion in personal family matters in the recent case of Terry Schiavo (S. 653/H.R. 1332). However, in the case of a young girl's decision to have an abortion, the proponents of H.R. 748 seek to force family communication even where it does not already exist. Excessive governmental intrusion can have detrimental consequences as evidenced in the case of a 13-year-old sixth grade student from Idaho named Spring Adams who was shot to death by her father after he learned of her plan to terminate a pregnancy caused by his acts of incest.

Some of the major health associations such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association strongly oppose mandatory parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. This legislation poses such a risk by increasing the risk of harm to adolescents by obstructing their access to healthcare that could save their lives.

According to an article by Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley K. Henshaw, only 13 percent of U.S. counties have abortion providers. Therefore, the fact that many young women seek abortions outside of their home state is not solely attributable to an avoidance of home state law.

I will offer an amendment with Mr. Nadler of New York, #9 that expands the exceptions to the prohibitions of this act to include ``conduct by clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins.'' This amendment is a very simple but necessary dampening of the excessive punitive nature of this legislation. A young woman should not lose her right to seek counsel and guidance from a member of the clergy, her godparent, or the family member enumerated in the text of the amendment if she so desires.

The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My State, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follows old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across state lines for abortion services if a woman comes from a state with a strict parental- involvement mandate. There are 10

states (CO, DE, IA, ME, MD, NC, OH, SC, WI, WV) that are ``non- compliant,'' or require some parental notice but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental consent. Finally, there are 17 states (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a woman's access to abortion in this case.

Given the disparity in state law requirements for the parental- notification requirement, not giving a young woman the right to seek assistance in deciding from a member of the clergy, a godparent, or family member could increase the health risks that she faces. I ask that my colleagues support this important amendment.

Young women as a population group are more likely to seek abortion later in their pregnancy. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have shown that adolescents obtain 30 percent of all abortions after the first trimester, and younger women are more likely to obtain an abortion at 21 weeks or more gestation. The provisions of H.R. 748 will exacerbate this dangerous trend, and the GAO study called for in my amendment would uncover this potential problem.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will add an unnecessary layer of legality, travel time, and mandatory delay to the already difficult job that physicians have in providing quality care to their patients. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have consistently advocated for protection of health care providers by way of tort reform. This legislation flies in the face of that initiative and is totally inconsistent with it. I ask my colleagues to reject it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, before yielding to the cosponsor of this legislation, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member. And may I ask how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

I thank the distinguished gentlewoman for her leadership. I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) for his leadership, and I thank him very much for the fight that he has put forward for a fair and balanced response to what could be a very tragic set of circumstances.

I am delighted to follow the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) because I want to reinforce the fact that we want healthy relationships between parents. We want a young woman to be able, a girl, a minor to be able to consult with her parents in a prayerful manner with her clergy and with her physician in this potentially tragic set of circumstances.

But allow me to read into the Record a circumstance that does occur in America. In Idaho, a 13-year-old girl named Spring Adams was shot to death by her father after he learned that she planned to terminate her pregnancy caused by his acts of incest. Might I repeat it again, Mr. Chairman, by his acts of incest. One more time. By his acts of incest.

This is what the debate is about. This particular legislation, although it may be well intended, does not have an exemption for incest, does not have an exemption for incest. The amendments that my colleagues offered in the Committee on the Judiciary all went to the idea of providing the greater safety for this minor, not to eliminate the responsibility of a parent, nor to eliminate the relationship between parent and child.

Let me for the record, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) did indicate in his remarks, that the amendment that I offered in the Committee on the Judiciary did not exempt sexual predators, and I am so terribly offended and offended for this institution for the untruths that were reported in the report language.

The Jackson-Lee amendment that offered to include aunts, uncles and cousins and godparents to be able to provide counsel to that minor was to speak to the question of incest, in case a parent was engaged in incest. Unfortunately, we could not get our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to understand the clarity of trying to provide an additional person cover, counsel if you will, so that if the parent perpetrated incest, that child had somewhere to go.

