Child Custody Protection Act

Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the Child Custody Protection Act, which imposes criminal penalties on those who help transport a minor across State lines to obtain an abortion if she does not first meet the parental involvement requirements of her home State.

My primary concern with this legislation is that it unnecessarily puts minors' health and well-being in danger. In addition, the language is so broadly written that it has the effect of harshly punishing those adult family members and loved ones who try to help a young woman in a time of need.

In addition to criminalizing the actions intended to assist a young woman with a difficult decision, this bill would create a new civil action where parents can file a lawsuit against the individual assisting the minor this means relatives, teachers, other trusted adults as well as potentially the doctor, nurse or clinic staff all could face civil court action.

As a mother and a grandmother, I would argue that, in a perfect world, young women and their parents should communicate openly about all major decisions, including whether to terminate a pregnancy. And, in fact, many young women do involve a parent in these decisions. However, the reality is that not all young women live in a household where they can turn to their parents. Some young women face physical, sexual or emotional abuse from their parents; some families do not have open, supporting relationships. For these young women, they may be more comfortable confiding in an older sister, aunt, or a grandparent. Yet this bill would turn these trusted relatives into criminals if they helped her seek an abortion. An unplanned pregnancy is upsetting at any age, and this legislation would deprive young women of support when they most need it.

First and foremost, this bill flies in the face of accepted legal precedent. While it reflects a great deal of concern for potential harms and the violation of parents' rights, it ignores the legal rights of young women to choose safe medical care that protects their health.

The legislation lacks an essential, constitutionally required exception in cases where the restriction it places on the ability of a young woman to get an abortion endangers her health. I am very concerned that once again language is being proposed that would omit this essential protection for women and girls.

The bill provides some limited exceptions to its criminal and civil liability by allowing a sister, aunt, grandmother, or friend to help a girl cross a State border to get an abortion if her life was in danger. But it does not protect actions taken if her health was in danger.

First of all, the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that there must be protection for both the life and health of the mother.

The Supreme Court has ruled time and again from Doe v. Bolton, 1973, to Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992, to Stenberg v. Carhart, 2000, that any law restricting access to abortion must contain an exception to protect a woman's health.

Most recently, three Federal courts in California, New York, and Nebraska declared the partial birth abortion ban, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2003, unconstitutional and permanently enjoined its enforcement.

All three courts concluded that the law was unconstitutional because it lacked an exception to protect a woman's health.

This measure before the Senate today ignores these precedents and demonstrates a complete disregard for the health of young women.

Secondly, in addition to being unconstitutional, this is bad public policy. If a girl turns to her sister to ask for help because she is having complications with a hidden pregnancy how are either of them going to know whether the complication is life threatening or not? Do we really want to create a situation where a girl's sister, aunt, grandmother or friend has to step into the shoes of a doctor and determine whether complications with a pregnancy are life threatening or face criminal and civil charges for helping her? This could occur even if the girl wants to continue her pregnancy but because of health complications cannot.

Does Congress really want to say it is the best public policy to have young women and girls who are in traumatic situations not get medical assistance because it could result in an abortion for a non-life- threatening complication?

Let's be clear, that is the impact of this legislation. I believe it is unconstitutional and bad public policy. A pregnant minor who feels she cannot confide in a parent is already left with few options.

She can seek a judicial bypass. But few young women have the tools to navigate our complex legal system. The legal system is very difficult for the average adult to manage let alone a minor in an extremely difficult and vulnerable position. In addition, the legal system has demands that further restrict a girl's access; for instance, court hours are usually 9 to 5, requiring a young woman to miss school in order to appear in court. And many girls are reluctant to discuss such a personal decision that could involve traumatic experiences with a judge.

She may delay her decision. However, an abortion that occurs later in her pregnancy will be more dangerous and complicated than one that occurs in

the early stages of her pregnancy. She may opt to travel out of State, alone, undergoing a medical procedure with no family or friends there to support her.

She may seek a dangerous and illegal abortion. A pregnant minor who cannot safely tell a parent about her situation faces enough obstacles. We do not need to criminalize well-intentioned assistance provided to her.

I am also concerned that it is not only the young women making a deliberate choice not to tell a parent of an abortion who would suffer under this bill. Access to abortion is declining in this country, for women of all ages. Eighty-seven percent of counties no longer have a doctor who will perform an abortion. For many women, the most convenient provider is across State lines.

An older sister or aunt accompanying a minor to the nearest provider may unwittingly become a criminal. Even if neither woman intended to evade parental consent laws, this act of family support would be criminalized. A grandmother or sister could have no idea that she is violating a Federal law when she helps a family member access legal medical care.

But proponents of this legislation would like you to believe that this debate is not about young women who can no longer find a doctor who will provide full services in their home State. To them, this is not about the young women who, for whatever reason, need to look beyond a parent for adult support.

While supporters of this bill are correctly horrified by stories of girls kidnapped by older boyfriends and forced into having abortions they did not want, this legislation does not create a limited solution to fix that problem. In fact, in many cases the actions in these circumstances are already illegal. Laws prohibit kidnapping. Laws prohibit statutory rape. Medical ethics require that physicians obtain informed consent from the patient before performing any medical procedure. People who violate these laws can already be prosecuted. I welcome a debate on policies that will crack down further on sexual predators who abuse young women.

If there is a problem that current laws are not being enforced, then let's address that; if there is a problem that these laws are not strong enough, then let's address that, but let's not criminalize behavior of a loving family member, friend, or confidant who is trying to help a young girl in a traumatic time in her life.

This bill is not about protecting vulnerable young women from crime. It is about limiting their access to a constitutionally protected medical procedure. This legislation does reflect a great deal of concern for potential harms and the violation of rights--of parents.

Under this proposal, a parent has legal recourse if his or her supposed ``right'' to stop their daughter's abortion is violated. Parents can sue to collect damages.

This bill, in fact, could create a situation in which a mother sues a grandmother for helping her granddaughter exercise her right to choose. Yet it leaves a young woman with no recourse for the violation of their right to seek and receive safe medical care of her choice.

