[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 56 (Tuesday, May 3, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2768-H2778]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--INTEGRITY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my request of last
Thursday, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 253) as to a
question of the privileges of the House and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 253
Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary conducted a markup
of the bill H.R. 748, the ``Child Interstate Abortion
Notification Act,'' on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 and ordered
the bill reported on that same day;
Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary subsequently
reported H.R. 748 to the House on Thursday, April 21, 2005,
with an accompanying report designated House Report 109-51;
Whereas, during the markup of H.R. 748, Representatives
Nadler, Scott, and Jackson-
[[Page H2769]]
Lee offered in good faith a total of five amendments to the
bill, all of which failed on party-line votes;
Whereas, because Representatives Nadler, Scott, and
Jackson-Lee called for recorded votes on their amendments,
under section 3(b) of Rule XIII, the votes were published in
House Report 109-51;
Whereas, although it is the long and established practice
in House reports to describe recorded votes with objective,
nonargumentative captions, the Committee on the Judiciary
majority departed from this practice in House Report 109-51
by captioning these five amendments with inflammatory,
inaccurate captions implying that these three Members of
Congress condoned the criminal behavior of ``sexual
predators'';
Whereas, as one example, while an objective,
nonargumentative description of one of Representative
Nadler's amendments would read, ``exempts a grandparent or
adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions of the
bill,'' and is in fact the language the Committee on the
Judiciary used to caption this amendment in past reports on
this legislation, the caption in House Report 109-51 was
instead, ``Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have
exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if
they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor.''
(Similar problems occured in describing amendments offered by
Representatives Scott and Jackson-Lee);
Whereas, when Representative Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of
the Committee on the Judiciary, was asked about this language
and given the opportunity to correct it, both in the
Committee on Rules and on the House floor, he instead
explained that it was his purpose and intention to include
these derogatory and inaccurate captions in House Report 109-
51;
Whereas, committee reports are official congressional
documents to which American citizens will refer when seeking
to interpret the bills they accompany;
Whereas, although the committee markup and reporting
process gives Members ample opportunity to debate,
characterize, and criticize each other's views, committees
have a ministerial, institutional responsibility to
accurately report the proceedings of committee activities;
Whereas the vote captions published in House Report 109-51
appear to be purposefully inaccurate and misleading, and
therefore belittle the dignity of the House and undermine the
integrity of the proceedings of the House; and
Whereas this unprecedented manipulation of a traditionally
nonpartisan portion of a committee report constitutes an
abuse of power by the majority of the Committee on the
Judiciary: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) finds that the Committee on the Judiciary purposefully
and deliberately mischaracterized the above-mentioned votes
in House Report 109-51; and
(2) directs the chairman of such committee to report to the
House a supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the
record by describing the five amendments with
nonargumentative, objective captions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution presents a question of the
privileges of the House.
Under rule IX, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as the designee of the
majority leader, each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a resolution concerning the
privileges of the House.
The deliberate misrepresentation of Members of the House of
Representatives' amendments is unprecedented.
And I do this because the Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R.
748 mischaracterized amendments offered by Members in a way that
distorted both the effect of the amendments and the intentions of the
Members.
I offer this resolution to protect the rights of every Member in this
body. None of us wants to see our amendments mischaracterized in a way
that undermines our good faith. None of us wants to see our legislative
work distorted in a way that diminishes our motives. I am not eager to
bring this matter to the floor of the House, but I do so as a last
resort to achieve a resolution that is fair and just.
There is little doubt in my mind that the amendment characterizations
included in the committee report were distorting and damaging. Taking
an amendment written to exclude grandparents and describing it as one
protecting sexual predators crosses a line of good faith and comity so
essential to the operation of this House.
Descriptions this pejorative are not only inappropriate; they are
without precedent. This has never happened before in my memory. If we
look at the Record, we will see that the three previous committee
reports describing these amendments use neutral and objective terms.
The same is true of the amendment descriptions prepared by the majority
staff on the Committee on Rules as well as the majority staff on the
Republican Conference.
I cannot agree with the contention that the obligation should have
been on the Members to draft these amendments more narrowly. The
amendments were drafted in a careful and straightforward manner as they
have been for each of the last four Congresses. The duty should not be
on us to exclude categories of persons who have nothing to do with the
underlying amendment.
Let me close by stating that the majority will not control this body
forever. There will come a time when members of another party are the
ones interpreting the rules, writing the committee reports, and
explaining the amendments. Whoever controls this body tomorrow or next
year, we will all be better off today if we do not rewrite each other's
words or disparage each other's intentions.
I support this privileged resolution and urge the rest of my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the distinguished
chairman wishes to repeat his tactic of last week of waiting until
everybody else has spoken and then mischaracterize what we have said so
that we cannot reply to him.
Is that his intent today? Is that why he is reserving his time now so
that he can speak after everybody else has spoken?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is not my intent, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, is it his intent to let anybody on this side
speak after he has spoken even if he closes?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, his side has the right to close as
the proponents of the resolution.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) stated the
point of this resolution pretty accurately and I think completely.
I want to deal with some misstatements that have been made or have
been reported to have been made in defense of this unconscionable,
lying report of the committee. It was said on the floor of the House
last week that the question is one of intent versus effect. My
amendment was very simple. It said that grandparents and adult siblings
of the person getting the abortion should not be subject to the
provisions of the bill. It was reported as: ``Mr. Nadler offered an
amendment to provide sexual predators an exemption from the provisions
of the bill if they were adult siblings or grandparents.''
The fact is in the entire debate over that amendment, in fact, in the
entire debate over all of the amendments, all of which were
characterized as dealing with sexual predators, in the debate in the
committee over those five amendments, no one, no one in the majority,
no one in the minority mentioned the words ``sexual predators.'' No one
in the committee debate said this amendment might protect sexual
predators. It did not occur to anybody. So on that level the report is
dishonest, and the chairman or whoever else had anything to do with it
owes this body an apology.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would refer the gentleman to the
statement made by the gentleman from
[[Page H2770]]
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that is on the bottom of page 84 which talks about
the potential of sexual predators.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not with respect
to my amendment. That was with respect to another amendment. That was
with respect to a different amendment.
In respect to my amendment, which was characterized as dealing with
sexual predators, nobody mentioned the words ``sexual predators'' or
raised that.