The untruth of the representation in the report language needs to be qualified and corrected. I hope my colleagues will see fit very shortly to have that corrected; but I would simply say that H.R. 748, as it is drafted, does not provide protection for that minor child.

Our amendment, the Nadler/Jackson-Lee amendment, allows for the grandparent and the clergy to be exempted

from being sued by the parents when they can stand instead to provide counsel, religious counsel, social counsel, comfort counsel to that minor child; and that they should be subjected to a lawsuit by a parent who may have perpetrated incest is an insult and a travesty.

This legislation will not improve family communication or help young women facing crisis pregnancies. We all hope that loving parents will be involved in their daughters' lives, and I will tell my colleagues that 61 percent seek counsel. Ninety-three percent who do not get counsel from their parent do seek to from a close associate, friend, grandparent.

It is important, even in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many young women do turn to their parents. I would argue that this is a poorly drafted legislative initiative. I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment because there is no incest exemption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer and support an amendment on which my colleague from New York, Mr. Nadler has joined me.

My amendment, in particular, made no mention of sexual predators. One can infer virtually anything about amendments until they are taken into context. In fact, one can infer a myriad of negative things from what is not included in the base legislation. The report was, frankly, ludicrous as to this matter. We must take it upon ourselves to accurately interpret our colleagues' amendments; lest we turn ourselves into a body of mud-slinging, vindictive individuals.

As Chair of the Children's Caucus, the report has risen to an inflammatory inference that must be corrected because justice requires it. However, one thing about this debate is different. The unprofessional way in which our committee colleagues have elected to report out the amendments that were offered by Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, and me has morphed from the simple reiteration of the precise idea of the amendment two years ago when we last debated this to an abomination that insinuates that our amendments would protect sexual predators. As my colleague and partner in offering the amendment I will present today stated before the Committee on Rules, our committee colleagues have behaved in an unfair manner and have made a clear partisan attack when the lives of minor females are at stake.

The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), while good in its intention, was written with several areas of vagueness, overly punitive nature, and constitutional violations that very much deserve debate in order to save lives and to obviate the need for piles upon piles of legal pleadings.

The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My state, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follows old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across state lines for abortion services if a woman comes from a state with a strict parental- involvement mandate. There are 10 states (CO, DE, IA, ME, MD, NC, OH, SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental consent. Finally, there are 17 states (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a woman's access to abortion in this case. The base bill, if passed, would take away the States' rights to make their own determination as to legislating the abortion issue for minors with respect to parental notification.

Our amendment to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, would change the prohibitions to exempt grandparents of the minor or clergy persons. This must be done because some minors want the counsel of a responsible adult, and are unable to turn to their parents. In Idaho, a 13 year old girl named Spring Adams was shot to death by her father after he learned that she planned to terminate a pregnancy caused by his acts of incest. This is an exact situation where the help of a grandparent or clergy would have been more helpful. Spring Adams may still be with us today if she could have found someone more compassionate and caring to confide in.

H.R. 748, as drafted, will not improve family communication or help young women facing crisis pregnancies. We all hope that loving parents will be involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy. Every parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the advice and counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, even in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many young women do turn to their parents when they are considering an abortion. One study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's pregnancy.

Unfortunately, some young women cannot involve their parents because they come from homes where physical violence or emotional abuse is prevalent or because their pregnancies are the result of incest. In these situations, the government cannot force healthy family communication where it does not already exist--and attempts to do so can have tragic consequences for some girls.

Major medical associations--including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association--all have longstanding policies opposing mandatory parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. These physicians see young ladies on a daily basis and hear their stories. They would not protest this law unless they felt there were severe stakes.

CIANA criminalizes caring adults--including grandparents of the minor, who attempt to assist young women facing crisis pregnancies. In one study, 93 percent of minors who did not involve a parent in their decision to obtain an abortion were still accompanied by someone to the doctor's office. If CIANA becomes law, a person could be prosecuted for accompanying a minor to a neighboring state, even if that person does not intend, or even know, that the parental- involvement law of the state of residence has not been followed. Although legal abortion is very safe, it is typically advisable to accompany any patient undergoing even minor surgery. Without the Jackson Lee-Nadler Amendment, a grandmother could be subject to criminal charges for accompanying her granddaughter to an out-of-state facility--even if the facility was the closest to the young woman's home and they were not attempting to evade a parental involvement law.

