Providing for Consideration of S. 403, Child Custody Protection Act
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 403, CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT -- (House of Representatives - September 26, 2006)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. 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. GINGREY. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov