Providing for consideration of the bill (S. 403) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit taking minors across State lines in circumvention of laws requiring the involvement of parents in abortion decisions.

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. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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.

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?

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?

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.

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).

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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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.

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. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow the House to consider an amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act. It provides for only one hour of debate and, as usual, it is closed to any amendments.

I would appeal to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle as a matter of principle to vote against this rule. There is an addiction with this leadership to close processes, and it has to stop. This is not good for our democracy, this is not what this House of Representatives is about, and unless people on both sides of the aisle start coming together to vote no on these closed rules, you are going to see more and more closed rules. So let me begin by again urging all my colleagues to vote against this closed rule.

Mr. Speaker, the other side of the aisle would like us to believe that their bill only has in mind the needs of desperate and troubled teens. If that were genuinely the case, if they were indeed truly interested in children's welfare, then this House would have already passed legislation to provide America's young men and women with comprehensive pregnancy prevention and education.

As a father, I would like to think that we live in a world where incest, rape and unintended pregnancies did not occur. Sadly, Mr. Speaker, that is simply not the case. All too often, young women find themselves in difficult situations with few, if any, sympathetic people to turn to for advice.

Like all my House colleagues, I would hope that the first person to come to mind would be a parent. But, Mr. Speaker, every single Member of this Chamber knows that that is not always the case. Research shows that at least 60 percent of minors considering an abortion freely turn to and involve their parents. Those who do not, however, are often victims of violence and have multiple reasons for not doing so. Currently, 23 States have some type of parental involvement laws, including my own State of Massachusetts. Twenty-seven do not.

This bill pretends to open the lines of communication between parents and teens, but daily we are shown examples of parents who not only may not know what is best for their child but who may themselves be part of the problem.

I am reminded of Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, a Episcopal priest from Massachusetts who spoke before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2004. She recounted a story of a young girl who became pregnant as a result of date rape. Afraid to tell her father, the girl went to her school nurse. The nurse agreed that it was in the girl's best interests not to tell her father for fear of the girl's safety.

While driving an hour into Boston, Reverend Hancock Ragsdale chatted with the girl, who divulged that she felt very guilty about becoming pregnant. Compassionate about these feelings of guilt, the Reverend spoke with the girl about the incident. She told the priest about ``a really cute boy'' from her school she had met and who had asked her out. He asked her to have sex and she refused. He asked her again and again. Then he pushed her down and forced himself on her. Since he did not threaten her with a weapon or cause any bodily harm, she did not know to call it rape. She blamed herself for not knowing he wasn't a nice guy and she blamed herself for getting pregnant.

Reverend Hancock Ragsdale offered solace and advice. In her most desperate hours, this girl was able find the comfort she so desperately needed. In addition to providing emotional support, the Reverend was able to help this girl fill out the mountains of paperwork and fill the necessary prescriptions. The advice and guidance a child would hope to receive from a parent was administered in this case by a trusted spiritual leader.

Mr. Speaker, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, the American College of Physicians all, all agree that mandatory parental consent notification can be highly detrimental to young women.

Shouldn't we be inviting the experts in health care to help us in drafting and making these recommendations and protocol? Instead, we come to the House floor under a closed rule, stand on our soapboxes, and declare that we know what is best for every single child under every single circumstance in America.

Mr. Speaker, my friends on the other side of the aisle will claim that this

bill makes improvements to the Senate bill, that this bill provides protections for victims of incest, that this bill is somehow good policy. The truth is this bill weakens an already bad Senate bill.

While it is true that the Sensenbrenner amendment would preclude an incestuous parent from suing a person who accompanies a minor to a doctor out of State for abortion care, this bill still makes it a Federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a teenaged incest survivor for abortion care out of State. In other words, grandma can go to jail for years just for taking her granddaughter across State lines to abort a pregnancy caused by the young girl's father, but the father can't sue the grandmother in court.

Who in this Chamber believes that a child should be forced to go forward with a pregnancy caused by her father or brother or her uncle or her stepfather? I wish I never had to think about such scenarios, but they occur all too frequently. And it would be foolish for us to compound the horror of this child by joining all the other adults who turned a blind eye to her desperate situation.