In a statement given by Dr. Warren Seigel, a member of the Physician for Reproductive Choice and Health, to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, he says ``I recognize that parents ideally should be--and usually are--involved in health decisions regarding their children. However, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act does nothing to promote such communication. Instead, CIANA places incredible burdens on both young women and physicians; infringes on the rights of adolescents to health care that does not violate their safety and health; makes caring family, friends and doctors criminals; and could be detrimental to the health and emotional well-being of all patients.''

Although this legislation is supposedly aimed at increasing parent- child communication, the government cannot mandate healthy families and, indeed, it is dangerous to attempt to do so. Research has shown that the overwhelming majority of adolescents already tell their parents before receiving an abortion. In fact, the younger the woman is, the more likely she is to tell her parent. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a national medical organization representing the 60,000 physician leaders in pediatric medicine--of which I am a member and leader--has adopted the following statement regarding mandatory parental notification:

Adolescents should be strongly encouraged to involve their parents and other trusted adults in decisions regarding pregnancy termination, and the majority of them voluntarily do so. Legislation mandating parental involvement does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care.

It is important to consider why a minority of young women cannot inform their parents. The threat of physical or emotional abuse upon disclosure of the pregnancy to their parents or a pregnancy that is the result of incest make it impossible for these adolescents to inform their parents. My amendment would allow other trusted adults to be a part of this process. Support the Jackson Lee-Nadler amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and first let me begin by noting that the case just alluded to by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), that in the case where a young woman was held coercively, was threatened if she did not go through with an abortion she would not be able to get home, would seem to violate the laws against kidnapping and half a dozen other criminal laws. If those people were not prosecuted, it is the district attorney's fault. We do not need this bill to deal with a situation like that.

Mr. Chairman, we consider today legislation that is at once another flagrant violation of the Constitution and an assault on the health and well-being of young women and their health care providers. Some States have chosen to enact parental notification and consent laws. Some, like mine, have considered this issue and decided such laws are not good for the welfare of young women and have declined to enact them. This bill would use Federal authority to impose the restrictive laws of one State on abortions performed in another State. It would, in effect, make a young girl carry the law of her State on her back wherever she goes.

Mr. Chairman, I know of no law that has attempted to do this kind of thing since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. This bill would make criminals of grandparents, boyfriends, brothers, sisters, and clergymen and women who try to help a young woman, a young

woman who had a fear or alienation and thinks she cannot confide in her parents.

It would even apply to a case such as that of a 13-year-old from Idaho, Spring Adams, who was shot to death by her father after he found out that she planned to terminate a pregnancy, a pregnancy he caused by his act of incest. Under this bill, he would have the parental notification or veto right.

This bill is radically different from previous versions. If you voted for this bill in the past, look again. It would now, for the first time, jail doctors. It would now, for the first time, require doctors to know the laws of all 50 States. It would now, for the first time, require a doctor to fly to the young woman's home State and ring her parents' doorbell before treating her. Even if the young girl's State of residence and the doctor's State have both decided not to enact parental notification or consent laws, this bill would impose a new Federal parental notification law that is more Draconian than the laws of most States.

This bill imposes a 24-hour waiting period and does not waive that requirement even if the parents accompany the young woman to the abortion doctor and even if a delay would threaten her health. That is not only unconstitutional; it is immoral. Congress should not be tempted to play doctor. It is always bad medicine for women.

In an ideal world, loving, supportive and understanding families would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in the majority of cases, law or no law; but we do not live in a perfect world. Some parents are violent; some parents are rapists. Some young people can turn only to their clergy, to a grandparent, a brother, a sister, or some other trusted adult. We should not turn these people into criminals simply because they are trying to help a young woman in a difficult or dire situation.