It has also been said that the intent may have been not with sexual
predators; the intent may have been grandparents and siblings, but
could a grandparent or a sibling be a sexual predator? In that
eventuality this would protect sexual predators.
Yes, in that eventuality the amendment would protect sexual
predators. But, of course, the bill itself said that the parents could
sue, the parents could sue the doctor who performs the abortion or the
person who transports the minor. But the parent could be a sexual
predator. The pregnancy could have been caused by rape or incest. This
would give the sexual predator the right to profit from his own
predation.
I, in fact, offered a motion to recommit to correct that defect in
the bill, but the majority voted it down. Why, I do not know. But they
voted it down because apparently they wanted sexual predators, in the
unlikely event that the parent was a sexual predator, to be able to
sue. There is no other interpretation possible.
But, as I said last week, if someone wanted to say on the floor of
the House or in the committee, as no one did in the committee, that one
has not anticipated the rare eventuality that a grandparent would be a
sexual predator and maybe they should amend the amendment, that would
have been a fair comment. Fair comment in a debate. It is not a fair
characterization of the amendment.
There is a clear difference between expressing views in a debate and
saying that one's amendment could be used by a sexual predator under
certain circumstances, which might be a fair comment. It would be fair
comment to say those circumstances are so rare that we do not have to
worry about them or they are right or whatever. It is different. It is
different, it is dishonest, it is a disgusting rape of the rules of
this House to characterize the amendment in a one-sentence report that
this was an amendment dealing with sexual predators. No, it was not. It
would be just as dishonest as if we reported the bill and said this was
a bill to allow sexual predators to sue doctors.
{time} 1745
The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and everybody
associated with this owes an apology to the House and a correction to
the American people.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, can we inquire of the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has not used any of his
time yet, how many speakers he has?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have five speakers.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, last week, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 748, the
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, by a bipartisan vote of 270
to 157. One of the primary purposes of that common sense legislation is
to prevent sexual abusers from taking vulnerable young girls across
State lines for an abortion without telling the girl's parents.
At the Committee on the Judiciary markup on this bill, some Members
offered amendments that would have created blanket exclusions from the
criminal prohibitions in the legislation without any exceptions for
those who would commit statutory rape or incest. The loopholes those
amendments would have created could be exploited by the very sexual
predators; that is, those who would exploit vulnerable young girls and
commit statutory rape or incest whose conduct the bill is designed to
bring to light. Those amendments were accurately described in the
committee report. All of the amendments offered would have carved out
exceptions that could be exploited by sexual predators who sought to
destroy evidence of their crimes by secretly taking a minor without her
parent's knowledge to another State to have an abortion.
The amendments offered by the minority would have created those
blanket exclusions for certain large classes of people who are not a
minor's parents. Those classes of people were ``taxicab drivers, bus
drivers, or others in the business of professional transport;''
``clergy, Godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor;'' and
``grandparents or adult siblings.''
If any of the people described in the amendments offered became
involved with a minor in a sexually abusive way, they would have been
flatly excluded from the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748, one of the
primary purposes of which is to prevent sexual predators from
continuing to abuse minors undetected. That purpose is reviewed
extensively in the committee report in an entire section entitled
``CIANA Protects Minor Girls From Sexual Assault.'' The amendments
offered at the Committee on the Judiciary markup were directly contrary
to a primary purpose of the legislation. If the proponents of this
resolution only understood that preventing sexual abusers from
continuing to abuse a minor girl without a parent's knowledge is a
primary purpose of H.R. 748, they would understand why the descriptions
of their amendments are what they are.
If an amendment were offered to a bill that would make it a Federal
crime to commit terrorist acts and an offered amendment would exclude
conduct by, for example, taxi drivers, then that amendment would allow
a taxicab driver to commit terrorist acts without being prosecuted.
That would be an accurate description of such an amendment. In the very
same way, those who happen to drive taxi cabs or work in the business
of professional transportation should not be free to commit statutory
rape and transport a minor across State lines to get an abortion
without telling one of the girl's parents. And brothers, uncles, or
Godparents should not be allowed to commit incest and then transport a
young girl across State lines to get an abortion so evidence of their
crimes are destroyed without telling one of the girl's parents about
the abortion. There is nothing inaccurate with describing amendments
that would do just that in just that way.
The incidence of statutory rape in this country is shocking. As a
recent presentation given at a U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services Conference on the Sexual Exploitation of Teens showed, of
minor girls' first sexual experiences, 13 percent constitute statutory
rape. Further, the younger a sexually experienced teen is, the more
likely they are to experience statutory rape. Of sexually experienced
teens age 13 or younger, 65 percent experienced statutory rape. Of
those age 14, 53 percent experienced statutory rape. Of those age 15,
41 percent experienced statutory rape. And also, blacks and Hispanics
are much more likely to experience statutory rape. Creating blanket
exclusions in the bill for large categories of people would create a
huge loophole in the legislation that statutory rapists could exploit.
Regarding family incest, one recent Law Review article summarized the
research regarding the prevalence of sexual conduct among siblings as
follows: ``Brother-sister sexual contact may be five times as common as
father-daughter incest.'' A survey of 796 New England college students
revealed that 15 percent of females had a sexual experience with a
sibling. Further, among those reporting sexual abuse, the incidence of
abuse by cousins ranges from 10 percent to 40 percent among various
studies; and 4.9 percent of women report an incestuous experience with
an uncle before age 18; and 16 percent of rape victims are raped by
relatives other than their father.
Carving out exceptions to the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 for
adult siblings, cousins, and uncles would not protect young girls who
are made victims of incest by their adult siblings, cousins, or uncles.
Further, pregnancy as a result of all these crimes is all too common.
As one Pennsylvania court has pointed out, ``25 percent of incest
victims become pregnant. The ratio is greater among victims of incest
than those of rape because incestuous conduct is usually
[[Page H2771]]
long-term and progressive, whereas rape is usually a one-time
occurrence.''
Another amendment offered at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of
H.R. 748 accurately described the amendment as ``creating an additional
layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to
escape conviction under the bill.'' That statement is true. That
amendment would have created an opportunity for a sexual predator to
escape conviction if they could make a showing to a Federal court that
the judicial bypass provisions of the State law were somehow
ineffective or somehow violated confidential information related to a
minor's pregnancy.
