[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7980-7990]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 748, CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION 
                            NOTIFICATION ACT

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 236

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 748) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of 
     certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
     Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the 
     committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion 
     of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee 
     shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a 
     separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the 
     Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of 
H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The rule 
waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, it 
provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, shall be 
considered as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment.
  It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on 
Rules report accompanying the resolution; it provides that the 
amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report; may be offered only by a Member designated in 
the report; shall be considered as read; shall be debatable for the 
time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; it shall not be subject to an amendment and 
shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question in 
the House or in the committee of the whole. It waives all points of 
order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one 
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and 
to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her 
dedication and leadership, not only on this bill, but also on all 
matters concerning the well-being and defense of our children. She 
truly has made this fight her own and I would like to applaud her for 
her hard work.
  Mr. Speaker, I fear that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it 
as an assault on a woman's right to choose, but this bill has 
absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with a woman's right 
to choose. Rather, this bill ensures that no minor is deprived of any 
protection according to not only her but also her parents under the 
laws of her State.
  H.R. 748 is a commonsense bill that will prohibit the transportation 
of a minor across the State line to obtain an abortion when the child's 
home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an exception in 
those extremely rare cases in which the abortion is medically necessary 
to save the life of the minor. Also, this bill makes another exception 
allowing for judicial bypass.
  This bill also affirms the responsibility of a physician prior to 
performing an abortion on a minor from another State to make sure that 
they are acting in accordance with the laws of her State.
  Having practiced as an OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I am uniquely 
qualified to discuss the medical and legal obligations of a physician 
to his or her patient. And this law not only ensures the protection of 
minors but it also clarifies the responsibility of the physician to 
make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing an abortion 
on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her parents.
  This bill also affirms the principles of federalism and it prevents 
the circumvention and violation of laws passed by State legislatures. 
Over 30 States have passed parental notification laws, Mr. Speaker. In 
fact, in my home State of Georgia, the legislature just recently passed 
a new abortion notification law in an overwhelming and bipartisan 
fashion, and this Congress has the responsibility to defend that 
federalism and the integrity of State laws in interstate matters.
  Mr. Speaker, while I can address this issue both as a Member of 
Congress and as a medical physician who has delivered a lot of precious 
infants, I can also talk about this issue as a father. My wife and I 
had four children. Three of them are now grown women and two of them 
have children of their own. However, I knew that when they were still 
young children, minors, I not only had a moral obligation that I 
proudly still bear to this day, but also a legal obligation to defend 
them and their well-being against any and every potential and imminent 
danger.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation recognizes this fundamental bond 
between parents and child and it recognizes the obligation of a parent 
to be involved and to assist in making important decisions affecting 
both the life and the health of a minor. Children cannot even be given 
aspirin at school without their parents' permission, so I cannot 
comprehend how anyone could possibly justify that administering an 
abortion is less traumatic or potentially dangerous than taking an 
aspirin. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the opponents of this 
bill are saying through their opposition to H.R. 748.

                              {time}  1200

  During this debate, I encourage my colleagues to remain focused on 
the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks to uphold 
the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their minor 
children. Let us not allow this debate to be bogged down with the same 
tired rhetoric about a woman's right to choose.
  I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill for 
final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, after being brought to task by the American people for 
meddling in the personal and private life decisions of an American 
family during the Schiavo tragedy, you would think that the majority in 
this Congress

[[Page 7981]]

would have learned. You would think that they would have learned that 
the people of the country do not want the government intruding into the 
lives of American families; but they have not learned, Mr. Speaker, 
because here we go again.
  This bill is another invasion into the private lives of American 
families making the decisions for themselves, and it is an invasion 
into the legal rights afforded all women in this country. I am talking 
about the legal right for women to choose, which is protected by the 
Constitution of the United States.
  We have a duty in this body to consider legislation which will 
maximize our freedom and equality, values which are the very fabric of 
our society. Our job here is to protect the legal rights of those we 
serve and not to take them away, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  A report was just recently released that shows that there are more 
Americans incarcerated than in any other country in the United States. 
This bill will add Granny and Granddad and the clergy and an occasional 
cab driver, this is how far this bill goes; but I want to talk for a 
minute about another abuse which has occurred in this Chamber, a 
personal affront to three of our colleagues.
  The Committee on Rules discovered yesterday that the Committee on the 
Judiciary report on this very bill, which was offered by the majority 
staff, contained amendment summaries which had been rewritten by the 
committee staff for the sole purpose of distorting the intent of the 
authors.
  This committee report took the liberty to mischaracterize and to 
falsify the intent of several amendments offered in committee by 
Democrat Members of this body.
  At least five amendments of this bill which were designed to protect 
the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution 
under the bill were rewritten as amendments designed instead to protect 
sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the 
committee report as if that was the actual intent of the amendment.
  No Member of Congress on either side of the aisle would do such a 
despicable thing as attempt to protect sexual predators, and these 
amendments were no more about sexual predators than they were about 
terrorists or arsonists or any other criminal class in our society. No 
one was attempting to protect them.
  Indeed, what they were trying to do was produce amendments which 
apparently the fact of writing an amendment was offensive. The 
amendments were about the rights of the grandmothers and siblings and 
clergy and the cab drivers, and I asked the chairman of the committee 
about this deception yesterday at the Committee on Rules hearing.
  Instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a 
mistake by an overzealous staffer, the chairman stood by the authored 
amendment descriptions, to my great surprise. I have known the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) since I first arrived in 
Congress, and I did not believe that he would allow such a thing to 
happen and particularly not in the Committee on the Judiciary, but he 
made it very clear to us that the alterations to the Members' 
amendments were deliberate.
  When pressed as to why his committee staff took such unprecedented 
action, the chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the 
manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose the 
unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today. In fact, he 
said, ``You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we 
don't like what you said about our bill.''
  To falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment submitted by another 
Member, to intentionally distort its description as being designed to 
protect sexual predators is no different than accusing a fellow Member 
of Congress of being an apologist for sexual predators themselves.
  That is, in effect, what the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary has done here, and he has ensured that these amendment 
descriptions will be encapsulated in the Record for all time by 
including those unfair and incorrect amendment summaries in the 
committee report. He has mischar-
acterized these Members forever.
  This is a new low for this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. This is a clearly 
dishonest and unethical attack on the credibility and character of 
other Members; and sadly, it is just the latest in a pattern of 
unethical and abusive tactics employed by this majority.
  How incredibly arrogant it is that they believe they have the right 
to tamper with official congressional documents for their own political 
purposes. How unbelievably arrogant is the leadership of this Congress 
that they would force their own political interpretation of another 
Member's work upon this body and upon American people in perpetuity in 
an official committee report.
  The majority's actions are not only an affront to the Members in the 
House but an affront to the American people.
  There is no question that we can debate and disagree over the impact 
the bill can have. We can argue over how well it has been written or 
what language it should include to be more effective; but regardless of 
the way the debate turns out, the caption on the top of that bill or 
amendment serves to instruct the American people as to what the 
original intent of the legislation was.
  It serves as an unbiased reading on what the amendment aims to 
accomplish. To falsify and rewrite that description as a political 
attack is not only unprecedented; it is fundamentally dishonest and an 
abuse of the power given to the majority by the American people and 
their votes.
  I have no doubts, Mr. Speaker, no doubts that unless this 
Congressional Record is amended to reflect the true captions of these 
amendments, we will see these erroneous captions again in the form of 
campaign attack mail pieces. In fact, when pressed last night in the 
Committee on Rules to have the record amended to reflect the honest and 
accurate captions that belong on the amendments, we were defeated on a 
party-line vote.
  So now, these honorable and hardworking Members of Congress will be 
forever branded in the official record as having offered amendments 
designed to protect sexual predators when nothing, nothing could be 
further from the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I have often heard the chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, as well as other Members of the leadership, talk about the loss 
of civility in this Chamber. How can we be civil under this attack? Is 
this a disguised attack to say to the Democrat Members of the House, if 
you have the effrontery to offer an amendment on a bill of ours, we 
will destroy you in the committee report? Have they reached that low?
  Perhaps they have; but if we are going to regain lost civility, they 
do not need to look any further than the abusive, unethical, and 
arrogant administration of this House of Representatives and this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to address some of the 
concerns articulated by my colleague on the Committee on Rules. The 
other side of the aisle has been concerned about how some of the 
amendments they offered during the Committee on the Judiciary markup 
have been characterized in the committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a question of intent versus effect. During the 
Committee on the Judiciary markup, there were several amendments 
offered that would have exempted certain individuals from prosecution 
under this bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that 
they did not intend for sexual predators to be exempt from prosecution. 
I believe them. I would hope it will never be the intent of anyone in 
this body to in any way inadvertently or otherwise assist in doing harm 
to a child to offer protection to those who would.
  But, Mr. Speaker, this is where the effect of the amendments come to 
bear.