This bill is the wrong way to deal with a very real problem. It does not provide exceptions to protect the young woman's health. It does not provide exceptions where a parent has raped a young woman. It even allows the rapist to sue the clergyman or the doctor who tries to help the doctor deal with the effects of the rape committed by the rapist. It allows the rapist to sue the doctor and gain from his crime.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation on both constitutional and policy grounds. If only for the sake of humanity, I urge Members to join in providing the needed flexibility for the most difficult real-world cases involving the lives of real young women. We owe them at least that much.

We also owe the States the respect to note that some of them have passed such laws, some have not. Why should we impose these laws in States that have not done it? Why should we tell someone in one State because you came from another State, you are subject to the laws of that State wherever you go. We do not do that in this country generally. We are supposed to be a Federal Republic, although increasingly in this House we seem to forget that. I urge rejection of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have alluded repeatedly in this debate to the reasons why this bill is oppressive and is wrong, and we have alluded to the fact that it is unconstitutional, but we have not really gone into that.

The fact is that under the rulings of the Supreme Court, it is not permissible to pass a law which has the effect of imposing one State's legal requirements on another State, as this bill does. In essence, the bill imposes on States and physicians the laws of the States that have the most stringent requirements on abortion. Federalism dictates that one has the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in another State, according to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

In the Saenz case in 1999, the Supreme Court held that a State cannot discriminate against a citizen of another State when there is no substantial reason for the discrimination, except for the fact that they are a citizen of another State. The court specifically referred to Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, where it said the State cannot limit access to its medical care facilities for abortions to in-State residents. A State must treat all that are seeking medical care within that State in an equal manner.

This bill would, in effect, say that there are two legal regimes in a State. One is the regime, the system, the set of laws that apply to residents of that State passed by the State legislature of that State. The second law that applies applies to people who came from another State, and it is the laws of that other State that apply, plus the laws of this State. Constitutionally, you cannot do that. You cannot make, you cannot make a young woman carry the law of one State on her back wherever she goes because she originated in that State.

I said before that Congress has made no attempt to use Federal authority to impose the laws of one State on another since the Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act, if passed today, would clearly be unconstitutional. This bill is clearly unconstitutional, as well as oppressive.

It is also wrong because the States that have decided not to impose such laws on their own citizens should not be forced to because we say so.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be offering this amendment with my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the amendments that the committee report lied about. This amendment would prevent terrible and, I assume, unintended injustices. The amendment creates an exception to the provisions that make it a crime to accompany a minor across State lines who is seeking abortion services if the person accompanying the minor is a grandparent or a member of the clergy.

These are responsible adults to whom young people often turn when they are in trouble and cannot go to their parents. In an ideal world, that would never happen; but where that is the case, where they feel they cannot turn to their parents, I think we want our young people to able to turn to a grandparent or their minister, priest, or rabbi.

At the very least, I do not think Members want to put grandmothers and members of the clergy behind bars simply because they did not want to leave a young person alone and unaided during a very difficult moment.

Do we really want to put grandmothers and clergy in jail? Surely the supporters of this bill would not want to put a grandmother or reverend in jail who is only trying to help a minor.

I know they argue that the evil abortion providers are spiriting them away, but we are not talking about if that ever occurred. We are talking about the grandmother of the minor. We are talking about the trusted minister, priest, or rabbi of the minor whom she seeks out and confides in.

The opponents of this amendment have argued that it is the fundamental right of a parent to be involved in any decision concerning the pregnancy of their child. This is certainly true.

But in the real world, there are situations where it is impossible for a minor to tell a parent about a pregnancy, for instance, in cases of incest, where the parents physically abuse their children or in the case that I mentioned while in general debate of the young 13-year-old girl whose father had raped her, found out she was pregnant, and murdered her. In these cases, a minor needs to be able to turn to a responsible adult, such as a grandparent or a clergy member, for assistance. We should not criminalize this assistance. We should not be throwing caring grandmothers, grandparents, or ministers in jail.

