Bobby Scott

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself an additional 30 seconds. Madam Speaker, I would say the provision in the Hoyer-Greenwood bill that allows an exception for the health of the mother is there because the Supreme Court says it has to be there. Otherwise, the bill is unconstitutional. If we pass a bill without that provision, it will be thrown out, just like most of the similar bills that have been passed by states have been thrown out.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn) suggested that we disagree with his decision. I do not agree or disagree with his decision. What I disagree with is Congress making the medical decision. This bill will not prohibit a single abortion. There will be alternatives which were not described other than they are just as gruesome as this, and those alternatives would be used. The bill, without the health exception, puts us in a situation where we will either allow the woman, if the bill does not pass, might have a choice of having a procedure that will not sterilize her by using this procedure. If this bill passes, the only alternative may require her sterilization. I do not think we ought to be making that choice for her that one procedure is more preferable than the one that might sterilize her. Finally, Madam Speaker, this bill is unconstitutional, and everybody knows it. People have indicated they disagree with Roe v. Wade. The bill is unconstitutional. If we want to prohibit late-term abortions, we ought to pass the Hoyer-Greenwood bill. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. SCOTT. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. Will the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) respond to a question? If we cannot use this procedure, what procedure would be used?

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio).

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, the motion before us is to discharge the Committee on the Judiciary from further consideration of the bill. Madam Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary has not considered the bill at all. It was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary several months ago. The thing that the Committee on the Judiciary really ought to consider, for example, is: is the bill constitutional or not? This bill is not about whether or not a decision on abortion should be made; the question is which procedure ought to be used, and there are cases, a long line of cases that say directly that we cannot intervene and make the decision for the physician and the mother as to which procedure ought to be used. The Committee on the Judiciary ought to consider those decisions. We have been asked now to discharge them from further consideration of the bill. Madam Chairman, the Roe versus Wade decision, the Casey versus Planned Parenthood and other cases have shown that we cannot intervene in this decision. We have heard the description of a case in Arizona. This bill would not have an effect on that because the decision for the abortion is made and then one decides on the procedure. If one cannot use this procedure, then one would use another procedure. The decision for the abortion is a separate decision. We ought to oppose the motion to discharge, and instead, require the Committee on the Judiciary to do its job, determine whether or not the bill is constitutional, which the supporters in committee last time it was considered acknowledged that it was not constitutional. We ought to fashion a constitutional bill, and there are many alternatives that we could have brought to the floor rather than this bill. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Horace C. Downing, my good friend and long-term community leader in the Third Congressional District of Virginia. Mr. Downing was born on February 26, 1917. He has amassed a commendable record of community leadership based on a tradition of leading by example. It began with the example he set as a dedicated family man, who, along with his wife Beryl, raised four children who have given them eight grandchildren. At the age of 81, Mr. Downing remains active in his community as he has been for all of his adult life, including the period of his service to the greater community while in the US Army from 1949 to 1952. He served during the Korean War with the Quartermaster Battalion and the 24th Infantry Combat Team as a non-commissioned officer. After leaving active duty in the military Mr. Downing threw himself into the community serving first as a supervisor for the Housing Improvement Program of Norfolk, Virginia where he was quickly promoted to Community Relations Officer as a result of his diligent and effective leadership. While in his position with these Housing programs, he became involved in the most important community service endeavor of his career--his work on behalf of the children of his community. As a founder and past president of a number of youth and civic organizations in the Berkley community, Mr. Downing has more than earned the honor of being known affectionately as the ``Mayor of Berkley''. Mr. Downing went on to found or hold membership in thirty-five different organizations. These memberships range from community parent/ teacher associations, human resource and business groups, the NAACP and youth groups to city-wide and state-wide organizations. Mr. Downing demonstrated to the students that surrounded him the value of the concept of life-long learning by continuing his education into his sixties. At a time when students and young people are inundated with negative images and lack role models who show true care for them and the problems they face, he has been a beacon of light for them. While many in our community have written young people off as apathetic and uninvolved, Mr. Downing has founded organizations that promote political and civic responsibility in young people. Mr. Downing has been honored by the VA Extension Service, Norfolk Public Schools, Norfolk Model City Commission, Virginia Federation of Parent Teachers Associations and other organizations in his community and across the state. So, it is with honor that I call attention to his contributions before the Congress and the nation and I ask that these remarks be made a part of the permanent records of this body. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Wise).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Furse).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, could I determine the amount of time remaining on both sides, please?