[[Page 7982]]

The effect of the amendments would have been to exempt individual 
classes of people from prosecution. If a case arose where the sexual 
predator qualified under one of these classes of individuals, that 
person could not be prosecuted under this bill. This effect is simply 
unacceptable.
  The minority side argues that their intent, not the effect, should be 
the language used in the report submitted by the Committee on the 
Judiciary. However, it is the responsibility, in fact it is the charged 
duty, of the Committee on the Judiciary chairman to write and file the 
report. It is the prerogative of the chairman to write the report as he 
sees fit.
  On the other side, the minority has ample opportunity to take up any 
issue they choose in the dissenting views of the report. In this 
instance, the dissenting views of the minority are found on pages 121 
to 133 of House Report 109-51.
  If the minority wants their interpretation of the intent or even 
effect of an amendment to be in the report, it is wholly appropriate 
for them to articulate those views in their dissenting views. In fact, 
this is just exactly what they did.
  So on the one hand, we have the chairman stating his understanding of 
the effect of these amendments; and on the other hand, we have the 
minority stating their intent. Both the minority and majority positions 
are stated clearly in the committee report.
  It seems to me that both the majority and minority used the committee 
report to fairly and appropriately state their views. No one was shut 
out from the opportunity to voice an opinion in this committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe both sides of the aisle used the committee 
report to discuss their efforts on this legislation, and we should not 
cloud the merit of this legislation because the other side does not 
like how the effect of their amendments was characterized.
  Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, I would like to yield for as 
much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take issue with the 
characterizations that the distinguished gentlewoman from New York has 
made about the committee report and about my actions in two respects.
  First of all, every committee report that is filed in the House of 
Representatives does allow the people who disagreed with the 
legislation to file dissenting views; and those who did support the 
legislation can file additional views, all of which are printed in the 
committee report.
  The majority has the responsibility in the committee report to 
articulate the arguments in favor of the bill because the committee 
report represents the views of those who voted in favor of the 
legislation at the committee level.
  The amendments that were offered and which are the text, or the 
description, at issue here in this debate today were all offered by 
members of the Committee on the Judiciary who oppose the bill. They 
were all defeated by a majority vote in the committee; and my 
committee, perhaps in a minority in the Congress, does print the entire 
text of our committee markups in committee reports. The text of the 
debate in the markup and the text of the amendments are contained in 
pages 58 through 120 of House Report 109-51 inclusive.
  Now, what the gentlewoman from New York is complaining about is the 
majority's arguments in favor of the bill and against the amendments 
which were defeated. To attempt to have those who voted against the 
bill rewrite the arguments that are in favor of the bill contained in 
the committee report is just as wrong as those who voted in favor of 
the bill attempting to rewrite the dissenting views which are appended 
to the committee report and represent the views of those who voted 
against the bill.
  Second point: it is against the rules of the House of Representatives 
to impugn the motives of another Member. So the intent of the authors 
of the amendments that were defeated in the committee and which were 
described in the committee report is out of bounds. It cannot be done 
on the floor. It cannot be done in committee reports. So all that can 
be done in terms of the debate is to look at what the effect of the 
amendments was.
  Perhaps these amendments were not properly drafted by the authors 
when they were submitted in the committee because they did not contain 
a specific carve-out of the exemptions that were proposed for the 
various classes of people that were proposed to be exempted in the 
amendment. This is not the fault of the majority. That is the fault of 
the people who drafted the amendments; and because the amendments were 
not tightly enough drafted, they did not contain a carve-out of the 
exemptions for sexual predators. That is what we pointed out in the 
committee report.
  It is not the fault of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary 
or me as chairman in filing this report to gloss over a defect that did 
allow exemptions for sexual predators. The minority has the chance in 
their dissenting views to dispute the conclusion that had been reached 
in describing what the amendments were. They chose not to do so.
  So the committee report and the headers on the amendments accurately 
reflect the fact that those who authored the amendment did not choose 
to carve out an exemption for sexual predators in the effect of the 
amendment in the clear text of the amendment that was submitted.
  I rest my case.

                              {time}  1215

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler), one of those maligned.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to keep my temper when 
I listen to the sophistry of the distinguished, and I use that word 
advisedly because of protocol only, Chairman.
  First of all, it is not true that the minority had a chance to see 
these comments. The distinguished chairman is very well aware that we 
do not see the majority views of the committee until after we hand in 
the minority views of the committee, the dissenting views, until in 
fact they are published. The majority sees the dissenting views. We 
never see the majority views. We have no opportunity to reply, number 
one.
  Number two. The distinguished chairman says, and the other gentleman 
said that the question is intent versus effect; that it may have been 
my intent to deal with grandparents and clergy members, but in fact it 
might have led to a sexual predator being able to take advantage of the 
amendment. That would be fair comment in a debate. That would be fair 
comment in the body of the views, if they said in the majority views we 
oppose this amendment because under certain circumstances it might be 
used to the advantage of a sexual predator. And to that we could reply 
and say, no, they are wrong because, in the minority views. But that is 
not what we are discussing. We are not discussing an exchange of views. 
We are discussing how the amendment is reported in a one-sentence 
summary of the amendment without any views.
  The amendment, and here the report simply lies about all five 
Democratic amendments. In reporting the amendment, the first amendment, 
which reads in its entirety, the actual text of the amendment offered 
by me was: ``The prohibition of subsection 8 does not apply with 
respect to conduct by a grandparent or adult sibling of the minor.''
  In the 107th Congress House Judiciary Report on the same amendment it 
was reported as follows: ``An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler 
prohibiting H.R. 476 from applying with respect to conduct by a 
grandparent or adult sibling of the minor.'' That is exactly right. In 
fact, that is how the amendment, which was made in order for the floor, 
was reported by the Committee on Rules.
  What does this dishonest committee report say? ``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.'' I

[[Page 7983]]