Now, it may be that a properly drafted amendment that would say if it was a ring of people doing this for money, maybe that would be reasonable, but not a grandparent or a clergy member who was helping a young person in trouble.

Some have argued that we should defeat this amendment because there are cases, albeit few and isolated, where a grandparent or a member of the clergy may be a sexual predator. Sadly, this is true sometimes. Thankfully, it is rarely true. It is also true that sometimes a parent is a sexual predator, and this bill not only does not protect the minor in those cases. It requires the doctor to ring the sexual predator's doorbell to tell him what is going on, and it gives the sexual predator the ability to sue the doctor. That is what the bill does.

Even with this exception, with the exception in this amendment, any sexual predator will still face the full force of the law. Those crimes can, and should still, be punished. This amendment in no way shields these criminals from the consequences of their acts. It does, however, protect caring grandparents and clergy from going to jail just because they cared enough about a young person to stand with them in a difficult time.

Mr. Chairman, it should be the duty of the government and Congress to provide help to young women in these trying times, not to make life more difficult than it needs to be.

Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am most certainly opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows a father to sue the person who accompanied the young woman or, if he did not receive the required notice, to sue the doctor who provided the abortion even if he himself, the father, that is, caused the pregnancy by rape or incest.

If adopted, my motion to recommit would simply ensure that this right to sue does not extend to a parent who caused the pregnancy through rape or incest. The motion to recommit would ensure that this bill would not enable such rapists to profit from their wrongdoing.

I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) will say that the bill already prohibits suits by rapists, but the so-called prohibition in the bill applies only to suits against the doctor, not against the person who accompanied her, and even against the doctor only in the unlikely event that the minor declares the rape in a signed written statement to the doctor.

Aside from that exception, the rapist under this bill will profit from the newly established rights to sue the doctor or the unlimited newly established right to sue the person who accompanied her.

I cannot believe that any Member of this House, even those who support parental-consent laws, could really want to enable a criminal, a father who raped his daughter and caused the pregnancy, to be able to profit from his wrongdoing by suing doctors, grandmothers, and clergymen. This motion would correct this obvious mistake; and I think, or at least I hope, that the sponsors of this bill would agree that this amendment should be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of loose talk over the last few days about sexual predators and the need to protect young women. We may not agree in this House on the best way to protect these young women, but we should all be able to agree that a father who rapes his daughter should not profit from his crime. This bill as presently constituted gives him that power. The motion to recommit would take that ability away from him and would do nothing else at all.

The motion to recommit simply says a father who rapes his daughter or commits incest with her and causes that pregnancy cannot then sue someone who performs an abortion or who accompanies her to an abortion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I am outraged by the incident that the last speaker mentioned. I do not know why there seems to be the ignoring of the obvious. The amendments that Democrats offered in the committee had nothing to do with their compassion and lack thereof. In fact, it was to enhance and give a broader opportunity for a tragedy that occurred like that, which is really people with no feelings and no heart. Those are not relatives of that young woman. That was not her parent. That was almost a criminal act. That has nothing to do with the point that the Democrats were trying to make, which is give the opportunity for a greater latitude of those who can counsel and comfort this young woman.

I do not know where the parent was in this instance, but maybe if a grandparent or a godparent was there or a clergy was there, this terrible tragedy that occurred with people who were not her relatives might have been avoided.

So this distorted debate on the floor of the House mischaracterizes many of those who raise these very issues in the Committee on the Judiciary.

So I not only stand outraged for the tragedy that was just articulated by the previous speaker, a child forced to get on abortion, on the floor by the other side of the aisle, but I am equally outraged at the misconstruing of the amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee suggesting that they exempted child predators. The process that the Committee on the Judiciary Committee has used, and my friends on the other side of the aisle have used deserve absolute disregard, and that is to distort, misquote, ``miswrite'', abuse and mischaracterize the amendments that were offered by a number of members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mine happened to be one. We did not offer amendments to protect child predator rather our amendments offered a safety net to that minor child.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); I thank the ranking member, not only for her passion but also her articulation of the long-standing damage. We are Americans, too, and we are also human beings. The Republican staff well knows that somebody somewhere, and forget about an election, but people who you go home to your district, to be able to hold this document up and say that Sheila Jackson-Lee deals with child predators, how dare you do that. It is an outrage. The only issue my amendment dealt with was to give the minor child more protection.