If a sexual predator made a showing to the court of either of these
issues, neither of which would expose the predator's crimes, then that
sexual predator would completely evade the requirements of H.R. 748,
which are designed to expose sexual predators and prevent future sexual
abuse.
The final amendment offered was again accurately described in the
committee report as an amendment that would have exempted from
prosecution under the bill ``those who aid the criminals who could be
prosecuted under the bill.'' That is true as well. That amendment would
have excluded from the bill anyone who did not commit an offense in the
first degree. The consequences of adopting that amendment would have
been to allow anyone who aided or abetted a criminal who ran afoul of
the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 to instead get off scot-free.
In sum, the effect of the amendments offered as described in the
committee report would have been to exempt cab drivers, other
professional transporters, and certain relatives who are not parents,
from the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748, and that would have
prevented the parents from knowing when those perpetrators of statutory
rape or incest were secretly taking their children across State lines
for an abortion to destroy evidence of their crimes.
Now, to be clear, all of the descriptions of the amendments in the
committee report are descriptions of the amendments and not of the
intent of anyone offering the amendments. These brief descriptions do
not impugn the integrity or motivation of any Member offering the
amendment; they simply describe the consequences, regardless of
intention, of the amendments. The description of the amendments in the
committee report were all phrased in the conditional; that is, they
make it clear that the loopholes created by the amendments as written
could be used by sexual abusers of vulnerable minors, and could be
exploited by certain people if those people sexually abused vulnerable
minors.
The text of the privileged resolution before us is patently false.
The resolution states that the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary ``Explained that it was his purpose and intention to include
derogatory and inaccurate captions in House report 109-51.'' I have
done nothing of the sort, of course, and that statement is entirely
false, as I have explained already. The text of the resolution also
claims that ``the Committee on the Judiciary purposefully and
deliberately mischaracterized the votes'' at the Committee on the
Judiciary markup. That too is false. Indeed, the tallies of the votes
cast are accurately set out in simple table form in the committee
report for all to see.
Further, the resolution contains no allegation whatsoever that any
Rules of the House of Representatives were violated, even in spirit,
because such is obviously not the case, even to the authors of the
resolution.
Finally, I offered to amend the text of the descriptions of the
amendments offered in the sections of the committee report entitled
``vote of the committee,'' provided that those who offered the
amendments acknowledged that, due to the way they were drafted, they
opened the bill up to the harmful consequences of allowing sexual
predators to exploit the loopholes such amendments would create in the
bill.
Instead of admitting the obvious, and having the committee report
amended to their liking, and moving on, they refused to do that
because, for some reason, they felt they could benefit from extending
the debate on this issue.
The minority had ample time to include dissenting views in the
committee report, and they did so. For example, the minority views
state that the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is ``overtly
hostile to families.'' The minority views in the committee report also
describe the legislation as ``antiphysician and antifamily.'' Further,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), over the years during which
this bill has been debated, including this year, has gone so far as to
claim that H.R. 748 is akin to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which
required the return of slaves to their owners in other States.
As the committee report describes, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) stated, ``It seems to me what this bill is, is really akin to
the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s where you are enabling one State in
the south, which had slavery, to reach over into another State and say,
we want our slave back.'' And that is at page 56 of the committee
report. And, at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of H.R. 748 on
April 13, 2005, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) stated, ``This
bill is the only situation that I can think of since the Fugitive Slave
Act of the 1850s where we have a young person carry the law of one
State on his back like a cross to another State, to enforce the law of
the first State in the second State where it is not the law.'' That is
at page 81.
The statement of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) directly
equates parents with slaveholders. But parental rights, which H.R. 748
protects, are not the rights of the slave owner. They are rights of
loving and caring people: parents, who deserve a chance to work with
their children through difficult times and express their love to their
children in their children's moments of greatest need.
The Fugitive Slave Act was a catalyst for the Civil War, whereas the
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act passed with overwhelming
bipartisan support in the 109th Congress by a vote of 270 to 157,
including 54 Democrats who voted for the legislation. America's parents
should not be considered slave owners and their children slaves.
America's parents are caring, loving mothers and fathers who simply
want to know when someone else, anyone else is taking their own
daughter across State lines for an abortion.
Now, when I hear statements that equate America's parents with slave
owners and statements that equate America's children to slaves, I will
tell it as it is.
{time} 1800
And when an amendment is offered that would allow a sexual predator
to exploit a loophole in the bill directly contrary to that bill's
purpose, I will also tell it as it is.
Now, with all of these facts, I would suggest we put this issue to
rest and be thankful that the House passed, in an overwhelmingly
bipartisan fashion, a bill that would protect the fundamental rights of
parents and the safety of our minor daughters everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the chairman of the
committee continues to smear other Members of the House on this floor.
The bill says nothing about sexual predators. The words sexual predator
or abusers do not appear in the bill, number 1.
Number 2, by the chairman's logic any bill on the floor of the House
that gives veterans benefits or gives educational benefits, gives
benefits to sexual predators as long as it does not specifically
exclude them; and any such bill could be fairly described as a bill to
give benefits to sexual predators.
Number 3, I did use that language that the chairman quoted about the
Fugitive Slave Act, but I was not comparing parents to slave owners. I
was saying that the two bills were similar in that both would use, and
that was in the quote, both would use the power of the Federal
Government to export the laws of one State into another, and all of
these things are opinions. Opinions are fine in the views. They are not
fine in the reports of the amendment. That is where the smear is.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a senior Member in the House.
[[Page H2772]]
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I very much respect the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner); we are friends and have been for 30
years.
I voted for the bill that precipitated this debate. I voted with the
gentleman for that bill. But this debate is not about that bill, and it
is not about the issue of sexual predators. It is about whether or not
we can trust each other to deal with each other with fairness and with
accuracy. It is about whether or not the majority will use its power to
unilaterally mischaracterize any effort by any Member of the minority.
I served a long time ago, and so did the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), with a fellow by the name of Bill Steiger. He was
one of the great Members in the history of this House.
He spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that the Congressional
Record accurately reflected what each and every Member said and did on
this House floor. I think we owe it to his memory and the memory of
others who fought the same battle, to remember, as this resolution
says, that it is the long and established practice in the House for
reports to describe recorded votes with objective, nonargumentative
captions.
