F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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. 748, the bill to be considered shortly.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, one standard element of obtaining a criminal conviction is that the defendant has the appropriate criminal intent. Now, under the bill without the Scott amendment, if the taxicab driver does not have the criminal intent which includes knowledge of what is going on, then the taxicab driver and the company cannot be convicted. If they do have the criminal intent to evade a State parental involvement law, then they ought to be convicted of transporting the minor across the State line. What the Scott amendment does is effectively immunize transporters who have criminal intent, and that is why the amendment ought to be defeated. I urge the membership to vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the time given to me in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, first, both sections of the bill do provide an exception for incest, and all of the arguments that have been made to the contrary are simply not correct. Furthermore, this amendment should be defeated because it would codify the circumvention of parental involvement when the overwhelming majority of Americans support parental involvement. In some polls, over 80 percent of the public supports parental involvement. As recently as March 2005, 75 percent of over 1,500 registered voters surveyed favored requiring parental notification before a minor gets an abortion, and only 18 percent opposed parental notification. Under current law, grandparents and clergy do not have the authority to authorize a medical procedure for a minor child, or even ear piercings or the dispensing of aspirin at schools. So why should such a fundamental parental right be thrown aside for the abortion procedure alone? This amendment would sever the essential parent-child relationship. Grandparents and undefined clergy are not parents. It is that simple. It is instructive that the Supreme Court has always held that the important duty to ensure and provide for the care and nurture of minor children lies only with the parents, a conclusion which arises from the traditional legal recognition that ``the natural bounds of affection lead parents to act in the best interest of their children.'' That was Parham v. J.R., 1979, of the Supreme Court. And as Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter observed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, parental consent and notification laws related to abortions are ``based on the quite reasonable assumption that minors will benefit from consultation with their parents and that children will often not realize that their parents have their best interests at heart.'' Significantly for CIANA, the Supreme Court recently struck down a Washington State visitation law under which grandparents were granted visitation of their grandchildren over the objection of the children's mother. That State visitation law was struck down precisely because it failed to provide special protection for the fundamental right of parents to control with whom their children associate. The amendment also excludes from the bill any clergy, and the amendment leaves the word ``clergy'' undefined. Just last year, one State court ominously described the dangers of using the term ``clergy'' in the law without providing any clear definition. That court stated, ``Almost anyone in a religious organization willing to offer what purports to be spiritual advice would qualify for clergy status.'' That is Waters v. O'Connor, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Arizona. That means that under this amendment, an impressionable and vulnerable minor could be sexually exploited by a cultist and the cultist could escape liability and prosecution under this legislation because the cultist claims clergy status. In fact, when the Federal Rules of Evidence were being debated in Congress, Congress specifically rejected using the word clergy in those rules. Doing so would have invited courts, just as this amendment would, to allow all matter of cult figures to fall under the term. Parents, and not anyone else, know and can provide their dependent minor children's complete and accurate medical histories. Before children undergo medical procedures, parents are required to provide this critical information. Without that medical history, an abortion could be devastating to a child's health. As the Supreme Court has made clear, ``the medical, emotional, and psychological consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting. An adequate medical and psychological case history is important to the physician. Parents can provide medical and psychological data, refer the physician to other sources of medical history, such as family physicians, and authorize family physicians to give relevant data.'' That is H.L. v. Matheson, 1981. And in addressing the right of parents to direct the medical care of their children, the Supreme Court has stated, ``Our jurisprudence historically has reflected western civilization concepts of the family as a unit with broad parental authority over minor children. Our cases have consistently followed that course; our constitutional system has long rejected any notion that a child is a mere creature of the State.'' And, on the contrary, asserted that parents generally ``have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare their children for additional obligations. Surely this includes the high duty to recognize symptoms of illness and to seek and follow medical advice. The law's concept of the family rests on a presumption that parents possess what a child lacks in maturity, experience, and capacity for judgment required for making life's difficult decisions.'' Parham v. J.R., 1979. Parents, not grandparents or undefined clergy, are legally, morally, and financially responsible for their children's follow-up medical care. If parents are kept in the dark by others, they will not be able to recognize potentially dangerous consequences of abortions. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defend the integrity of the parent-child relationship, which this amendment does so much to undo; to protect the rights of young girls from potential medical harm by defeating this amendment. Please vote ``no.'' Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), my distinguished predecessor as chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is it requires the involvement of parents or where State law requires the involvement of parents in the decision on whether or not a minor should have an abortion. Now, minors have not reached the age of majority. They cannot sign contracts; they cannot serve on juries. Parents or legal guardians in every instance stand in the place of the minor and represent the minor's interests. And under the current law, a doctor cannot even treat a child for a hangnail without parental consent, or at least parental notification. But under the law, a doctor can perform an abortion. Now, let us look at it this way. Abortion is a very serious medical procedure. In many cases, complications arise from that abortion. And the parents or the guardian are legally responsible for providing medical care when medical care is needed for minors. So if you buy the argument of the people who are opposed to this bill, a parent of a minor who is not notified can end up being prosecuted for child neglect if complications ensue from the abortion and the parent does not know that they have a legal obligation to provide necessary medical care. That is why this bill should be passed, because parents ought to be involved in the medical decisions. They ought to have knowledge of the medical decisions. And we should not condone a system where a minor can run across a State line in order to get an abortion without the notification that is required by the State law of that minor's residence. This bill ought to pass.