The only thing that I think is appropriate is for the chairman of the full committee to exercise some sort of comity and collegiality to remove this abusive language.

First of all, the specifics of my amendment says that I offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill. My amendment dealt specifically with allowing clergy, godparents, aunts and uncles or first cousins, minimally speaking; and then I offered a GAO study. The description in the report language also says I have a GAO study dealing with clergy and godparents. This is an abuse of power and incorrect. And I know this is inside the ballpark, but it also says if you have the votes for this legislation, win fair and square. Do not win by maligning colleagues and defeating the purpose of the rules of this House. Vote this rule down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the restrictive H. Res. 236, the rule governing the debate over H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005--legislation that has come to the Congress before for consideration but that did not pass because of its overwhelming contentious nature. Today is no different.

I thank my Democrat colleagues of the Committee on Rules for their efforts to move this House to bring decorum and professionalism to the committee process. The report as to amendments offered by Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, and me was materially inaccurate to the point of being offensive.

My amendment, in particular, made no mention of sexual predators. One can infer virtually anything about amendments until they are taken into context. In fact, one can infer a myriad of negative things from what is not included in the base legislation. The report was, frankly, ludicrous as to this matter. We must take it upon ourselves to accurately interpret our colleagues' amendments; lest we turn ourselves into a body of mud-slinging, vindictive individuals.

As Chair of the Children's Caucus, the report has risen to an inflammatory inference that must be corrected because justice requires it. However, one thing about this debate is different. The manner in which our committee colleagues have elected to report out the amendments that were offered by Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, and me has morphed from the simple reiteration of the precise idea of the amendment two years ago when we last debated this to an abomination that insinuates that our amendments would protect sexual predators. As my colleague and partner in offering the amendment I will present today stated before the Committee on Rules, our committee colleagues have behaved in an unfair manner and have made a clear partisan attack when the lives of minor females are at stake.

H. Res. 236, while ruling the amendments of Mr. Scott and of Mr. Nadler and me in order, unreasonably restricts the debate on the highly controversial base bill. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), while good in its intention, was written with several areas of vagueness, overly punitive nature, and constitutional violations that very much deserve debate in order to save lives and to obviate the need for piles upon piles of legal pleadings.

The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My state, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follows old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across state lines for abortion services if a woman comes from a state with a strict parental- involvement mandate. There are 10 states (CO, DE, lA, ME, MD, NC, OH, SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental consent. Finally, there are 17 states (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a woman's access to abortion in this case. The base bill, if passed, would take away the States' rights to make their own determination as to legislating the abortion issue for minors with respect to parental notification.

My amendment to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, would change the prohibitions to exempt grandparents of the minor or clergy persons. This must be done because some minors want the counsel of a responsible adult, and are unable to turn to their parents. In Idaho, a 13-year-old girl named Spring Adams was shot to death by her father after he learned that she planned to terminate a pregnancy caused by his acts of incest. This is an exact situation where the help of a grandparent or clergy would have been more helpful. Spring Adams may still be with us

today if she could have found someone more compassionate and caring to confide in.

H.R. 748, as drafted, will not improve family communication or help young women facing crisis pregnancies. We all hope that loving parents will be involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy. Every parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the advice and counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, even in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many young women do turn to their parents when they are considering an abortion. One study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's pregnancy.

Unfortunately, some young women cannot involve their parents because they come from homes where physical violence or emotional abuse is prevalent or because their pregnancies are the result of incest. In these situations, the government cannot force healthy family communication where it does not already exist--and attempts to do so can have tragic consequences for some girls.