This legislation also runs counter to basic notions of federalism, linking a young woman to the law of her home State no matter where she may be living. No other State laws follow her to college or summer camp.

In this country, State laws do not extend beyond State borders. When residents from my home State of California travel to Nevada for vacations, they are allowed to play the slot machines, even though gambling is illegal at home. There is no reason why laws should reach across State lines to restrict access to a safe and legal medical procedure.

I wish this were a perfect world. I wish we could legislate that every child has a loving and stable parent to guide him or her through the trials of adolescence. I wish we could legislate that every family talk openly and honestly about the risks of sexual activity.

But we cannot. Parental consent laws do not create these idealized families. Instead, they further burden those that are already troubled. A young woman facing an unplanned pregnancy in an unstable situation must be able to turn to another trusted adult--without the fear of subjecting the adult to Federal criminal liability.

The very fact that we are having this debate is a clear demonstration of the leadership's misplaced priorities. They claim this is a women's health issue, a family values issue.

We have only a few legislative days remaining this year. There are so many other problems we should be addressing.

We should be debating ways to prevent these difficult situations from arising in the first place. We should be discussing policies that promote honest information about reproductive health and ready access to contraceptives. No teen should face an unplanned pregnancy. Those that do must not face it alone.

I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this bill that endangers young women's health and turns their relatives into criminals.

I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) is necessarily absent.

Mr. President, this is a difficult issue for most Americans, the issue of abortion. There are strongly held feelings on both sides and the American people are conflicted. When you probe and ask them what they think about abortion, first, they would rather not talk about it. I think that is a natural human reaction because we know it is a delicate and difficult issue. Secondly, they basically say: Well, I don't want to criminalize someone who goes out for an abortion, but is there any way to reduce the number of abortions in this country? I think that is a natural reaction by most, that we should keep abortion legal, not a crime, but reduce the incidents of abortion in our country.

So we have a bill before us today which deals with one aspect; and the aspect is, what do we do about the fact that some States have laws that require parental consent before a person who has not reached adulthood would have an abortion performed and some States do not have those laws? What if you move from one State to the other? What law will apply?

Senator Ensign of Nevada brings us his bill and suggests that if you knowingly remove a person across one border where parental consent is required to another State where it is not required, the person who took that minor to that abortion clinic in the State without parental consent is going to be liable not just for a civil lawsuit that can be filed against them by the parents but also for a crime.

Their idea is to reduce the likelihood that young people will be taken across a State line to a State without parental consent by imposing new civil penalties and criminal penalties on those who would transport them.

Senator Boxer of California has come before us and pointed out some real problems with this bill. What about the situation where the young girl we are talking about has been a victim of incest? Would the father then have the right to bring a lawsuit against someone who took the daughter he abused across the State line? Nobody wants to talk about this issue. This is not the kind of thing you wake up in the morning and say: I hope the debate today will be about abortion and incest. But that is what we face. We are talking about writing the laws of the land in a way that is sensible. You say: That has to be a rare situation. Yes, it is. I am sure it is. But for that life and that person and that crime, it could be the most important and tragic event that ever happened in their lives. That is why we have to take this very seriously. We have to write these amendments very carefully.

The thing that troubles me about this debate is evidenced in the vote we just took. Senators Lautenberg and Menendez came to the floor and said: If we are truly going to reduce the number of abortions, then we have to deal with the reality of family planning and sex education, other issues that politicians don't jump forward to speak about. They suggested we start creating programs that have been proven to be effective, that will help educate young people so they will avoid unwanted pregnancies and avoid the diseases and problems that may result therefrom.

What happened on this vote? What happened on a vote where we were talking about sex education as part of our approach? It was defeated. The approach which is dominant now is not to deal with the reality of young people and their knowledge of what they face if they make the wrong decision but, rather, punishment, to suggest to them that what they have done is not only morally wrong but could be criminal.

My wife and I have raised three children, two daughters. I know that to be a parent is to be countercultural. So many times we would say: We don't want you to go to that movie or look at that book; you can't watch this television show. Parents do that all the time in the hopes that you instill in your kids values they can live by and that they will make the right decisions. I never felt at any point that ignorance was a virtue. I felt with our kids, as many parents do, you have to be honest with them about the realities of life and what they will face.

The question of abstinence comes up on the floor. It is brought up by many. That is the first thing we told our kids: Stay away from sexual activity. This is something you shouldn't do. That is the best advice from a parent to a child. But beyond that, what more should you tell them? Senator Lautenberg suggests you should tell them more in certain circumstances, and it was rejected 48 to 51.

You might ask why we are debating this issue this day. I think it is important for us to reflect on why this happens to come to the Senate floor today. This issue is before the Senate today for two or three reasons. One reason is many Republican Senators who traditionally vote against abortion voted for stem cell research last week. This is a make-good vote. This is so some of them can remind their antiabortion constituencies they are still in their corner. I understand that.

Secondly, it is a way to kill time in the Senate rather than address the real issues the American people care about. This debate over this issue is taking time away from any debate on gasoline prices, on health insurance, on jobs.

Third, of course, it fires up a political base on the Republican side for the upcoming election.

A Gallup poll asked 1,000 Americans this open-ended question: What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today? They asked 1,000 Americans a few months ago. The top vote getters: The war in Iraq, gasoline prices, immigration, health care, and the economy. Where did the issue of abortion show up on this list? It tied for No. 33. Less than one half of 1 percent of people said abortion was the most important problem facing America today. But it is the most important issue in the mind of the Republican leadership that we should be debating on the floor of the Senate.

I hope we are able to work out an amendment to deal with the reality of the issue of incest, which is part of the debate, sadly. Perhaps the most egregious part of this bill is the fact that there is no exception for the case of incest. It empowers the parent who may be guilty of the crime to file a lawsuit and recover money because someone else took the victim across a State line. That is hardly where we want to go. Many incest victims are understandably frightened and don't want to tell their parents anything for obvious reasons.