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Section 2401(b)(2) specifically exempts prosecution of a young lady who goes by herself across State lines. There is nothing in the bill that prevents skipping around the parental consent laws. So we just want to remind people of that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill, H.R. 3682. The bill purports to protect children by making it a crime to accompany them as they travel across State lines to get an abortion if they are not in compliance with their home State's parental consent or notification laws. This bill will endanger children more than it will protect them. It will have the cruel practical effect of requiring young girls to risk their lives by traveling across State lines to obtain a safe and legal procedure, despite the fact that it is in their best medical interest to have someone accompany them. Make no mistake about it, under this bill it is not a crime, not a crime for the minor to go across State lines without having complied with the parental consent laws. It is a crime to have someone accompany them across State lines. It is not strangers. It is brothers and sisters, grandmothers and grandfathers who would be made criminals. Unfortunately, again we are paying politics with the lives and well- being of women by attempting to pass laws that will have the effect of making it more dangerous to obtain a legal abortion. The overwhelming majority of minors seeking abortions consult their parents before they undergo the procedure. Even in States that have no mandatory parental consent or notification, more than 57 percent of minors under the age of 16 involve one or more of their parents. No big government mandate can make minors talk to their parents more than they already do. More than half of all minors not involving their parents in an abortion decision do involve an adult, including many who involve a stepparent or adult relative. These are the very same people that we will make criminals if this law is enacted and the same minors that will be isolated because of this bill. The compassionate older sibling or grandparent who insists on accompanying a minor in order to ensure their safety will be sent to jail if this bill becomes law. Even those ministers, relatives or family friends who oppose abortion but wish to ensure that the minor undergoes a safe procedure and comes home unharmed will be considered criminals based on the scheme proposed in this bill. Again, it is not a crime for the minor to go across State lines without complying with parental consent laws if they go alone. It is only a crime if they are accompanied. For the subcommittee hearing, Mr. Speaker, I had moving testimony from Bill and Mary Bell submitted for the record. The Bells are parents of a daughter who died receiving an illegal abortion because she did not want her parents to know about her pregnancy, but Indiana law required parental notice before she could have a legal abortion. A Planned Parenthood counselor in Indiana informed Becky that she would either have to notify her parents or petition a judge in order to get the abortion, and she responded that she did not want to tell her parents because she did not want to hurt them. And she also replied that if she could not tell her parents, she certainly could not tell a judge who she did not even know. The counselor suggested that Becky travel 110 miles away to Kentucky where she would not need to notify her parents, but instead she underwent a botched illegal procedure closer to home and died as a result. Although this bill would not have hurt Becky Bell, it will hurt young women in similar situations who are unable to cross State lines with someone else to obtain a safe and legal abortion. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we heard testimony at the hearing that this bill could make doctors and nurses criminals for the simple task of providing a safe and legal abortion to a woman who happened to live in another State. We should resist at all cost this vile attempt to scare and intimidate doctors and nurses by creating a criminal scheme that could have them thrown in jail even when they are not aware that a minor intends to evade a State's consent laws. By taking down a name and address and setting up an appointment, clinic nurses could be accessories to the crime. Even assisting in having a cab drive a woman home, someone could be found criminally responsible as an accessory after the fact and, therefore, also subject to civil liability. The civil liability provisions of the bill create a blanket Federal cause of action for a parent who suffers ``legal harm.'' Based on agency principles, the doctor, the nurse, a cab driver, a bus driver could be held civilly liable for providing safe and legal assistance to a minor. This federalization of tort law is unprecedented and counterproductive to what should be the compelling interest of ensuring doctors and other health professionals the freedom and comfort to provide the best medical care available. How will insurance companies respond to this new Federal tort? Will they force doctors to interrogate any woman looking under the age of 25? Will they require birth certificates and residence cards to prove their residence before they are able to get the medical care they are seeking? The civil liability provision should be eliminated. For these and many other reasons, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to pause and take a long, hard look at the consequences that will result from this bill which will be encouraging the isolation and endangerment of the young Becky Bells of the world. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Miller). (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, and just want to say that I want to encourage my colleagues to read the bill. Reference has been made to ads targeted at minors. There is nothing in this bill that prohibits a minor from responding to the ad. The only problem is they have to go alone, without being accompanied by someone else. It is only an offense under this bill if someone transports the minor. Some criminal, including a brother or a sister. A criminal, like an aunt or an uncle or a grandparent. It is not limited to strangers or adult men. It includes brothers and sisters and close relatives. There is nothing in this bill that requires parental involvement or even ensures parental involvement. The minor can cross State lines alone. That is why the bill is not effective. That is why we should have been able to have amendments, and I would hope that we would defeat the bill.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. SCOTT. I am opposed, Madam Speaker.

Mr. SCOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. SCOTT

Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, first I think we ought to remind ourselves what this bill does. It does not require parental notification or consent when a minor goes across State lines. What it does is prohibit someone from accompanying them. In this bill, the child can still evade the parental consent laws of the State and go across State lines alone, but this bill would criminalize anybody accompanying them. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak against the closed rule. It prohibits the ability, our ability, to consider some very important amendments. The administration, in a statement of administration policy, has indicated that the senior advisors of the President will recommend a veto unless these amendments are in the bill. In recent letters from the White House Chief of Staff to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, the administration in fact said it would support legislation of this nature if it had these few amendments, specifically an amendment to exclude close family members from criminal and civil liability. Under the legislation, grandmothers, aunts, uncles, minor and adult siblings could face criminal prosecution for coming to the aid of a relative; also, to ensure that persons who only provide information, counseling, medical services to the minor would not be subject to liability; and address several constitutional and legal infirmities that the Department of Justice has identified in the legislation. Those concerns were transmitted to the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 24, 1998. The administration also has serious concerns about the federalism issues. However, as indicated, if the amendments that they have suggested are adopted, they could support the legislation. This closed rule prohibits our ability to consider that legislation. And, therefore, the senior advisors, even if this bill were to pass, will recommend a veto. We should oppose the closed rule, oppose the motion on the previous question. We should vote no on the previous question so that the rule could be amended to consider these various amendments. If the previous question is ordered, we should just vote no on the rule.