find it strange in the entire debate, and I give the chairman credit 
for including the transcript of the debate in the committee report, but 
if you actually turn to the debate and look at the transcript, no one 
raised the question of the application of this amendment to sexual 
predators. No member of the majority, no member of the minority. It did 
not occur to anybody.
  Now, maybe it should have occurred to somebody. Maybe the views are 
valid that this amendment could be used that way. Maybe not. That is a 
matter of opinion. But that is not what this amendment says. What this 
amendment says is that these prohibitions shall not apply with respect 
to conduct by a grandparent or an adult sibling of the minor, period. 
That is the only honest way to report this amendment.
  Second amendment. The second amendment which I offered said that 
where there is reason to believe that the judicial bypass system in a 
State is not real, that the local judges are bypassed or whatever, the 
person can go to Federal court and ask for a Federal judicial bypass. 
Now, you can agree or disagree with the implications of that amendment, 
but the proper description of that amendment is to provide a Federal 
judicial bypass where there is evidence that the local judicial bypass 
is not available.
  It is described on page 45 of the committee report as: ``Mr. Nadler 
offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of 
Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape 
conviction under the bill.'' Now, it is a judicial bypass of getting an 
abortion. It has nothing to do with conviction, number one. Number two, 
this does not even mention judicial bypass. It is entirely dishonest. 
And, again, in the entire debate in the committee over this amendment, 
nobody mentioned the word sexual predators. The first we hear of sexual 
predators in connection with these amendments is when we are told, when 
we see the committee report in print that I offered an amendment to 
protect sexual predators. How dishonest. How disingenuous of an 
argument that we hear on this floor and in the Committee on Rules last 
night that these are matters of opinion; that the amendments might be 
used.
  You know, this bill, never mind the amendment, this bill has a 
provision in it that says that the parents of a minor transported 
across State lines to get an abortion can sue the person who 
transported them, can sue the doctor who performs an abortion. Okay, 
you can debate that provision on the merits, pro and con. But did you 
stop to think what if the father raped the daughter, committing incest 
in doing so? Two crimes, rape and incest, and caused the pregnancy that 
she is now trying to abort. Under this bill, he profits from his 
wrongdoing. He now, because he raped the daughter and caused the 
pregnancy, he can now because of this bill go and sue the doctor or the 
boyfriend or the clergyman or the grandmother who transported her to 
get the abortion.
  Well, that is a defect in the bill. It was not drafted properly. I 
doubt that that was the intent. And maybe it was the intent, maybe it 
was not. We can debate that. Would it be fair for a news report or an 
official report of this Congress to call this entire bill the Rapists 
and Sexual Predators Right to Sue Act? That is what this bill is, it is 
the Sexual Predators Right to Sue Act. And if the Democrats were in the 
majority and the Committee on Rules reported a rule saying we will now 
consider the Sexual Predators Right to Sue Act, I think the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) would say that is a disgusting 
misuse of power.
  This was a disgusting misuse of power. It is a rape of the rules of 
this House and it must be corrected.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author 
of the bill.
  Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my wonderful friend, 
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me this time and 
for managing the bill and allowing us to focus once again on the bill 
and the rule.
  I want to thank the distinguished, the very distinguished gentleman 
who is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as well as the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Chabot), who has been a champion of this bill, and it was in his 
subcommittee where it was first heard.
  I am so proud to stand here in favor of House Resolution 748, the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill will incorporate 
all of the provisions previously contained in the previous legislation 
that we had filed, the Child Custody Protection Act, making it a 
Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines to circumvent 
that State's abortion parental notification laws.
  In addition, this year's bill will require that in a State without a 
parental notification requirement, abortion providers are required to 
notify a parent. It will protect minors from exploitation from the 
abortion industry, it will promote strong family ties, and it will help 
foster respect for State laws. Similar but not identical legislation 
has had the support of the overwhelming majority of the Members of 
Congress who have voted in favor of it, not only in 1998 and in 1999, 
but also in 2002.
  I am extremely hopeful that this commonsense pro-family legislation 
will pass both the House, the Senate, and will be signed into law by 
our President. As the mother of two teenage daughters, I believe this 
bill would protect my girls, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in 
favor of the rule and support this commonsense legislation on a concept 
that is supported by the majority of Americans. I believe that it is a 
bill that pro-choice advocates can support.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who was also maligned in the 
report.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly about the distortion in the 
description of my amendment in the committee report. First, the 
suggestion, as the gentleman from New York has indicated, the 
suggestion that we had an opportunity to respond to the majority report 
is just not accurate. Perhaps we need to change the rules in light of 
this distortion, but the dissenting views explain our opposition to the 
bill, and we do not see the majority report prior to the submission of 
the dissenting views. Therefore, we had no way of knowing that such 
distortions would be part of the committee report.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill makes it illegal to transport a 
minor across State lines for the purpose of getting an abortion. Let me 
read my amendment. ``The prohibitions of this section do not apply with 
respect to conduct by taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical 
providers, or others in the business of professional transport.'' It 
was described in the report as saying: ``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.''
  Let me just say that if a person is known to be a sexual predator, 
the last thing a prosecutor would have done would be to say, aha, we 
have him for transporting a minor across State lines as a taxicab 
driver, and we can get him for a misdemeanor; when, obviously, if they 
can show that he is a sexual predator, they have many felonies they 
could prosecute him for. But my view on the description and the 
distortion of this amendment is that it says more about the character 
of the persons responsible for describing the amendment that way, or 
for those trying to defend the distortion, than it does about the 
amendment.
  I would point out that the Committee on Rules changed the description 
from the distortion in the committee report and described it as 
follows: ``Amendment immunizes taxicab drivers, bus drivers, and others 
in the business of professional transport; doctors and nurses and 
others, medical