I agree with this resolution that the committee majority departed
from that practice by captioning these five amendments with
inflammatory captions. There is enough skill on the part of the
majority staff of the Judiciary Committee to describe any amendment
offered by any Member in a non-pejorative, non-argumentative way.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the language used was
intended to hurt the Member who offered it, not to provide an accurate
description; and I do think the committee owes the minority an apology.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
I rise in support of the resolution. H.R. 748, the Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act, makes it illegal to transport a minor across
State lines for the purposes of getting an abortion. Now, transport is
not defined in the bill.
When the Judiciary Committee marked up the bill, I offered an
amendment which said simply that we should exempt taxicab drivers and
others in the business of professional transport from the
transportation provisions of the bill, because as written, it would be
a Federal crime for a taxicab driver to take a young woman who gets in
a cab and says, take me to the abortion clinic so I can get an
abortion.
If the taxicab driver complied with that task, he would be committing
a Federal crime. Now, even if he were not prosecuted, there is a civil
liability provision in the bill which exposes the cab driver and
through the principles of agency, the entire cab company, to civil
liability by the parents of the young woman who find out how she got to
the clinic.
So let me read my amendment: ``The prohibitions of this section shall
not apply with respect to conduct of taxicab drivers, bus drivers or
others in the business of professional transport.''
However, the report in the markup filed by the majority described the
amendment thusly: ``Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have
exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers,
bus drivers or others in the business of professional transport.''
Now, I will let the public decide whether or not that is a
distortion. I believe that it is. But I would just say that if a
prosecutor has evidence that a person is a sexual predator, the last
thing they would do would be to go to this provision of the code, which
is a misdemeanor, rather than the various felonies that they could
prosecute the person for.
The amendment does not immunize a sexual predator from the crimes of
being a sexual predator, just the provisions of this transportation
provision which is just a misdemeanor.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in any event, whatever you think
of the bill, this distortion obviously speaks to character; but in my
view, the descriptions in the committee report and the distortion of
those amendments, particularly the one I just described, say more about
the character of the person responsible for describing the amendment
that way and the character of those trying to defend the distortion,
than it does about my amendment.
I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, hope that we would pass the
resolution so that the House will not be on record as condoning such
misrepresentations.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman on the Subcommittee on the
Constitution.
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Last Wednesday this House passed H.R. 748, the Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act, CIANA. It was a bipartisan vote. It was 270
to 156; 63 percent of this House voted for this bill. And as was
mentioned before, 54 Democrats, almost two-thirds of this House voted
for this bill.
Now, enacting CIANA was critical. It is very, very important to
better protect young girls from falling prey to abusive boyfriends and
older men and ensuring that parents have the opportunity to be involved
in their daughters' medical decisions.
CIANA accomplished this, both these purposes, first by making it a
criminal offense to transport a minor across State lines in order to
obtain an abortion in another State and avoiding a parental
notification law in that State.
The second purpose is accomplished by requiring that a parent or
legal guardian is notified that an abortion is going to be performed on
their daughter. The bill was carefully crafted to prevent those who do
not have the minor's best interests, and more than likely they have
already committed statutory rape or incest, from being able to destroy
critical evidence through an abortion.
Statistics demonstrate that the incident of statutory rape is
occurring with increasing frequency. Moreover, the number of incest
cases is becoming all too prevalent. The amendments that are at issue
here that were offered during the full Judiciary Committee markup would
have broadened the categories of individuals who could be exempted from
the bill's reach, thus increasing the likelihood that these provisions
could be exploited.
For example, the amendments offered to exempt taxicab drivers, as has
been mentioned, bus drivers, and others in the business of public
transport, clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, first cousins of the
minor, grandparents or adult siblings, it would have given any of those
individuals who may be sexually abusing a young girl, in essence, a
safe harbor, thus defeating the primary purpose of CIANA.
The characterizations of the amendments, as reflected in the
committee report, accurately describe the safe harbor that would be
afforded to abusive men through the amendments offered.
Now, was that the intention of the proponents of the amendments?
Certainly not. But could it be the result, if the amendments had
passed? Yes, it could. The American people overwhelmingly support laws
that require parents to be notified before a minor has an abortion.
In March 2005, 75 percent of 1,500 registered voters indicated their
support for parental notification laws. The fundamental rights of
parents in parental notification laws are supported by Supreme Court
precedent. Amendments that alter and allow these laws to be exploited
should have been defeated, and they were.
I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary
Committee.
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank
the distinguished gentleman from
[[Page H2773]]
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for allowing us to debate today, really, the
integrity of the House.
This debate is not about the underlying bill, H.R. 748. That is not
what it is about. It simply is about those in power abusing power,
taking advantage of the minority, and not telling the truth.
Frankly, the amendments that were offered, there is no language
whatsoever that would equate to the description that was in the final
report or the report of the particular committee.
In fact, as the resolution reads, although it is the long and
established practice on House reports to describe recorded votes with
objective, nonargumentative captions, the Committee on the Judiciary
majority departed from the practice in House Report 109-51 by
captioning those five amendments with inflammatory, inaccurate
captions, implying that these three Members of Congress were engaging
in criminal behavior.
Let me tell you that my constituents said to me, we are glad that you
are concerned about grandparents and clergy. That is what the amendment
was about. And the inaccuracy subjected the Members, the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and
myself, to ridicule, and, of course, disparaging remarks in newspaper
articles around the Nation.
Now, in the course of debate, we welcome the ability to debate
passionately about these issues. We welcome the media's criticism about
the accuracy of the work that we do in this body. But what we do not
welcome is a direct mischaracterization of these actual words that were
being written and put forward in the debate in the Judiciary Committee.
And so I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution, because,
again, as you get up time after time to debate the underlying bill, Mr.
Speaker, this is not the issue. The issue is, in the report, you
mischaracterized three Members of Congress whose language did not say
anything about what you represented it to be: Nothing about criminal
behavior, simply to protect the rights of grandparents and clergy,
simply to protect the rights of those who innocently might be carrying
individuals across State lines.
I cannot imagine, in the history of this Congress, why an amendment
offered by Jackson-Lee that had to do with a GAO study turned out to be
criminal behavior, or an amendment that had to do with clergy and
grandparents turned out to be criminal behavior.
Mr. Sensenbrenner, I would simply ask, in the sense of comity,
collegiality, respect, that this be clarified and you ask your
colleagues to support this privileged resolution, because the members
of the Judiciary Committee must go back to Room 2141 in Rayburn and sit
down and address the laws of this land and the Constitution of the
United States of America.