Listen to the words of Sharon from New Hampshire, raped by her father at the age of 17:

Imagine being 17, pregnant after being raped by your

father, alone, isolated, afraid to tell anyone for fear your

parents would find out and that, if they did, you would be

further humiliated, harassed and abused. . . . I felt and

feared these things.

Consider the case of Spring Adams, a 13-year-old girl from Idaho, raped by

her father and impregnated. A private organization learned about the girl, made arrangements to take her to the nearest abortion clinic 6 hours away to have an abortion. The night before Spring was to leave, her father discovered it. When Spring went to sleep that night, her father went into her room and shot her to death with a rifle.

These aren't isolated incidents. One study showed that 30 percent of the minors who had an abortion without telling their parents had previously experienced violence or threats of violence in their family. That is the real world. We should deal with the real world when we write these laws.

I think Senator Ensign understands changes have to be made to this bill. I hope we will make them. Let us all agree on this: We need to find ways to reduce the incidence of abortion. We need to find ways that are sensible and sensitive. Merely telling people you can't do it, you shouldn't do it, may not be enough. Education may be part of it as well. It is unfortunate the Senate has rejected the Lautenberg amendment which would have moved us closer to the point where that would have been available in some areas where good family planning information would have been available. It was rejected by the Senate.

Now we come before the Senate with this bill that is subject to amendment. We are hoping we can find a reasonable compromise on a very difficult and divisive issue.

I am happy to yield.

That ought to be the starting point. Shouldn't we all agree on that? If we are going to reduce the incidence of abortion, one of the things we should do is make sure young people are aware of consequences. We should stress abstinence. The Lautenberg amendment put that as the highest priority. But then have family planning information available so young people know that there are ways to protect themselves. I think that was a reasonable starting point. We had a few from the other side of the aisle join us with that amendment but clearly not enough.

I would say we have to find very common ground on a divisive issue. That was a good starting point. Unfortunately, it did not prevail today. We will go on with this debate, but I hope those of us who look at this issue and worry over how to reduce the number of abortions can work to find some common bipartisan ground to help strengthen families and educate their children about the consequences of their actions, to promote abstinence but not to promote ignorance.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

The bill creates a civil cause of action the parents can bring. Does the Senator from Pennsylvania believe that in one of those rare, tragic cases of incest and the father is the reason for the incest, he should be allowed to bring a civil cause of action against the person who has transported the victim?

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, on behalf of myself and other Senators, I will object to the appointment of conferees at this point. This is an issue which has been debated for a short time here on the floor and never went through the Senate Judiciary Committee for consideration. It is our belief that at this point in the session asking for a conference committee is premature.

I object.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Child Custody Protection Act. I congratulate the majority leader for scheduling time for this important piece of legislation, as well as Senator Ensign for the terrific work he is doing in managing the legislation as the author of the bill.

This is very important legislation. It has been described many times so I won't go into detail. What we are trying to do is protect children from being taken across State lines to avoid parental involvement laws. As a father of six children, two daughters, I believe parents should be involved in the health care decisions of minor children. I am not alone in that regard. The vast majority of Americans believe in parental consent laws when it comes to having abortion procedures done on minors, that parents should be involved in that decision.

The Senator from Illinois described situations that are certainly the exception rather than the rule. When those exceptions arise, in all of the States there is a judicial bypass. The Senator from Illinois described some pretty horrific circumstances of incest or rape. Here you have a situation where if we don't have this law, the rapist or the person who committed the incest against this minor child could take that child across State lines, never report it to the police, have the abortion done, and the parents never know about it. Nobody knows about it, and the child is back in the home and potentially in the same threatening environment the child was in in the first place. At least under our parental consent laws and with this statute, if we are successful, the court can get involved. We can remove that child from the dangerous situation.

I don't know why allowing someone surreptitiously to avoid state parental consent laws is a benefit to the child. If anything, it is the opposite. That is not a rational reason for objecting to this statute.

Again, I suggest the American public overwhelmingly feels the same way. Parents deserve and should have the ability to be consulted and notified or give consent, depending on the State, to a medical procedure as severe and serious as an abortion.

If you look at the poll question, do you agree or disagree that a person should be able to take a minor girl across State lines to obtain an abortion without her parents' knowledge--this isn't consent, it is just knowledge--15 percent agree, 15 percent agree with that statement that she should be able to be transported across State lines; 82 percent disagree. They said people should not be able to take a child across State lines without the knowledge of their parents. Seventy-five percent strongly disagree with the current state of the law which is you can transport children across State lines in order to circumvent state parental involvement laws.

In Pennsylvania, all of the surrounding states but the State of Ohio have weaker laws on parental involvement than the State of Pennsylvania. So a child in the northwestern part of our State can go up to New York or, in the eastern part of the State, New Jersey or Delaware or, in the southern part of our State, Maryland, West Virginia, all of which have laws that are not as favorable to parents and children as Pennsylvania with respect to consent.

This is, unfortunately, not a hypothetical for those of us in Pennsylvania. There are cases, unfortunate cases of children being taken by a boyfriend or his family members across State lines and the horrible consequences that result.

We also have abortion clinics from other States that advertise in Pennsylvania. There are a couple of ads I will put up on the board. This is northeastern Pennsylvania. Scranton is there, up near the New York border. Here in the Scranton Yellow Pages is the All Women's Health and Medical Services in White Plains, NY, a toll free number; ``We are here if you need us.'' This is, again, advertising in White Plains, NY, which is not that close to Scranton. It is at least 50 miles away. And it talks about no consent, no waiting period. There is a parental consent provision in the Pennsylvania statute that was upheld as constitutional back in 1992. There is a 24-hour waiting period. Again, the clinic is advertising no consent, no waiting period, directly aimed at minors in Pennsylvania urging them to come and have abortions at their clinic across the State line.

Here is another one. This is at the other end of the State, the southern part of our State. This is the Yellow Pages in Lancaster. Atlantic Women's Medical Services, Inc., no parental consent, 16 years and older. The Pennsylvania law is 18 years of age. So if you are 16, 17, they require no consent; again, directly targeted at a State, encouraging women and others to bring

young women across the State line for abortions. They advertise abortions to 24 weeks, the abortion pill, low fees, all trying to make sure these young girls know that abortions are available without consent.

This is not a hypothetical. This is direct marketing to minors, direct marketing in the Yellow Pages to minors who are desperate and, in many cases, afraid and feel alone. They are marketing to these vulnerable children to get them to not talk to their parents but to come and get an abortion out of State, against their State laws. This is, again, not just a hypothetical but a real-life situation. And which I will share a case.

We had a case in Lancaster, PA, which began on Christmas Eve, 2004. A 14-year-old told her mother she was pregnant. The parents were prepared to be supportive, to help that child in whatever decision she made and in scheduling appointments with doctors, counselors, and other programs that could help this child get through this very difficult situation. The daughter chose to have the baby and raise it with the love and support of her family.

But the boyfriend's family didn't like the young girl's decision and began to harass and coerce the girl and her family in order to intimidate her into getting an abortion. The mother called the local police for advice and even called an abortion clinic to see how old you needed to be to have an abortion in Pennsylvania because she was afraid that her daughter might be pressured toward an abortion. She was told the daughter needed to be 16 though that was actually incorrect because she needed to be 18 to have an abortion without consent. Therefore, her mother thought she was protected.

That wasn't the case. In mid-February, she sent her daughter off to school, but the daughter never made it there. Her boyfriend's family met her and her boyfriend down the road, put them in a cab and then on a train, and then a subway to New Jersey, where his family met them and took them to an abortion clinic where one of them had made an appointment. The young girl had second thoughts, but she was told they would leave her in New Jersey if she didn't undergo an abortion.

After the abortion, the family of the boyfriend, who may have been attempting to conceal the evidence of his statutory rape, drove her back to Pennsylvania. Again, this left the young woman completely unprotected with the state not being able to go after this young man and his family for taking her across state lines for an abortion. That is what it seems was behind the parents trying to get rid of this child. This is a situation which should not happen. We have State laws that protect children and parents and their rights to be able to nurture and help their children along the way.

This was a difficult circumstance, and as I said before, there are, unfortunately, others. We even have in the State of Pennsylvania organizations outside of these legal clinics that are trying to give advice and help to minor children on evading the parental consent laws. There is an organization called the Women's Law Project. It says here in their publication, ``Is it legal for teen-aged women to cross State lines to get an abortion?'' This is a document which is handed out and given to young women to help them avoid the State laws that are in place for parental consent. It says:

Yes. However, the adult may risk a charge of interfering

with the custody of a minor. Adults who are accompanying

young women under 14 to out-of-State abortion providers

should contact a lawyer for the Women's Law Project.

So if you are over 14 years of age, they assure you that you can go to an abortion clinic out of State. If you are under 14, your accompanying adult may have to call our lawyers to take care of the situation.

This is a real-world situation, a problem we are confronted with in this country. All we are trying to do is let the State laws, the collective wisdom of the people of Pennsylvania, have effect, have efficacy; that the laws which are put in place are there to protect children and the rights of parents. The only one that can stop others from getting around those protections and avoiding State laws is the Federal Government, by stopping the interstate transportation of these children for the purpose of abortion.

So this is a vitally important piece of legislation for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. This is one in which I am hopeful that 75 or 80 percent of the Senate will agree with when it is all said and done because it is vitally important, for the health of our children and for the stability of families, to give families and children this legal protection. That is what we are doing. That is what these States have done--given legal protection from further abuse of minors who find themselves in a situation where they are pregnant and under, obviously, a horrible situation in their lives. They need their parents. Where the parents are the problem or a threat to them, there is a judicial bypass. We have in place safeguards where parents are the problem, which, again, is a minority of situations. We do have protections in place.

The Senator from Nevada has an amendment which is going to take care of that situation. I will defer to him, if he would like to answer that question on how the amendment would work to preclude that problem.

Mr. President, I ask that the Senate now proceed to S. 403 under conditions of the consent agreement from last week.

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Child Custody Protection Act which will protect the rights of our Nation's parents and their children's well-being. Speaking as a father of three young children, including a daughter, I understand how difficult the challenge of raising children can be. In most schools across the country, our children cannot go on a field trip, take part in school activities, or participate in sex education without a signed permission slip. An underage child cannot even receive mild medication such as aspirin unless the school nurse has a signed release form. Some States even require parental permission to use indoor tanning beds. Nothing, however, prevents this same child from being taken across State lines in direct disobedience of State laws for the purpose of undergoing a surgical, life-altering abortion.

The bill before us, the Child Custody Protection Act, makes it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line for the purpose of an abortion in order to circumvent a State's parental consent or notification law. It specifies that neither the minor transported nor her parent may be prosecuted for a violation of this act.

It is important to note that this legislation does not supersede, override, or in any way alter existing State parental involvement laws. It does not impose any Federal parental notice or consent requirement on any State that does not already have a parental involvement law in place. This bill merely addresses the interstate transportation of minors, sometimes by a predatory older male or his parents, in order to circumvent valid existing State laws that require parental notification or consent. This bill goes a long way in strengthening the effectiveness of State laws designed to protect parents and their young daughters from the health and safety risks associated with secret abortions.

An overwhelming number of States have recognized that a young girl's parents are the best source of guidance and knowledge when making decisions regarding serious surgical procedures such as abortion. Forty-five States have adopted some form of parental notification or consent, proving the widespread support for protecting the rights of parents across America. The people who care the most for a child should be involved in these kinds of health care decisions. If there is aftercare needed, the parents should be fully informed in order to care for their young daughter.

An overwhelming majority of Americans support parental consent laws. In fact, most polls show that consent is favored by almost 80 percent of the American people. These numbers do not lie. By the way, these are people who call themselves pro-choice and pro-life. Well over a majority of even pro-choice people support parental notification or parental consent laws. The American people agree that parents deserve the right to be involved in their minor children's decisions. In many cases, only a girl's parents know her prior medical and psychological history, including allergies to medications and anesthesia.