[[Page 7984]]

providers or their staff, from the transportation provision of the 
bill.'' A description of what the amendment says, a clarification of 
the distortion, but again, Mr. Speaker, it just says more about the 
character of the people who wrote that distortion than it does about 
the amendment.
  I would hope that we would adopt an amendment to the rules that would 
require the Committee on Rules to eliminate that distortion so that the 
public will be accurately informed as to what is in the bill and the 
amendments.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
The gentleman from New York had said that the issue of sexual abuse 
never came up in the committee hearing. If you look at page 84.
  Mr. NADLER. I never said that. I said it did not come up with respect 
to my amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Georgia 
controls the time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected in regard to his 
amendments, but in regard to a number of these other amendments, let me 
quote from the committee report on page 84. This is the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot) speaking. ``This amendment would allow abusers 
potentially to get off scot-free and doom the victims of sexual abuse 
to even more abuse. If the girl is afraid to tell her parents of the 
abortion for fear of past or future sexual abuse, she may utilize the 
judicial bypass process which is available in her State.''
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Pitts).
  Mr. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a woman from my district came to Washington 
last month to tell Congress about how her daughter was taken to New 
Jersey for an abortion without her knowledge and she said, ``On 
February 16th, I sent my daughter to her bus stop with $2 of lunch 
money. I thought she was safe at school. She and her boyfriend had a 
prenatal class scheduled after school.''
  So the mom knew about the 14-year-old daughter's pregnancy. Her 
daughter had chosen to keep the baby and was attending prenatal 
classes.
  The mom continues, ``However, what really happened was that boyfriend 
and his family met with her down the road from the bus stop, called a 
taxi, they put the children on a train from Lancaster to Philadelphia. 
From there they took two subways to New Jersey. That is where his 
family met the children and took them to the abortion clinic. When my 
daughter started to cry and have second thoughts, they told her that 
they would leave her in New Jersey. They planned, paid for, coerced, 
harassed and threatened her into having the abortion. They left her 
alone during the abortion and went to eat lunch.''
  From this incident let us be clear on what the law allows. A 14-year-
old girl tells her mom she is pregnant. Mom says she will support her 
in whatever choice she makes. The daughter chooses to have the baby and 
begins to prepare for delivery, even chooses the names. Boyfriend's 
family bullies the girl into having an abortion and sends her to New 
Jersey. All this time the mother thinks she is sending her daughter to 
school. Instead, the boyfriend's family dropped this young girl in 
tears off at an abortion clinic and then went to eat lunch. Her unborn 
baby is killed and she is in counseling to this day.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Speaker, this bill would correct this problem. It would protect 
our children. No parent should be kept in the dark when it comes to a 
medical issue regarding their children. I urge support for the rule and 
the bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a Member maligned in the report.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged by the incident 
that the last speaker mentioned. I do not know why there seems to be 
the ignoring of the obvious. The amendments that Democrats offered in 
the committee had nothing to do with their compassion and lack thereof. 
In fact, it was to enhance and give a broader opportunity for a tragedy 
that occurred like that, which is really people with no feelings and no 
heart. Those are not relatives of that young woman. That was not her 