Major medical associations--including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association--all have longstanding policies opposing mandatory parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. These physicians see young ladies on a daily basis and hear their stories. They would not protest this law unless they felt there were severe stakes.

CIANA criminalizes caring adults--including grandparents of the minor, who attempt to assist young women facing crisis pregnancies. In one study, 93 percent of minors who did not involve a parent in their decision to obtain an abortion were still accompanied by someone to the doctor's office. If CIANA becomes law, a person could be prosecuted for accompanying a minor to a neighboring state, even if that person does not intend, or even know, that the parental-involvement law of the state of residence has not been followed. Although legal abortion is very safe, it is typically advisable to accompany any patient undergoing even minor surgery. Without the Jackson Lee-Nadler Amendment, a grandmother could be subject to criminal charges for accompanying her granddaughter to an out-of-state facility--even if the facility was the closest to the young woman's home and they were not attempting to evade a parental involvement law.

In a statement given by Dr. Warren Seigel, a member of the Physician for Reproductive Choice and Health, to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, he says, ``I recognize that parents ideally should be--and usually are--involved in health decisions regarding their children. However, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act does nothing to promote such communication. Instead, CIANA places incredible burdens on both young women and physicians; infringes on the rights of adolescents to health care that does not violate their safety and health; makes caring family, friends and doctors criminals; and could be detrimental to the health and emotional well-being of all patients.''

Although this legislation is supposedly aimed at increasing parent- child communication, the government cannot mandate healthy families and, indeed, it is dangerous to attempt to do so. Research has shown that the overwhelming majority of adolescents already tell their parents before receiving an abortion. In fact, the younger the woman is, the more likely she is to tell her parent. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a national medical organization representing the 60,000 physician leaders in pediatric medicine--of which I am a member and leader--has adopted the following statement regarding mandatory parental notification:

Adolescents should be strongly encouraged to involve their

parents and other trusted adults in decisions regarding

pregnancy termination, and the majority of them voluntarily

do so. Legislation mandating parental involvement does not

achieve the intended benefit of promoting family

communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the

adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care.

It is important to consider why some young women cannot inform their parents. The threat of physical or emotional abuse upon disclosure of the pregnancy to their parents or a pregnancy that is the result of incest make it impossible for these adolescents to inform their parents. My amendment would allow other trusted adults to be a part of this process. Support the Jackson Lee-Nadler amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution; it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report; may be offered only by a Member designated in the report; shall be considered as read; shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; it shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question in the House or in the committee of the whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her dedication and leadership, not only on this bill, but also on all matters concerning the well-being and defense of our children. She truly has made this fight her own and I would like to applaud her for her hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I fear that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it as an assault on a woman's right to choose, but this bill has absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. Rather, this bill ensures that no minor is deprived of any protection according to not only her but also her parents under the laws of her State.

H.R. 748 is a commonsense bill that will prohibit the transportation of a minor across the State line to obtain an abortion when the child's home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an exception in those extremely rare cases in which the abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the minor. Also, this bill makes another exception allowing for judicial bypass.

This bill also affirms the responsibility of a physician prior to performing an abortion on a minor from another State to make sure that they are acting in accordance with the laws of her State.

Having practiced as an OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I am uniquely qualified to discuss the medical and legal obligations of a physician to his or her patient. And this law not only ensures the protection of minors but it also clarifies the responsibility of the physician to make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing an abortion on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her parents.

This bill also affirms the principles of federalism and it prevents the circumvention and violation of laws passed by State legislatures. Over 30 States have passed parental notification laws, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, the legislature just recently passed a new abortion notification law in an overwhelming and bipartisan fashion, and this Congress has the responsibility to defend that federalism and the integrity of State laws in interstate matters.