The harsh reality is our current law allows for parents to be left uninformed about their underage daughter's abortion which can be devastating to the physical and mental health of their child. Take the case of Marcia Carroll from Pennsylvania. On Christmas Eve 2004, her daughter informed her she was pregnant. After listening to her daughter's story, Ms. Carroll assured her that they would handle this as a family and would support any decisions she decided to make. They scheduled appointments with both doctors and counselors and discussed all options available. Ms. Carroll purposely allowed her daughter to speak alone with the professionals so that her daughter felt comfortable to speak her mind. After all the advice and counsel, her daughter decided to have the baby and to raise it, a decision which the family fully supported.

Following her decision, despite their knowledge of her family's love and support, her boyfriend's family began to harass her and threaten that she could not see her boyfriend unless she had an abortion. Ms. Carroll was so concerned about their behavior, she called the police and even went so far as to contact a nearby abortion clinic to ensure that parental consent would be required before an abortion would be allowed. Pennsylvania's law requires that anyone under the age of 18 have consent of a parent before an abortion can be performed. Unfortunately, other States nearby do not have the same protections.

Shortly after, Ms. Carroll sent her daughter off to school, thinking she would be safe. Imagine yourself in the same position. Instead, her boyfriend and his family met her at the bus stop, bought them a train ticket, and sent the children to New Jersey, where other family members picked them up and took them to an abortion clinic. Despite her tears and desires to keep the baby, her boyfriend's family coerced her by telling her they would leave her in New Jersey with no way to get home. They planned, paid for, and threatened her into agreeing to an abortion. After the abortion, they dropped her off blocks from her house with no regard to her mental or physical well-being. Ms. Carroll called the local police department only to be told that there was nothing that could be done. This poor young girl, whose family was committed to loving her and respecting her decision, had her life forever altered by adults who never considered her wishes or the consequences such a decision would have on her life.

Parental notification serves another vital purpose: ensuring increased protection against sexual exploitation of

minors by adult men. All too often, our young girls are the victims of predatory practices of men who are older, more experienced, and in a unique position to influence the minor's decisions. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, almost two-thirds of adolescent mothers have partners older than 20 years of age. Rather than face a statutory rape charge, these men or their families use the vulnerability of the young girl against her, exerting pressure on the girl to agree to an abortion without talking to her parents. We all know how easy it is to influence teenagers, boys or girls. In fact, in a survey of 1,500 unmarried minors having abortions without their parent's knowledge, 89 percent said that a boyfriend was involved in the decision, and the number goes even higher the younger the age of the minor. Allowing secret abortions does nothing to expose these men and their heinous conduct.

Such is the case with Crystal, the 12-year-old daughter of a Pennsylvania woman, who was intoxicated and raped by a local teenager 6 years her senior. Crystal's mother did not even know she was pregnant until Crystal went missing from school and it was discovered that her rapist's mother had taken her across State lines into New York where, scared and confused, she received an abortion. When Crystal developed complications from the incomplete abortion, the clinic physician refused to supply the medical records to her mother. Crystal's mother, a loving and responsible parent, was not even given the option to care for her daughter. Rather, the decision was made for her by an unknown adult.

There is overwhelming agreement that parents and parental notification laws and consent laws are important tools that enable parents to help protect their daughters from this kind of abuse. In 1998, Dr. Bruce Lucero, an abortionist who performed some 45,000 abortions, wrote of his support for the Child Custody Protection Act to the New York Times. In the article, Dr. Lucero pointed out that ``dangerous complications are more likely to result when parents are not involved in these out-of-state abortions.'' He goes on to say that parental involvement is the best guarantee that a minor will make the best and most safe decision. This is an abortionist doctor talking.

In the unfortunate instance of abuse or where there is rape or incest involved within a family, minors may be afraid to go to one of the parents--and rightfully so. In response, judicial bypass laws have been written across the country to protect the minor.

This legislation is a commonsense solution to defeat the legal loophole that currently results from parents being denied the right to know about the health decisions of their minor daughters.

The Child Custody Protection Act in no way imposes a parental involvement law on a State that does not already have a functioning law in place. It does not invalidate any State law, nor does this act contradict Supreme Court precedent dealing with minors and abortion.

In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that it is the State's right to declare that abortion should not be performed on a minor unless a parent is consulted.

Mr. President, is it time for the adjournment?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds and 5 minutes for my colleague.

In fact, the Supreme Court made it clear in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that it is the State's right to declare that an abortion should not be performed on a minor unless a parent is consulted.

This is not an argument on the merits of abortion. Rather, this is a debate about preserving the fundamental rights of parents to have knowledge about health decisions of their minor daughters.

Let me conclude with this. This is one of the biggest moral issues of the day, the right to have an abortion or not. It splits America. The emotions are high. There are good people on both sides of the debate. We need to look for common ground, where we can come together and at least have some reasonable restrictions on abortion. I believe this bill is one of those reasonable restrictions on abortion that I think all of us should come together on.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

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.

No.

unanimous consent request--h.r. 748

Reserving the right to object, first of all, I voted for this legislation. I support it. However, there are Senators on this side of the aisle who do not. Senator Boxer appreciates the assurance that has been given to her through the public statement of the leader. She has heard from others that does not bind what the House would do with this piece of legislation.

That is one of the problems we have when you spend so much time on issues that are taking far too much time. We talked about the estate tax endlessly. There are ways, even though there are people on this side of the aisle who object to going to conference, that this matter can be taken to conference. We pass bills all the time by sending a bill to the House and having them accept it. If that does not work, there are procedural methods that can be taken.

The bill passed by 70 votes or even more, far more than enough to overcome any procedural hurdles anyone could stand in the way of. Steps just have to be initiated.

As a result of that, on behalf of Senator Boxer and others, I object.