parent. That was almost a criminal act. That has nothing to do with the 
point that the Democrats were trying to make, which is give the 
opportunity for a greater latitude of those who can counsel and comfort 
this young woman.
  I do not know where the parent was in this instance, but maybe if a 
grandparent or a godparent was there or a clergy was there, this 
terrible tragedy that occurred with people who were not her relatives 
might have been avoided.
  So this distorted debate on the floor of the House mischaracterizes 
many of those who raise these very issues in the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  So I not only stand outraged for the tragedy that was just 
articulated by the previous speaker, a child forced to get on abortion, 
on the floor by the other side of the aisle, but I am equally outraged 
at the misconstruing of the amendment offered in the Judiciary 
Committee suggesting that they exempted child predators. The process 
that the Committee on the Judiciary Committee has used, and my friends 
on the other side of the aisle have used deserve absolute disregard, 
and that is to distort, misquote, ``miswrite'', abuse and 
mischaracterize the amendments that were offered by a number of members 
of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mine happened to be one. We did not 
offer amendments to protect child predator rather our amendments 
offered a safety net to that minor child.
  I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); I thank the 
ranking member, not only for her passion but also her articulation of 
the long-standing damage. We are Americans, too, and we are also human 
beings. The Republican staff well knows that somebody somewhere, and 
forget about an election, but people who you go home to your district, 
to be able to hold this document up and say that Sheila Jackson-Lee 
deals with child predators, how dare you do that. It is an outrage. The 
only issue my amendment dealt with was to give the minor child more 
protection.
  The only thing that I think is appropriate is for the chairman of the 
full committee to exercise some sort of comity and collegiality to 
remove this abusive language.
  First of all, the specifics of my amendment says that I offered an 
amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution 
under the bill. My amendment dealt specifically with allowing clergy, 
godparents, aunts and uncles or first cousins, minimally speaking; and 
then I offered a GAO study. The description in the report language also 
says I have a GAO study dealing with clergy and godparents. This is an 
abuse of power and incorrect. And I know this is inside the ballpark, 
but it also says if you have the votes for this legislation, win fair 
and square. Do not win by maligning colleagues and defeating the 
purpose of the rules of this House. Vote this rule down.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the restrictive H. Res. 236, the 
rule governing the debate over H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion 
Notification Act of 2005--legislation that has come to the Congress 
before for consideration but that did not pass because of its 
overwhelming contentious nature. Today is no different.
  I thank my Democrat colleagues of the Committee on Rules for their 
efforts to move this House to bring decorum and professionalism to the 
committee process. The report as to amendments offered by Mr. Scott, 
Mr. Nadler, and me was materially inaccurate to the point of being 
offensive.
  My amendment, in particular, made no mention of sexual predators. One 
can infer virtually anything about amendments until they are taken into 
context. In fact, one can infer a myriad of negative things from what 
is not included in the base legislation. The report was, frankly, 
ludicrous as to this matter. We must take it upon ourselves to 
accurately interpret our colleagues' amendments; lest we turn ourselves 
into a body of mud-slinging, vindictive individuals.
  As Chair of the Children's Caucus, the report has risen to an 
inflammatory inference that must be corrected because justice requires 
it. However, one thing about this debate

