F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), who as chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary, has been a leader in reforming the INS.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, may we find out how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's understanding of the provisions is correct.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I will be happy to review these provisions during the conference.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, listening to the gentleman from New York the last hour and a half, he seems to be making two points. One is that this bill requires that the parental involvement laws of a minor's State of residence carry along with the minor if they are brought across the State line into a jurisdiction that does not have a parental involvement law, and that this is some new notion in American jurisprudence and in our history of Federalism. Well, the gentleman from New York, he and I carry the burden of our respective State income taxes with us to the work that we do here; and as most people know, New York and Wisconsin's State income taxes are quite high, and we have to pay those State income taxes as residents and as representatives of the States for the work that we do at our Nation's Capital. The other thing is that it is somehow cruel and unconstitutional to force the involvement of parents where the parental involvement acts have been held constitutional by the Federal courts. Now, a constitutional parental involvement act is not cruel; it is loving. It is not unconstitutional, because the courts have already said it is not unconstitutional. So to merely cross the State line for the purpose of evading a constitutional parental involvement act is not unconstitutional in and of itself, because Congress has got the exclusive right to regulate interstate commerce under the United States Constitution. For all these reasons, this is a good bill. The House should pass this bill today, like it has done in the two previous Congresses.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the committee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 476, the Child Custody Protection Act, would make it a Federal offense to knowingly transport a minor across a State line with the intent that she obtain an abortion, in circumvention of a State's parental consent or notification law. Violation of the law would be a Class One misdemeanor, carrying a fine of up to $100,000 and incarceration for up to 1 year. H.R. 476 has two primary purposes: the first is to protect the health and safety of young girls by preventing valid constitutional State parental involvement laws from being circumvented. The second is to protect the rights of parents to be involved in the medical decisions of their minor daughters. There is widespread agreement that it is the parents of a pregnant minor who are best suited to provide her counsel, guidance and support as she decides whether to continue her pregnancy or undergo an abortion. A total of 43 States have enacted some form of a parental involvement statute. Twenty-seven of these States currently enforce statutes that require a pregnant minor to either notify her parents of her intent to obtain an abortion or to obtain the consent of her parents prior to obtaining an abortion. As these numbers indicate, parental involvement laws enjoy widespread public support as they help to ensure the health and safety of pregnant young girls and support parents in the exercise of their most fundamental right, that is, of raising their children. Despite this widespread support, the transportation of minors across State lines in order to obtain abortions is, unfortunately, a widespread and frequent practice. Even groups opposed to this bill acknowledge that large numbers of minors are transported across State lines to obtain abortions, in many cases by adults other than their parents. Following the 1994 enactment of Pennsylvania's parental consent law, abortion clinics in New Jersey and New York saw an increase in Pennsylvania teenagers seeking to obtain abortions. This is not a surprise, because just prior to Pennsylvania's law going into effect, counselors and activists in Pennsylvania met to plot a strategy to make it easier for teenagers to travel to neighboring States for abortions. In one disturbing case, the operator for the National Abortion Federation's toll-free national abortion hotline went so far as to talk a Richmond, Virginia, area teenage girl through a travel route so that the girl could obtain an abortion in the District of Columbia. This conduct is only aided by the dubious practices of many abortion clinics located in States lacking parental involvement laws. To gin up business, some clinics even advertise in the Yellow Pages directories distributed in nearby States that require parental involvement, advising young girls that they can obtain an abortion without parental consent or notification. Such ads only serve to lure young girls residing in States with parental involvement laws to these clinics, thus denying parents the opportunity to provide love, support and advice to their daughter as she makes one of the most important decisions of her life. When confused and frightened young girls are assisted in and encouraged to circumvent parental notice and consent laws by crossing State lines, they are led into what will likely be a hasty and potentially ill-advised decision. Often, these girls are being guided by those who do not share the love and affection that most parents have for their children. In the worst of circumstances, these individuals have a great incentive to avoid criminal liability for their conduct given the fact that almost two-thirds of adolescent mothers have partners older than 20 years of age. Parental notice and consent laws reflect the State's reasoned and constitutional conclusion that the best interests of a pregnant minor are served when her parents are consulted and involved in the process. States are free to craft their own parental notice and consent laws to allow a minor to consult a grandmother or other family member in lieu of parents, and a few States have in fact made such a choice. Most, however, have chosen not to allow close relatives to serve as surrogates for parents in the abortion context. If a young girl's circumstances are such that parental involvement is not in her best interests, grandparents and close relatives are free to assist the girl in pursuing a judicial bypass. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has required judicial bypass procedures to be included in the State's parental consent statute. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated: ``The natural bonds of affection lead parents to act in the best interests of their children.'' The decision to obtain an abortion is, as the Court also stated, ``a grave decision, and a girl of tender years under emotional stress may be ill-equipped to make it without mature advice and emotional support.'' In light of the widespread practice of circumventing validly enacted parental involvement laws by the transportation of minors across State lines, it is entirely appropriate for Congress, with its exclusive constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce, to enact the Child Custody Protection Act. This Chamber has twice approved this legislation, each time by an overwhelming majority. I encourage my fellow Members to again provide parents with this much-needed support and approve this important legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 476.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York, my friend, has gotten carried away in referring to this bill as the 21st century version of the Fugitive Slave Act. First of all, let it be plain. This bill only involves a minor crossing State lines in order to evade a parental involvement statute. Nobody over the age of 18 is caught in by this bill whatsoever. Secondly, since Roe v. Wade, abortion has been legal in every State in the country, so it is not a way to shut off access to abortions in any State. That has been settled law since Roe v. Wade. But the Supreme Court has also said that as long as there is a judicial bypass, parental involvement statutes are legal. So what is wrong with keeping the parents involved when a decision is made to give an abortion to a minor when the parents, by law, have to be involved when a doctor treats that minor for a hang-nail? Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 388, I call up the bill (H.R. 476) 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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler), a member of the committee. (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)