We should not be divided on upholding the laws of this land because
of the lack of judiciousness of the writing of a report that could be
solved today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the privileged resolution
to clarify the record and to make this right by the American people and
the Members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution introduced by
the Gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Ranking Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, from where the underlying legislation was
initially reported. In introducing this resolution, he has attempted to
``set the record straight'' with respect to House Report 109-51 and the
way that it has been patently malreported and maligned the authors of
amendments to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
of 2005.
Rule IX, paragraph (1) of the House Rules states that:
Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the
rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and
the integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting
the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, Delegates, or
the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their
representative capacity only.
This resolution was properly and justifiably introduced because, in
this case, the privileges of ``dignity'' and ``the integrity of [the
House's] proceedings'' have been patently violated. To purposefully
misreport the good-faith amendments that have been offered by Members
of this venerable House debases the nature and trustworthiness of the
House Report. After this debacle, Members will have to scan committee
reports with a fine-toothed comb--not for substantive value, but for
accuracy and veracity of their reporting value. This is the diminution
of the dignity of the process. This is the diminution of the integrity
of the House.
My distinguished colleagues have joined to introduce this resolution
in order to make it clear to the American people that we do not
associate ourselves with the misreported portions of House Report 109-
51. I plan to offer a similar resolution that speaks specifically to
the nature of the misreporting of amendments that I offered during the
Committee markup of H.R. 748.
One point that my resolution will make is that House Report 109-51
not only improperly made negative inferences as to the import and
intent of my amendments, but it combined two distinct and separately-
offered amendments into one.
In terms of the personal privileges violated by the report, the
misreporting--and the malreporting of the amendments offered by my
colleagues Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, and me affected our rights,
reputation, and conduct. As founder and Chair of the Congressional
Children's Caucus, a report that cites an amendment offered by me that
would exempt sexual predators from liability is at the very least
offensive.
My constituents and the constituents of my colleagues do read House
Reports, and the nefarious language that the Chairman avers as
representative of his true intentions should be highlighted as contrary
to the ideals on which this House, this government, and this nation
were established.
Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to please
address their comments to the Chair and not to individual Members.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Feeney.)
{time} 1815
Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that we have descended to this
level because I have some great friends that I admire on the other
side. The ranking member from Michigan is somebody who has had a
distinguished career and I appreciate him. I appreciate the other
Members who have spoken tonight and I respect them. I have enormous
respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
We serve on a committee which is not a fluff committee. It often has,
as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) knows, some very
controversial issues. And we typically deal with these issues as ladies
and gentlemen with the highest respect for one another, even though we
often vehemently disagree.
One thing we know is that last week, the United States House of
Representatives overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, passed House
Resolution 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
One thing we know is that the purpose of this bill was to prevent
sexual abusers from taking vulnerable young girls across State lines
for the purpose of abortion without telling that young lady's, young
woman's mom or dad.
Support for parental notification as we know is widely supported
amongst the American public. As a matter of fact, in the State of
Florida, which I respect, the people of Florida, amended our
Constitution in 2004 and overwhelmingly passed an amendment to our
Constitution that provides as follows, ``The legislature is authorized
to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a
minor before termination of the minor's pregnancy.''
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary, during its mark-up which I
participated in considered several amendments. I have to say that the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler) who spoke, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) are
people that I respect enormously for their passion for their beliefs.
They offered amendments. There is nothing in the committee report that
disparages any of the intentions of these Members. The committee report
does describe the effect of some of the amendments that are offered.
There is a huge difference between accurately describing the effect
of an amendment and ascribing ill motives to the people who offered the
amendments. These are people of great will, of great determination, of
great passion, of great belief but we disagree. And as the chairman
said, there is no
[[Page H2774]]
exception provided for grandparents who happen to molest a child, for
taxicab drivers, for uncles, for nieces in any of the amendments that
were offered.
And I did not speak on the amendments. As the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member said, there was not a
whole lot of discussion about some of these amendments and that is try.
Not because we did not understand the ramifications. We understood the
effect. I did not speak at all because if every one of the members of
the Committee on the Judiciary spoke for 5 minutes on each amendment as
we are entitled, we would never get through our business protecting
children who are impregnated by people that molest them.
And so we knew what we were voting on and the job of the committee
staff is to describe the effect of the amendment, not the debate. That
is what the Congressional Record does. That is what our ability when we
insert language into the Record does. It is not the job of the
committee staff.
As the chairman said, my friend from New York (Mr. Nadler) has
frequently compared this bill to the Slave Holders Protection Bill in
the 1850s. It is a very different story to protect parents and minor
children that have been abused, sexually and molested and impregnated
than comparing that to the rights of slave holders.
Comparing the rights of parents is something that Americans are for.
Protecting the rights of slave holders is something Americans are
against. And to compare that I think is very unfair.
I will say that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is somebody
I respect a great deal, but the effect of his amendment did not shield
anybody that might have been an abuser or a molester of these children.
With that, I ask respectfully that the gentleman withdraw this
motion. We can get back together and agree when we can. But, by golly,
we would ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to withdraw this
privileged motion.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I want my
friend, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Feeney) to understand it is not about anything in the
debate that took place to which we were objecting. It is about the
entitlement of the amendments which were totally misconstrued.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Zoe Lofgren), a member of the committee.
Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend the
integrity of the House this evening. The established practice of the
House regarding committee reports is to accurately and objectively
describe the proceedings when a bill is considered in committee. These
reports are historical products that are used to understand and
determine the intent of a bill, opposition to a bill, and to provide
any additional information to understand the context of a bill reported
by committees of the House.
In committee we argue and we disagree and we offer amendments and we
vote. We may vote and disagree in committee, but when the report is
issued it is supposed to be objective. This institution must uphold
this established practice of describing a committee mark-up in an
accurate and objective manner so that history is accurately documented
and reported for generations to come. Unfortunately, that is not what
happened last week when the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R.
748 to the House floor with the committee report, House Report 109-51.
Republicans that ruled the Committee on the Judiciary
mischaracterized five Democratic amendments in an extremely disparaging
and distorting manner. When alerted to the misleading and inaccurate
description of the amendment in the committee report, they refused to
correct the mischaracterization.
Here is something I can say that would be true about H.R. 748. The
bill could permit a father who raped his daughter to profit in a
lawsuit against his minister. That is a true thing about that bill. It
is an argument against the bill. But no one expects that argument
against the bill to substitute for the name of the bill in the
committee report.