Yes, we should reduce the number of children having sex. Yes, we should reduce the number of unintended pregnancies. Yes, we should all work together to reduce the number of abortions. But this bill does not address these issues.

Mr. Speaker, there is a reason we are considering this bill one week before the House adjourns for the midterm elections: Politics. It is the political season, and anything that gets the juices flowing on the so-called hot button issues is fair game. But that is not the way we should be legislating. This isn't the first time the sensitive issue of abortion will be used for political purposes, and it won't be the last, and I urge my colleagues to reject politics as usual and defeat this closed rule.

Even if there are individuals in this House who are sympathetic in terms of supporting this bill, again, reject this rule. This habit of closing everything down, of basically locking out democracy has to end, and Members of both sides need to have the guts to stand up and vote ``no'' on these rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member on the House Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, I just would like to respond by making a couple of points.

I have heard a number of people get up here and say they strongly support a rule. How can you strongly support a closed process? How can you not be in favor of allowing Members of this House, who have various concerns about this bill and different opinions about this bill and different opinions about how we can best deal with some of these very delicate issues, how can you be proud and strongly in support of a process that says that nobody has any right to come here and make any suggestions and offer any amendments? I find that appalling. I find it appalling.

And the fact of the matter is this bill amends the Senate bill. The Senate bill was a bad bill. This makes it even worse. And somehow to claim that what we are doing is trying to make the lives of troubled teenaged girls easier in dealing with horrible circumstances, I mean, does anybody believe that a young girl who is a victim of incest or a young girl who has been raped by her stepfather or her brother is going to feel that she can go to her mother? Maybe. But, in many cases, I don't believe that is what will happen. So you are taking a tragic situation and adding more tragedy to it.

So I find that puzzling, that we have people coming to the floor telling us how this is the right thing to do and that we should somehow praise this process that closes off any amendments and any real debate. This is a bad bill, and it is a bad process under which it is coming to the floor. I don't care what you believe on the issue of choice. The fact of the matter is this notion that these bills should come to the floor under closed rules I think is just wrong.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, let me close by once again urging all Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``no'' on this rule. Vote ``no'' on this rule regardless of what you believe about the underlying bill, because we have a broken process in this House of Representatives.

It is wrong for a bill like this or even the previous bill, bills that are controversial, to come to this floor under a closed process. It is wrong.

That has become a pattern in this House of Representatives. In this Congress, with the exception of appropriation bills, every bill that has come to this floor has been under a restricted process with the exception of one open rule.

What a horrendous record. That is not good for this democracy. That does not result in good legislation. It is an insult to all of the Members of this House, Democrat and Republican, who have good ideas who want to be able to legislate. That is what we are sent here for. If we want this to end, Members of both sides of the aisle need to stand up and have the guts to vote ``no'' on some of these closed rules.

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

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

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 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. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1039 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 1039 is a closed rule which allows one hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule allows one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, before we begin debate on the rule for S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, I want to refresh the memories of some of my colleagues and offer historical context to Members who were not here in early 2005.

Last year, on April 27, I sponsored and managed a rule to consider H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This rule passed by a vote of 234-192, including the support of eight Democrats. Two Democratic amendments were considered and failed by a recorded vote. No Republican amendments were considered to H.R. 748, and the legislation passed by a vote of 270-157, which included the support of 54 Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in support of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. However, this time we will consider the legislation passed by our colleagues in the Senate. S. 403 passed the Senate by a vote of 65-34 two months ago, and it is a very close facsimile to H.R. 748. Indeed, it is almost identical to the House bill.

So, as I begin my remarks, I would like to recognize and thank Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for her dedication and leadership not only on

the House version of this legislation but also on the overall issue of protecting children.

Likewise, I would like to offer a special thank you to Senator John Ensign of Nevada for sponsoring today's legislation and both the Senate and House leadership for their willingness to address this vital issue.