Mr. President, I try to read the newspapers very well every day. I am one who reads the editorials. I read people such as E.J. Dionne, who represents important, progressive writers. But I am a fan of Robert Novak. That may surprise someone, but I read Robert Novak's column whenever it appears. It may also surprise people to know that I am a friend of Robert Novak. I don't agree with him much of the time, but some of the time I do.

I want to start my presentation this morning following the suggestion made by the majority leader. In papers today all over the country is the column of Robert Novak. Among other things, he said--because of the legislative proposals we have before us that the leader says is our last chance--because of this ``Republicans cast doubt on what they really believe.''

He goes on to say, among other things, that ``A lame-duck committee chairman''--we all know that is Chairman Thomas--``overpowering Congress connotes weak leadership in both the House and the Senate and a President detached from legislative activity.''

I couldn't say it better myself. I give that to Bob Novak.

He goes on to say that Thomas, last week, combined them with the extenders bill--minimum wage and estate tax legislation.

He went on to say:

Arrogant, acerbic and authoritarian, the chairman was going

out with a bravura performance [refusing to walk across the

Capitol to meet with Senators].

He refused to come to the Dirksen building.

He said further:

Last week Senators cooled their heels for hours while

waiting for Thomas and other House Members to attend a

meeting.

And among other things, he said, ``But Grassley''--Chairman of the Finance Committee here in the Senate--``was undercut by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's support of the Thomas plan.''

As a young man I had my first trip to New York City. That is a long way from Searchlight. But I was there among the great big buildings. I was fascinated by some people on the street. They had little containers on a table there. They were asking people for a few cents to find out where the money was. I watched that. I watched people come up and give them money. It was magic. It was a shell game. I had never seen one before. The guy in the shell game never lost. I don't know how he did it. He would move these things around right in front of us. And when you picked it up, it wasn't there.

That is what we have going on here. This is a shell game with fancy names such as ``Family Prosperity Act.'' Is that something similar to the Clear Skies initiative that pollutes our skies? Is that something similar to Leave No Child Behind but leaves all of our children behind? Is that something similar to the budget deficit reduction plan which increased the deficit?

This is a shell game. I am going to have a more complete statement before we vote on this.

I wish to make a couple of comments regarding my distinguished colleague's assertion. He gives the name of somebody on a farm.

One of the sitting Senators from the State of California, with 35 million people--California feeds most of America and other parts of the world. It is the agricultural capital of the world, the great Imperial Valley and other places in California that produce wonderful fruits and vegetables.

The Farm Bureau, which supports passage of the repeal of the estate tax for reasons no one can understand because the California Senator asked the head of National Farm Bureau: During the past 10 years, give me the name of a farmer or farmers or ranchers who lost their farms as a result of the estate tax. Zero, none. That is a myth.

I will bet every Democratic Senator thinks we should do something to change the estate tax a little bit.

When I was in law school, the ceiling was $60,000. It is now $2.5 million--whatever it is, an escalating level, but it is a lot more than it was then.

I am terribly disappointed with the situation we have in the Senate today.

This should have been the day we were doing our victory laps prior to going home for the August recess. We should have felt good. I felt good. We were finally going to be able to do something about coastal erosion, to restore the coasts, especially around New Orleans. I have been worried about that. I was twice chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. We finally had an opportunity, and what do we do? We should be leaving feeling good. We should feel good today about what Senators Baucus and Grassley did for us in taking care of the pensions bill, which directly affects 45 million people and indirectly affects 145 million Americans. It was done. It was signed.

That is what Robert Novak is talking about. It was done--the pension bill was done. It had the extenders on it.

That is when Chairman Thomas, as indicated here, showed that he could outsmart the House leadership and the Senate leadership. And as indicated here, Grassley was undercut by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist in supporting the Thomas plan.

It was all done. It would have taken an hour here. The extenders would have been done, and the pension bill would have been completed. It was done, agreed upon by the House and Senate conferees.

We should have been leaving today feeling so good about that. We should be leaving today feeling good about having given the money to our beleaguered troops, which is so badly needed.

We learned this week that a month ago the President got a message from his generals that the war machine was worn out. They wanted $17 billion--yesterday--to refurbish the fighting forces we have. Our valiant soldiers are fighting, but they are doing it with equipment that needs repair.

We learned a day later from the head of the National Guard that they are underfunded by $34 billion. The Nevada National Guard followed up by saying, as a number of our Guard around the country said--a lot of our equipment is still in Iraq.

We should have left feeling that we had completed work on the Military Construction bill and the Defense appropriations bill. But no; we have been jammed into this situation that we have here today.

Of course, we should have felt good about these extenders that now we have been threatened: We are not going to do them at all--which we know we will do before we leave. We are going to do them.

This should not be called the ``trifecta'' bill--as it has been referred to too often by my friends in the majority--but the ``defecta'' bill.

The minimum wage issue is absolutely so hard to comprehend. We know-- and Bob Novak talks about it--the Republicans hate the minimum wage. He is the mouth of the conservatives. He says Republicans hate the minimum wage. And they give us a bill so they can say ``minimum wage''--but it is a pay cut for people in seven States. Then it is spread out over 3 years.

They couldn't bring themselves to do a pay increase right away.

The richest man in the world is named Warren Buffett. He has more money than all of the Saudi princes. He has $34 billion in the bank, cash money. He is opposed to repealing the estate tax.

Bill Gates of Microsoft--he and his father are opposed to repealing the estate tax.

What I say about the ``defecta'' bill is let us vote on the motion to proceed right now--right now. Set it up and make it so each side will have half an hour of debate on it. Let us vote on the motion to proceed right now. We don't need to wait until tomorrow morning. We are ready to do it right now, so that we can get to work on the Defense bill, so that we can do the extenders; otherwise, we are just churning time.

Let us vote on it.

The Family Prosperity Act is for 8,100 in this country. It really is. That is how many this applies to with repeal of the estate tax--8,100 of the richest of the rich.

It is time to put the charade to bed. We are ready to end this circus. Let us have the cloture vote now so we can get on with the business of the American people. The Senate has already spent far too much time on the No. 1 priority of the Republicans. The road to ``legislative heaven'' of the Republicans is the estate tax repeal.