In prior Congresses, Democratic amendments like these were described
in neutral terms. The vote last week was about H.R. 748. The vote this
week is about arrogance and abuse of power and ignoring the rules.
The Republicans changed the ethics rules when they were afraid they
might not work for them at the beginning of this Congress, and we are
all watching the other body looking about changing the rules relative
to filibuster because it suits their purpose and now this.
We, including the chairman of the committee, each have a duty to
uphold the integrity of this institution. We must not play politics
with the records of history. The majority should live by the rules and
precedents of the House. The House cannot function if the majority uses
its raw power to corrupt the record of the proceedings.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Berman), a member of the House Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) for yielding me time.
I see the logic of the majority. If they were commenting on the Bill
of Rights, the fourth amendment is an amendment designed to quash
evidence coming from an unlawful search and seizure that could allow
the conviction of sexual predators. The fifth amendment gives sexual
predators the right to protect themselves from self-incrimination. The
sixth amendment allows wily and cunning lawyers to use cross
examination and technical rules to keep sexual predators from getting
convicted.
This is how the majority chooses to interpret, in this particular
case, the substance and the intent of a series of amendments made to
the bill we voted on last week.
I have great respect for the chairman of the committee. He is a fair
and honest man, and he has worked hard to defend the jurisdiction of
the committee. And what has been done here with this majority report in
that context is a tremendous disappointment to me. It essentially left
us with no recourse but to bring a motion like this to the floor of the
House.
To create the absurd situation and then characterize the result of a
particular amendment by that absurd situation does not do any justice
or any service to this process, to this institution, or to our
committee.
We depend, we in the minority depend on a process that relies on
honesty and good faith and the duties and those duties, I truly
believe, were breached in the case of this report.
The minority has regarded to file its dissenting views without the
benefit of having to have seen the report which they are dissenting.
That is inherently an illogical system, but we have gone along with it,
but when something like this happens, it raises serious questions about
the legitimacy of that particular process.
I think a great wrong has been done to several Members of this body
by virtue of the way the majority has characterized this amendment. I
think those characterizations should be withdrawn. I think an apology
should be made to them, and I urge the passage of this motion.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me
time on this important issue.
The stated purpose of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act
is to protect the health and safety of young girls by allowing parental
involvement when their home States have thought it appropriate to
require such involvement.
As a general rule, no one has a young girl's best interest at heart
more than her parents. Where this rule is not the case, the law allows
for judicial bypass of the parental involvement requirements.
Therefore, the amendments introduced by the Democrats in the Committee
on the Judiciary are unnecessary. Moreover, these amendments are
dangerous.
As my distinguished Committee on the Judiciary colleagues have
explained, the health and safety of these young girls is not protected
by providing a blank exemption for those who may have sexually abused
them. That is precisely what these amendments
[[Page H2775]]
did. They provided blanket exclusions with open doors for sexual
predators to exploit to cover up their crimes.
Far too often, the adults transporting these minors across State
lines to circumvent their home State's parental involvement laws are
grown men who have sexually preyed upon the girls. We have heard those
statistics delivered by the chairman.
To exempt certain classes which characteristics show are highly
likely to be sexual predators would gut the intent of this bill, to
protect the health and safety of young girls. The descriptions of the
amendments in the committee report only describe the potential effects
of the amendments if they had been adopted. They do not describe the
motives of those offering the amendments as has been stated.
The minority had the opportunity to include dissenting views in the
committee report and they did. And those dissenting views do
characterize the motives of those who supported this legislation.
It has already been spoken to as the remarks by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler) with regard to the Fugitive Slave Act, and so I
would just say this, that I am amazed that this subject was brought up.
I am amazed that the minority wants to have a national debate over this
subject matter. When I look at these exemptions and exclusions, this
open door, cabdrivers, bus drivers, professional transport people,
clergy, godparents, grandparents, adult siblings, aunts, uncles,
brothers, sisters, not the family cat, not the family dog, but
everything else you can imagine including the pizza delivery boy are
exemptions from this bill.
If those amendments had all gone on the bill, it would have been
gutted in the bill and it would have gone down because I would have
voted against it and so would the rest of us in the majority.
I think it is clear the result of the position that is taken here.
What is not clear is the motive as to why we would want to have a
national debate to talk this over again when we clearly understand that
we are trying to protect the rights of parents, not the rights of
grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and siblings.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.
I tell my dear friend who just left the well, we are not here to
debate the bill. We debated the bill in committee. We debated it on the
floor. We are talking about the titles in the section that were
mislabeled.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by quoting from Section
1001, Title 18 of the United States Code that also applies to the
legislative branch.
``Anyone knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by
any trick, scheme or device a material fact; 2, makes any materially
false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; or, 3,
makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to
contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or
entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5
years or both.''
{time} 1830
The Committee on Rules discovered last week that the Committee on the
Judiciary report on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act,
authored by the majority staff, in conflict obviously to the United
States Code, contained amendment summaries that had been rewritten by
the staff for the sole purpose of distorting the original intent of the
authors. I have to admit I was livid.
I was certain it must have been an oversight because I could not
imagine that the Committee on the Judiciary, of all things, or the
Committee on the Judiciary chairman, whom I have known for 18 years,
would stand by a committee report that would so deeply mischaracterize
and falsify the intent of several amendments offered by Democrat
members of the committee.
At least five amendments to the bill, designed to protect the rights
of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution, were
completely rewritten to make as though it was the original intent of
the authors. This is a shocking abuse of power, and it must not stand.
The fact is that the Republican majority must do the right thing here
today. They must give us a new committee report containing the proper
captions so that it accurately reflects the intentions of the authors.
Furthermore, I think the chairman of the committee owes those Members
an apology for soiling their reputation in the names of partisan
politics.
To falsely rewrite the intent of amendments submitted by another
Member, to intentionally distort its description is unacceptable. No
Member should go through what our colleagues have had to go through.
None of us should have our reputations dragged through the mud.
It is absolutely arrogant of this majority to believe that they can
tamper with official congressional documents for political purposes. It
is absolutely arrogant, and the American people will not be pleased
with it. It is an affront not only to those of us in the House but to
the American people and to history, Mr. Speaker; and unless it is
amended, I am sure that we will see these again in the form of campaign
attack mail pieces, and honorable, hardworking Members of this Congress
will be forever branded. No wonder we have a lack of civility in this
House.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 5 minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the committee.
Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened today, and I am not sure
whether I am more disappointed because of the mischaracterization of
the amendments in the committee report or whether I am more saddened by
the fact that the members of a committee on which I have served now for
13 years would be here on the floor defending the characterization that
was put in the committee's report.
I would just hope that we can get the committee to file an amended
report that clears this up and we can put this behind us and go on.
This is saddening, and if we cannot get that, I think it would be a
really, really sad commentary on this institution and what our
committee has sunk to in this Congress.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, while I am not an attorney, it is my
understanding that the perfect defense for a charge of libel is the
truth.
We have heard no discussions today about the substance of the
descriptions in the committee report, and that is because the
descriptions of the effects of the amendments in the committee report
were accurate.
Contrast that with the dissenting views the minority attached to the
committee report. For example, the minority views state that the Child
Interstate Abortion Notification Act is ``overtly hostile to
families.'' The minority dissenting views in the committee report also
describe the legislation as ``anti-physician and anti-family.''
Now, 270 Members of the House voted for legislation that the minority
views stated was ``overtly hostile to families.'' Fifty-four Members of
the other side of the aisle, the Democrat Party, voted for that bill.
Surely there is no comparison between stating that broadly supported
legislation, designed to protect parental rights and the health and
safety of young women, is ``overtly hostile to families'' and
accurately describing the consequences of poorly drafted amendments to
the legislation.
Further, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) who we heard
from earlier in her press release last week referred to a conspiracy to
``falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment.''
First, there was no rewriting. The majority of the committee, in
describing offered amendments, do not cut and paste any description of
an amendment
[[Page H2776]]
into a committee report. The majority describes the amendment offered
as it understands it.
Second, the purpose of describing an amendment is not to describe its
intent. Its purpose is to describe its meaning and effect. What matters
is not what is in the mind of a Member offering an amendment. It is
what the text of the amendment offered would mean if it were made a
part of the bill. Describing the effects of an amendment as it where is
not the same as describing the subjective intent of the person offering
the amendment.
A committee report should do the former, not the latter, because what
matters at the end of the day are the actual words on the page of a
bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, in my 16 years in office, I have seldom seen
such a blatant disregard for the truth. What occurred in this body last
week during the consideration of the bill should be an embarrassment to
every Member of this Congress. To purposely mischaracterize amendments
offered during committee consideration of a bill is simply outrageous,
and quite frankly, it sets a dangerous precedent.
Many of us have different views and even deep disagreements about the
important issues we consider in this institution, but we should be
using the power of debate to resolve those differences. Instead, the
majority is using parliamentary gimmicks and deliberate
mischaracterizations to misrepresent the intentions of other Members of
this body.
The official record exists to record the views and actions of the
participants of the debate, not to editorialize and inflame the debate.
To go so far as to change the descriptions of amendments, to use an
official document to mislead the American people about alternatives
suggested by the minority is a gross abuse of power by the majority,
and it is just not honest. If we allowed this or similar action by
either party to go unchecked, if we let this happen now, it will almost
certainly happen again.
The Congress can do better. The American people certainly deserve
better, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support
this important resolution.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the time.
Mr. Speaker, my comments prepared for now had essentially to do with
the point that has been made already here many times. Carving out
exceptions to the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 for adult siblings,
for cousins and uncles would not protect young girls who are made
victims of incest by those very adult siblings, cousins or uncles; and
it would be a terrible idea to add that to a bill whose primary purpose
is to protect the rights of parents and their children.
But I had a chance just to kind of step back here for a moment, Mr.
Speaker, and ask myself why the intensity of this debate. I would have
to step back and say that respectfully I would submit that maybe it is
about the foundational issue here of abortion because if we were not
talking about the surgery of abortion, there would be no debate here.
No one would say it is not all right to take a young girl across the
State line for an appendectomy. That would be an outrageous discussion.
It really is about this whole notion of abortion, and I do not
understand the intensity completely, but I believe it has something to
do with the conscience in all of us collectively that we are beginning
to realize that somehow, as Americans, we are bigger than abortion on
demand; that 40 million dead children is enough; and that somehow we
need to start asking the real question. The real questions is, does
abortion take the life of a child? If it does not, it is a nonissue. If
it does, then we are in the midst of the greatest human holocaust in
the history of humanity.
I think somehow we collectively in our hearts understand that, and
therefore, it creates all this acrimony on the finer points; but the
real abuse of power is that this body has the power to protect these
little babies, and instead, we are debating the finer points in a
committee report, and I am ashamed of that.
I pray that somehow we can get to the point where we can come
together and not have to look back. The Fugitive Slave Act was a
perfect example. We looked back and said how did we let that happen.
That was an acrimonious debate, too. There was a little thing called
the Civil War over it.
We do not need to proceed down that line. Somehow may compassion and
the simple truth prevail here.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the chairman of the committee how
many speakers he has remaining.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, just me to close.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member,
the lead Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me
time, and for his great leadership to protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States, the oath of office that we all take.
I, too, want to express my respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the committee. I
know that all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary have a
difficult task. I commend all of the members of the Committee on the
Judiciary for the very important responsibility that they have in
protecting the civil liberties of our country. There are so many
complicated issues where there are differences of opinion but,
hopefully, respect for that diversity of opinion, which is intrinsic to
our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I am very sad that it is necessary to come to the floor
to speak on a resolution offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers), again the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on
the Judiciary.
I think it is important to note why we are here. I understand why our
Republican colleagues want to talk about the bill and not talk about
this privileged resolution, because this resolution strikes right
directly to the heart of our democracy and our right of freedom of
speech on this floor and how our words are interpreted.
Questions of privilege, according to the House rules and manual, Mr.
Speaker, as I am sure the Speaker well knows, questions of privilege
shall be those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its
safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings. It is that last
point, the integrity of our proceedings, which is what is under assault
by the Republicans in this action that they took last week. Truth and
trust, they are the fundamentals of our work. We must speak truth so
that we will be trusted.
I view what the Committee on the Judiciary leadership did on this
bill as just another extension of the abuse of power of the Republican
majority in the Congress of the United States, both in the House and in
the Senate.