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

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

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I have to take issue with the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Baldwin). She says this bill involves itself in the most personal of family decisions. How does it involve itself in a family decision when the family does not even know about it? And what this bill requires is that the family at least know about the fact that their daughter is being taken across a State line in circumvention of a State law requiring parental involvement. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

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

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, what the two proponents of the motion to recommit are arguing is something that simply is not going to happen. If the father of a young girl impregnates her as a result of an incestuous act, filing a lawsuit will expose that crime and the evidence that would have to be submitted by the defendants would end up very clearly showing that that father did commit a crime. What would happen as a result of this bill not passing, with or without the amendment, is that the father who did commit that crime of incest would want to destroy the evidence of that crime without alerting the authorities. This bill prevents that, and the bill requires the alerting of appropriate authorities to protect young girls from future abuse. Those who oppose this bill and are supporting this motion to recommit would doom the victims of rape and incest to continued abuse. Supporters of this bill want to prevent that abuse from continuing. Vote down the motion to recommit, and vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated for a number of reasons, most specifically of which, it is once again drafted overly broadly and will allow the immunization of people who really are a part of a scheme to transport people across State lines in violation of a State parental involvement law. The amendment would allow the creation of an entire for-profit, interstate taxicab network specifically designed to thwart State parental notification laws. For example, we heard from the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) that there are ads in the Pennsylvania Yellow Pages for abortion clinics in New Jersey, since New Jersey does not have a parental notification or involvement law but Pennsylvania does. So if this amendment were adopted, an ad could advertise the abortion clinic in New Jersey and then have a phone number of a cab company that is under contract with that New Jersey abortion clinic to pick up the minor and cross the State line for the abortion. And I do not think that is what we want to foster with this amendment. The allegations that taxicab drivers would be inadvertently caught up under this bill I think is misstated. They are not generally liable under the bill which allows for the conviction of an individual who knowingly transports a minor across State lines with the intent that such an individual obtain an abortion. Although a taxicab driver or a bus driver or whoever may have the knowledge that the minor that he or she is transporting will obtain an abortion as soon as she arrives at her destination, his or her intent is not that the minor obtain the abortion. Rather, it is to transport the minor to the destination of choice, whether it is an abortion clinic or a shopping mall. In other words, the taxicab driver's reason for transporting the minor is to receive the fare, not to ensure that he or that she obtain an abortion. So a taxicab driver will generally not have the requisite criminal intent necessary for prosecution under the bill. On the other hand, there are some instances in which the taxicab driver does have such criminal intent; and this amendment, if adopted, would mean that even if they had that intent they could not be prosecuted. The driver may have the intent that a minor obtain an abortion across State lines perhaps because the minor has been the victim of statutory rape at the hands of the cab driver himself and he wants to erase any evidence of his impregnating her. This amendment, if adopted, will allow such misconduct and that is wrong. A taxicab license should not be a license to commit crimes and avoid prosecution. The amendment should be defeated for reasons I have stated. It seeks to address a problem that does not exist, and, in doing so, opens a huge loophole that can be exploited by those who would seek to keep parents in the dark and conceal criminal misconduct. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. If the gentleman will yield back, we can vote and pass this resolution.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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