We have spent more time on this issue in this do-nothing Congress than anything else--far more time than we have spent on our troops in Iraq--on 8,100 families. Is this the legacy of the Republican majority, to spend all of our time on repealing the estate tax and threatening-- threatening--Democratic Senators, Republican Senators, and the American people: Either do it with the ``defecta'' bill or we are not going to do anything?

We need to vote. We need a new direction in this country, and it should start right now.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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.

Mr. President, this is a philosophical debate. There are two questions we ought to ask ourselves: How many people think it is in the best interests of our young people to be sexually active outside of marriage? Is there anything positive that ever comes from that? Is there positive self-esteem? Is there disease? Are there consequences to the fact that when our young people make a decision to become sexually active, almost always there is a negative downside?

Everybody in this body desires the best for our children. We desire the best for one another's children. We desire the best for every child. I have delivered over 4,000 babies. Most of those were Medicaid or teenage moms. I have been doing that for 23 years. I know the attitudes. I know what is going on. I can see.

I have also seen every complication that can come about when we take the parents out of the loop, when we rationalize, well, if the parents aren't going to do it, the Government is going to do it for them. What we do is divide. We make division between children and parents. We do something out in the dark.

I will never forget, I was in Stigler, OK, a small community. A farmer comes in there crying, with a bag in his hand. This was when I was a Congressman. He said: Congressman, how did this happen? My 13- year-old last night came home from the health department. She went with a friend. She came home from the health department with contraceptives and condoms, oral contraceptives and condoms. He said: How is it that I can pay my taxes and I am undermined by the local health department in what my child gets? She wasn't even going for her as an appointment. But she is sold on the fact that she needs to do this. She had good enough training that she came to her parents with that and said: Here is what happened to me.

The point is, as a practicing physician, I use every tool I can with young women to make sure they are well informed. But there is a tipping point about what the best medical advice is. This is debatable. But I would tell you the best medical advice we could give our young men and women, the best absolute medical advice is to stay abstinent until you are in a married relationship. Everybody in this body probably agrees with that.

If that is true, if risk avoidance is the best message, why do we turn around and give 1200 percent more money to risk reduction than we do risk avoidance? For every dollar we spend on abstinence education, we spend $12 on teaching people how to lower the risk. What is the message we are sending with that? We are going to spend $600 million this year on what this amendment does already. That is what we are going to spend. If you add up everything associated with this amendment, we are going to spend another $600 million. First, where are we going to get the money? We don't have it so we are going to borrow it from the very children we say we want to protect to do this.

No. 2, we are winning the war in this country on teenage pregnancy. We are winning the war. We have the highest level of virgin 16-year- olds we have had in 30 years in this country, both men and women, both girls and boys. I don't know if 1200 percent more of that is because we have comprehensive sex education or whether 100 percent of it is because of abstinence. I don't know that. But what I do know is, I am not going to vote for anything that destroys relationships as I have seen in my practice for young women for years.

Does that mean somebody who can't get available maternal child health should be denied it? No. Does that mean somebody who seeks out the right guidance should be denied it? No. This isn't a debate about not doing what we are already doing. We are already doing it. The question is, should we do more? Should we penalize the best medical advice that is out there, which is to abstain? The consequences of that would be disastrous.

The moral rationalization is if you make a mistake, there are no consequences. I have seen the consequences. Condoms on teenagers work about 50 percent of the time, if you add up all the studies. The STD rate for teenagers, even when used perfectly, for human papilloma virus is still 38 percent, the No. 1 cause of cervical cancer. We can rationalize our moral principle away or we can say: Here is where we should go. We are not talking about changing anything.

The President was widely attacked that he hadn't increased moneys for all this. We don't have money to increase anything in this country. We are fighting a war. We have had Katrina. We are running a $350 billion deficit. We don't have money. So if we are going to do this, what program are we going to cut? Or are we going to offer another $600 million? By the way, the title X program hasn't been authorized in 16 years and we are still appropriating moneys.

There is a difference in philosophy. It doesn't mean I am right or wrong. It doesn't mean those who oppose me are wrong or right. But what I have seen from experience is when we honor virtue, when we mentor integrity, when we encourage the right choices, what we get is right choices, honor, and integrity. When we rationalize the consequences of violating principles that are for a healthy productive life, we get a consumption of errors.

I have so many stories I would love for this body and the American people to know about the people I have cared for, the consequences of when we rationalize a moral principle of being pure until you are in a married relationship. Is that prudish? Does it happen? It happens a lot more than we give credit for.

The question we ought to ask ourselves is, would it happen more if we set the example, if we didn't glorify the other position, if we didn't rationalize the position?

I am opposed to the amendment on three grounds. One, we are already spending a ton of money on comprehensive sex education. I am not opposed to that. I teach condoms. I teach barrier methods. I also teach the consequences and the failure rates. I teach the consequences of oral contraceptives. We only have about 10 kids a year die in this country because they are given birth control pills that the parent didn't even know about and they have a thromboembolic event because there is a family history that was never related. So it is OK to sacrifice those 10 young girls because we didn't want their parents, who could have made a decision, to know. We could have done that, but we are not going to do that. We are going to rationalize the behavior of something that is not as good for our children, that is not the best medical advice, and we are going to sacrifice those lives. I am going to oppose it because we are already doing it, No. 1.

No. 2, we already have a markedly distorted ratio against the best medical advice on which we all agree, the best thing our kids could do is not be sexually active outside of a monogamous, long-term relationship. We all agree to that. There is not anybody who disagrees with that.

And finally, why is it here? Why is it on this bill? It is because we don't want this bill. Some of us don't want this bill to pass.

I will relate to you a story about a gal. I will call her Julie because I can't mention her name. Julie is dead. Julie was 16 years of age. Her parents didn't know she had a termination to her pregnancy. When I saw her in the ER at 2 o'clock in the morning, she had a fever and a little bit of bleeding. She had a botched abortion with an infection developed, what is called disseminated intravascular coagulation. And basically 3 days later, despite all the heroic events, she died. Why did she die? She died because we separated the choices that she made from her parents without their involvement. Would she have died if somebody had cared to know what her immediate post-op followup condition was? No. Had she had intervention earlier, would she have died? No. Her parents will never get over the fact that they weren't there. They blame themselves.