Mr. Speaker, like the debate we had in April of 2005, I anticipate that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it as an assault on a woman's so-called right to choose. Despite this allegation, S. 403 has nothing to do with Supreme Court imposed rights but simply ensures that no minor is deprived of protection by her parents under the laws of her State.

S. 403 is a common sense bill that will prohibit the transportation of a minor under age 18 across a State line to obtain an abortion when the child's home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an exception in those rare cases in which the abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the minor.

In addition, the Child Custody Protection Act affirms the responsibility of a physician prior to performing an abortion on a minor from another State to make sure that they are acting in accordance with the law. In other words, this bill not only ensures the protection of minors, but it also clarifies the responsibility of the physician to make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing an abortion on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her parent from her home State.

The Child Custody Protection Act also affirms the principles of Federalism and it prevents the circumvention and violation of laws passed by State legislatures. Thirty-four States, let me repeat, 34 States have passed parental notification laws. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, the legislature passed a new abortion notification law just last year in overwhelming and, I might add, bipartisan fashion. Now this legislative body has the responsibility to defend that Federalism and the integrity of State laws on interstate matters.

Mr. Speaker, I can address this issue wearing three different hats. As an OB/GYN physician who has delivered many babies over the course of a 31-year medical career; as a Member of Congress; and, most importantly, as a proud father.

I have four children, three of whom are grown women and two of them with children of their own. As a father, I have an obligation to defend my children and grandchildren against danger. As a Member of this body, of Congress, I have the same obligation to the children and grandchildren of every parent in this country. As a physician, I have the obligation under the Hippocratic Oath to, in the first place, do no harm.

The Child Custody Protection Act recognizes this fundamental bond between parents and a child, and it reaffirms the obligation of a parent to be involved and help make important decisions affecting both the life and health of a minor child.

In a society where children cannot be given aspirin at school without their parents' permission, I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly believe that having an abortion is less traumatic than taking an aspirin. However, I understand that this is exactly what the opponents of this bill are saying through their opposition to S. 403.

During this debate I want to encourage my colleagues to remain focused on the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks to uphold the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their minor children.

I ask my colleagues, please support this rule and pass this much- needed underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am proud to yield 3 minutes to

the author of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

Mr. Speaker, I want to let the gentleman from Massachusetts know I have no other requests for time, and I will reserve for the purpose of closing.

Madam Speaker, as I close this debate, I want to respond to some of the points that my good friends on the other side of the aisle have stated. They stated their concern about situations where a minor has been raped or a minor has been abused by her own parent, indeed, a case of incest and what do you want to do about that. I want to make sure that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, indeed, on both sides of the aisle understand that there are clear exceptions in this bill. And they are important. They are very important exceptions, and I don't argue with that point that is made.

Let me, Madam Speaker, enumerate a couple of those exceptions. It allows an out-of-state abortion to be performed without parental notification if it is done to save the life of the minor. And it allows an out-of-state abortion, and this is most important to that point, an out-of-state abortion to be performed where a physician is given documentation showing that the court in the minor's home State has waived parental notification requirements which certainly would be waived in those situations.

Madam Speaker, in closing, let me reemphasize the importance of Senate bill S. 403, the Child Custody Protection Act, as a safeguard of parental rights and protection for our minors. Almost 80 percent of Americans favor parental notification laws according to a poll conducted by the New York Times, yet current State laws can be circumvented and violated through the interstate transportation of minors. Allowing our children to be carted across State lines by nonguardians to get an abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally wrong.

I would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, and we can talk about process all day long, you have a right, but to vote against this rule and this bill is just beyond my imagination.

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

Madam Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and a moral duty to children and to their parents to make sure State laws are upheld to prevent nonguardians from making medical decisions for our children.

Frankly, Madam Speaker, our Nation's parents and children deserve better, and this bill will ensure that they get the care and consideration that they need. Again, I would like to thank

the sponsors of this legislation, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen in the House and Mr. Ensign in the Senate; and I want to thank all of my colleagues who support efforts to preserve the authority of parents to oversee the well-being of their own children.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

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

The previous question was ordered.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Schmidt).

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.

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.

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. Speaker, I have been waiting for a while to yield a minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren).

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

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