Mr. Speaker, while I can address this issue both as a Member of Congress and as a medical physician who has delivered a lot of precious infants, I can also talk about this issue as a father. My wife and I had four children. Three of them are now grown women and two of them have children of their own. However, I knew that when they were still young children, minors, I not only had a moral obligation that I proudly still bear to this day, but also a legal obligation to defend them and their well-being against any and every potential and imminent danger.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation recognizes this fundamental bond between parents and child and it recognizes the obligation of a parent to be involved and to assist in making important decisions affecting both the life and the health of a minor. Children cannot even be given aspirin at school without their parents' permission, so I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly justify that administering an abortion is less traumatic or potentially dangerous than taking an aspirin. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the opponents of this bill are saying through their opposition to H.R. 748.

During this debate, I encourage my colleagues to remain focused on the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks to uphold the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their minor children. Let us not allow this debate to be bogged down with the same tired rhetoric about a woman's right to choose.

I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill for final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to address some of the concerns articulated by my colleague on the Committee on Rules. The other side of the aisle has been concerned about how some of the amendments they offered during the Committee on the Judiciary markup have been characterized in the committee report.

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of intent versus effect. During the Committee on the Judiciary markup, there were several amendments offered that would have exempted certain individuals from prosecution under this bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they did not intend for sexual predators to be exempt from prosecution. I believe them. I would hope it will never be the intent of anyone in this body to in any way inadvertently or otherwise assist in doing harm to a child to offer protection to those who would.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is where the effect of the amendments come to bear. The effect of the amendments would have been to exempt individual classes of people from prosecution. If a case arose where the sexual predator qualified under one of these classes of individuals, that person could not be prosecuted under this bill. This effect is simply unacceptable.

The minority side argues that their intent, not the effect, should be the language used in the report submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary. However, it is the responsibility, in fact it is the charged duty, of the Committee on the Judiciary chairman to write and file the report. It is the prerogative of the chairman to write the report as he sees fit.

On the other side, the minority has ample opportunity to take up any issue they choose in the dissenting views of the report. In this instance, the dissenting views of the minority are found on pages 121 to 133 of House Report 109-51.

If the minority wants their interpretation of the intent or even effect of an amendment to be in the report, it is wholly appropriate for them to articulate those views in their dissenting views. In fact, this is just exactly what they did.

So on the one hand, we have the chairman stating his understanding of the effect of these amendments; and on the other hand, we have the minority stating their intent. Both the minority and majority positions are stated clearly in the committee report.

It seems to me that both the majority and minority used the committee

report to fairly and appropriately state their views. No one was shut out from the opportunity to voice an opinion in this committee report.

Mr. Speaker, I believe both sides of the aisle used the committee report to discuss their efforts on this legislation, and we should not cloud the merit of this legislation because the other side does not like how the effect of their amendments was characterized.

Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, I would like to yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York had said that the issue of sexual abuse never came up in the committee hearing. If you look at page 84.

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected in regard to his amendments, but in regard to a number of these other amendments, let me quote from the committee report on page 84. This is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) speaking. ``This amendment would allow abusers potentially to get off scot-free and doom the victims of sexual abuse to even more abuse. If the girl is afraid to tell her parents of the abortion for fear of past or future sexual abuse, she may utilize the judicial bypass process which is available in her State.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would again emphasize the importance of this bill as a safeguard of parental rights and protection for minors.

As I listened to the opposition on the other side, I cannot help but notice how they remain unwilling to honestly address and debate this bill. H.R. 748 is a clear example of consensus legislation upon which most Americans agree. According to a recent poll by the New York Times, almost 80 percent of Americans favor parental notification law, and yet these laws are currently circumvented and violated through the interstate transportation of minors. Allowing our children to be carted across State lines by nonguardians to get an abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally wrong.

With over 30 States requiring some type of parental notification, Congress cannot turn a blind eye to those who would violate the law and endanger our children.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and absolute moral duty to parents and their children alike to make sure that these State laws are upheld so that nonguardians do not make medical decisions for our children. Parents and children deserve better, Mr. Speaker, and this bill will ensure that they get the care and consideration that they need.

Again I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), the sponsor of the bill, and all my colleagues who support this bill. I encourage each and every Member to think long and hard about this matter, to put rhetoric aside and to listen to their conscience.

Mr. Speaker, I further ask and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.