In both bodies, and let us just speak to our own, there is an attempt
to limit the opportunity for Members to speak on the floor, to have
substitutes, alternative amendments, that can come to the floor; and on
the occasions when they do allow an amendment, they decide to
misrepresent the amendment. Just when we think we have seen it all on
the part of curbing debate in this House, the Republicans not only curb
the debate; they decide what it is that we said and what it is that we
wrote in our amendments that we were putting forth.
The disgusting misrepresentations that were advanced by the
Republicans demand an apology by the chairman of the committee and a
pledge by the Republican leadership in this House that this will never
happen again; that this will never happen again.
{time} 1845
We must be mindful of a standard we must uphold, not only for
ourselves, but for the American people, to conduct ourselves at all
times in a manner which shall reflect credibly on the House of
Representatives. In doing so, the House must maintain the integrity of
all of its proceedings, as the rules of the House dictate in the House
Rules and Manual.
[[Page H2777]]
What happened last week to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler),
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) was an outrage. An official report that the majority
of the Committee on the Judiciary prepared to the legislation at hand
deliberately and purposely mischaracterized their amendments in a
manner that was insulting and derogatory.
Again, no wonder the Republicans do not want to talk about what is on
the floor right now, which is a privileged resolution addressing the
gross abuse of power of the Republicans. We had tried to say at
meetings, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) tried to get an
agreement with the majority that they would change the record and
apologize; to admit that there was something wrong with what happened
last week, and that would have made a difference in bringing this
resolution to the floor. But, no, there was no admission that there was
anything wrong with misrepresenting, not telling the truth about what
was contained in those amendments.
Administrative functions, such as reporting of amendments and
descriptions of these amendments, relate to the integrity, again, of
the proceedings of the House and must be fairly described. If there is
a controversy, then you go to the maker of the amendment and say, what
is it, how would you characterize your amendment, you who are the maker
of the amendment? But no, we had placed our trust that the majority
would fairly describe something as administrative as an amendment
offered by a Member.
In short, this should not even be an issue we need to be reviewing
and scrutinizing. If this were to pass without discussion, think of the
precedent that it would create; that the majority, on a regular and
repeated basis, could use their power and abuse their power to write
any characterization of any amendment that anyone made. Its simply
wrong.
The behavior exhibited by the Republican majority with the Committee
on the Judiciary report flies in the face of the comity and civility
and honesty that we should all strive for. It is a further reflection,
again, of the abuse of power we have seen here. It is an embarrassment
to the House.
I was deeply disappointed to learn that the chairman of the Committee
on the Judiciary has refused to apologize on his own accord. Our rules,
Mr. Speaker, are our best defense. They are what make the debate and
the democracy work. As I said, Mr. Speaker, you even see in this close
on this important debate that there is an interest in stopping the
conversation. I hope that the Speaker and the Republican leadership
will reflect on their obligations to the House, and indeed, to all the
Members of both parties, and that they will ask the chairman of the
Committee on the Judiciary to apologize for the affront to this House
and the blatant abuse of position as the chairman of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
This is, in my view, an aberration for the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner). As I said, many of us, while we may disagree on
issues, have held him in great esteem and respect. He is an articulate
spokesperson for his point of view. But his point of view is not
necessarily the point of view of everyone in this body, and his point
of view should not be the description of the amendments that Members in
the minority are presenting to the Congress. The leadership has a
responsibility to ensure that this will not happen again.
I want to commend all the Members of the Committee on the Judiciary
once again, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think you have a very
challenging task. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the people who were offended by this,
though all of us were, but particularly in terms of the retelling of
their amendments, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by thanking the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) for his courage, because it takes a degree of courage to
bring a privileged resolution to this floor when you know there will be
a continuation of a misrepresentation of what happened last week. We
are doing this not because of this bill, we are doing this because it
is our responsibility to have an honest reflection of the proceedings
of the House. I urge our colleagues to support the resolution of the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the distinguished minority leader said,
I offered to file a supplemental committee report. However, in order to
do so, I asked that the authors of the amendment admit that the
amendment did not specifically exclude the sexual predators from the
exemptions they proposed. That offer was refused by the minority side
of the aisle.
The committee report does accurately state that sexual predators are
not carved out of the exemptions that were proposed. It is not a
misrepresentation. It accurately shows that the authors of the
amendment did not draft those amendments as narrowly as they should
have. And when we vote on legislation, we vote on what is on the plain
text of the piece of paper, not on what the author of an amendment
intended to do.
I do not like to see this resolution come before us, but what I will
say is that we were accurate, and if you do not want this to happen
again, draft your amendments properly.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have been called here today to raise a question of
the privileges of the House. A very serious matter. A prerogative
rarely used by the Members of the House of Representatives. But we have
to deal with the mischaracterizations of the titles of the amendments,
which is what this debate is about.
It is incredible to me that the case of the other side is so weak
that all they can do is continue to talk about the bill itself. We are
not here to debate H.R. 748, we are here to talk about the power and
the abuses of the majority party that sets the agenda, that writes the
reports, and that entitles the amendments submitted to the members of
the Committee on the Judiciary. The amendment titles of three members
were twisted and distorted and their meaning was rendered so that the
entitlement of the amendment was not, indeed, accurate. I believe the
majority has failed the Congress but, more importantly, the American
people.
Now, what we are doing here right now is hoping to raise this
question of the privileges of the House regarding the blatant abuse of
power; Republicans' mischaracterizing the description of numerous
Democratic amendments, when some of the amendments had been considered
in previous Congresses. These are the same amendments that were
properly entitled in other Congresses.
So it is with great reluctance that I come before you to ask that we
make sure this never happens again; that this deliberate
mischaracterization of amendments be stopped here and now; that it does
not happen and that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
issue a supplemental report and apologize to the House of
Representatives. Support the resolution.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to lay the
resolution on the table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on tabling H. Res. 253 will be followed by a 15-minute vote
on suspending the rules and adopting H. Res. 228.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 196, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 151]
YEAS--220
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
[[Page H2778]]
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--196
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--17
Biggert
Brown (OH)
Clay
Culberson
Davis (FL)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Edwards
Fattah
Hoyer
Johnson (CT)
Larson (CT)
Otter
Shays
Simpson
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
{time} 1919
Ms. WOOLSEY and Messrs. RUPPERSBERGER, SERRANO, SMITH of Washington
and BUTTERFIELD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________