I oppose this amendment and hope other Members will do so as well.

Mr. President, this morning we will immediately return to debate on S. 3711, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security bill.

Yesterday, the Senate by a bipartisan vote of 72 to 23 invoked cloture on the bill. Under last night's order, we will proceed to vote on passage of the bill at 5 o'clock today. Senators will be able to deliver their comments on the bill throughout the day, and the time will be equally divided until 5 p.m.

As I stated yesterday, we have other important issues to consider this week before leaving. With respect to that, a lot of colleagues on both sides of the aisle have come up and asked about how I plan to proceed this week on the pensions bill and the so-called trifecta bill, both of which came over from the House Friday night.

I talked to the distinguished minority leader about the best way to proceed over the next few days, given everyone's curiosity. I will have more to say about that schedule later today. As we talk more about these bills in our various caucuses, when it comes to these two items, I should take a couple of minutes to lay out a few things.

As I have said consistently since Saturday morning, my priorities are simple. We are going to complete action on a very important retirement security bill which protects the pensions of literally millions of Americans before we leave.

Second, to test the Senate's views on the so-called trifecta bill, a package which includes a final resolution of the death tax issue, as well as extension of various tax policies critical to Americans who are trying to create businesses, to start a business, to raise a family, to get that first job, and to invest and save for the future; this package also addresses the minimum wage increase. It is what we are calling-- the press started calling and now we are referring to it as the trifecta package.

I want to be crystal clear--and my colleagues know this because a lot of them are making plans for the recess--that this week will be the time and the floor will be the place for the Senate to decide once and for all whether to act on this trifecta bill or to kill it.

First things first. The pensions bill itself is an important bill which, as I mentioned, affects the lives of millions of Americans. It is a must-pass bill. It must pass this week. If we fail to act, billions of dollars of new debt will be thrown onto the Federal Treasury, and

that would be irresponsible. I think everyone recognizes that.

I know there are those in the minority who argue that the best thing to do is stop the pensions bill and then to try to put the tax extenders on it. But that would put the retirement future of millions at risk, and that is unacceptable. Others in the minority are arguing that they can return to conference on pensions to haggle further on pensions and change this or that or to talk about the taxes. I didn't know exactly what we would do if we went back to conference with that; arguments such as where is the best place to have a clam bake. For the record, I would like to have my clam bakes in New Hampshire. Going back to the conference means waiting until at least September, and that type of ``kick the can down the road'' mentality won't work. It is what happens too much around here--another hearing, another negotiation, another delay. That is going to have to stop, and the Senate must clear the pensions bill clean so the President can sign it this month. We will act on pensions. We will get it done without amendment.

Senators are elected to debate, yes, but also to decide and to vote and to act. So we will also vote this week on whether to stop a filibuster on what I referred to as the trifecta bill. I don't want anybody to be mistaken. If the Senate kills the trifecta bill, we will not return to it this year. That means we would have no permanent death tax reform, no tax policy extenders, and no minimum wage increase. It is now or never. It is this week. Members need to understand that, especially Members who think we can delay and put off and try to divide. We will be addressing it this week. That is why it will be a very important vote on Friday. There are not going to be second chances. There are not going to be last-minute side deals or new unanimous consent agreements or other motions to proceed--nothing. This is going to be it.

The House has acted on a bipartisan basis to pass this bill, and now we have to decide as a body on whether to act as well. We will make that decision this week. It will be decided in that vote on Friday.

In the Senate, we have a bipartisan majority that supports fixing the death tax--a permanent solution for the death tax, fixing it forever.

We have a bipartisan majority that supports the tax policy extenders. We have a bipartisan majority that supports handling the minimum wage. Now let us see that bipartisan majority stand up, express themselves, and act this week. It is our time to choose.

Let's pass pensions without amendment, but stop the filibuster on the trifecta bill. Nothing more and nothing less will honor the heritage of the Senate which has been handed to us by those before us and those who will one day hold our seats. More importantly, acting now will resolve retirement security for millions of Americans. It will help those take that first step on the lowest rung of the economic ladder. It will keep tax policy focused on growing our economy and creating new jobs. And it will finally bring fairness to that wrongful tax on death.

It is going to be a very important week with the vote we will have this afternoon. It started with the vote yesterday. I believe it will be a very productive week for all of us on the Senate floor addressing concerns, both economic concerns as well as other concerns, that the American people feel in their everyday lives.

Before closing, there is an issue that we finished with last week on the floor of the Senate but which we have not fully addressed until we get this bill to conference, so that we can join the child custody bill we passed last week, so that we have expressed the will of the floor of the Senate, and so we can address in conference marrying our bill to the House bill so this important bill will become the law of the land.

We attempted to go to conference last week. There was objection on the other side of the aisle.

Unanimous-Consent Request--H.R. 748

At this point, I once again ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to consideration of H.R. 748; provided that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 403, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; the bill then be read a third time and passed, and the Senate then insist on its amendment, request a conference with the House and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees with the ratio of 7 to 5.

Mr. President, let me point out on this objection we heard that this bill did pass this body last week by a vote of 65 to 34. It has the overwhelming support of the American people. Over 80 percent of Americans clearly support this bill. It passed with strong bipartisan support in the House of Representatives in I guess April of last year. So now is the time with the House having expressed its will for the Senate to express its will to go to conference, and then we can work out the disagreements that have been expressed between the two. Now is not the time to go back. It is a modest piece of legislation, very balanced, and it simply prohibits transporting a minor child across State lines for an abortion to get around a State law requiring parental notification or consent of that child for that child's abortion. It does not change any State law or policy but helps ensure that those State laws are honored.

I am deeply disappointed that the Democrats are objecting to what would be the normal course of events in taking this bill to conference.