[[Page 7985]]

is different. The manner in which our committee colleagues have elected 
to report out the amendments that were offered by Mr. Scott, Mr. 
Nadler, and me has morphed from the simple reiteration of the precise 
idea of the amendment two years ago when we last debated this to an 
abomination that insinuates that our amendments would protect sexual 
predators. As my colleague and partner in offering the amendment I will 
present today stated before the Committee on Rules, our committee 
colleagues have behaved in an unfair manner and have made a clear 
partisan attack when the lives of minor females are at stake.
  H. Res. 236, while ruling the amendments of Mr. Scott and of Mr. 
Nadler and me in order, unreasonably restricts the debate on the highly 
controversial base bill. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act 
(CIANA), while good in its intention, was written with several areas of 
vagueness, overly punitive nature, and constitutional violations that 
very much deserve debate in order to save lives and to obviate the need 
for piles upon piles of legal pleadings.
  The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian 
framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My 
state, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, 
MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follows 
old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a 
Federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across state lines for 
abortion services if a woman comes from a state with a strict parental-
involvement mandate. There are 10 states (CO, DE, lA, ME, MD, NC, OH, 
SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice 
but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement 
may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental 
consent. Finally, there are 17 states (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, 
NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a 
woman's access to abortion in this case. The base bill, if passed, 
would take away the States' rights to make their own determination as 
to legislating the abortion issue for minors with respect to parental 
notification.
  My amendment to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, would 
change the prohibitions to exempt grandparents of the minor or clergy 
persons. This must be done because some minors want the counsel of a 
responsible adult, and are unable to turn to their parents. In Idaho, a 
13-year-old girl named Spring Adams was shot to death by her father 
after he learned that she planned to terminate a pregnancy caused by 
his acts of incest. This is an exact situation where the help of a 
grandparent or clergy would have been more helpful. Spring Adams may 
still be with us today if she could have found someone more 
compassionate and caring to confide in.
  H.R. 748, as drafted, will not improve family communication or help 
young women facing crisis pregnancies. We all hope that loving parents 
will be involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy. Every 
parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the advice and 
counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, even 
in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many young women 
do turn to their parents when they are considering an abortion. One 
study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory 
parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's pregnancy.
  Unfortunately, some young women cannot involve their parents because 
they come from homes where physical violence or emotional abuse is 
prevalent or because their pregnancies are the result of incest. In 
these situations, the government cannot force healthy family 
communication where it does not already exist--and attempts to do so 
can have tragic consequences for some girls.
  Major medical associations--including the American Medical 
Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 
the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health 
Association--all have longstanding policies opposing mandatory 
parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young 
women and the need for confidential access to physicians. These 
physicians see young ladies on a daily basis and hear their stories. 
They would not protest this law unless they felt there were severe 
stakes.
  CIANA criminalizes caring adults--including grandparents of the 
minor, who attempt to assist young women facing crisis pregnancies. In 
one study, 93 percent of minors who did not involve a parent in their 
decision to obtain an abortion were still accompanied by someone to the 
doctor's office. If CIANA becomes law, a person could be prosecuted for 
accompanying a minor to a neighboring state, even if that person does 
not intend, or even know, that the parental-involvement law of the 
state of residence has not been followed. Although legal abortion is 
very safe, it is typically advisable to accompany any patient 
undergoing even minor surgery. Without the Jackson Lee-Nadler 
Amendment, a grandmother could be subject to criminal charges for 
accompanying her granddaughter to an out-of-state facility--even if the 
facility was the closest to the young woman's home and they were not 
attempting to evade a parental involvement law.
  In a statement given by Dr. Warren Seigel, a member of the Physician 
for Reproductive Choice and Health, to the House Judiciary Subcommittee 
on the Constitution, he says, ``I recognize that parents ideally should 
be--and usually are--involved in health decisions regarding their 
children. However, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act does 
nothing to promote such communication. Instead, CIANA places incredible 
burdens on both young women and physicians; infringes on the rights of 
adolescents to health care that does not violate their safety and 
health; makes caring family, friends and doctors criminals; and could 
be detrimental to the health and emotional well-being of all 
patients.''
  Although this legislation is supposedly aimed at increasing parent-
child communication, the government cannot mandate healthy families 
and, indeed, it is dangerous to attempt to do so. Research has shown 
that the overwhelming majority of adolescents already tell their 
parents before receiving an abortion. In fact, the younger the woman 
is, the more likely she is to tell her parent. The American Academy of 
Pediatrics, a national medical organization representing the 60,000 
physician leaders in pediatric medicine--of which I am a member and 
leader--has adopted the following statement regarding mandatory 
parental notification:

       Adolescents should be strongly encouraged to involve their 
     parents and other trusted adults in decisions regarding 
     pregnancy termination, and the majority of them voluntarily 
     do so. Legislation mandating parental involvement does not 
     achieve the intended benefit of promoting family 
     communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the 
     adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care.

  It is important to consider why some young women cannot inform their 
parents. The threat of physical or emotional abuse upon disclosure of 
the pregnancy to their parents or a pregnancy that is the result of 
incest make it impossible for these adolescents to inform their 
parents. My amendment would allow other trusted adults to be a part of 
this process. Support the Jackson Lee-Nadler amendment.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support 
of H.R. 748 and the rule that we have in front of us this afternoon. I 
commend the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida 
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for introducing this legislation, legislation of 
which I am a proud cosponsor.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it unacceptable that under the current law any 
person in this country can take a pregnant minor to another State for 
the purpose of having an abortion without parents' knowledge and/or 
consent.
  As the father of a teenage daughter myself, it is a frightening 
scenario. I am particularly happy to see that this bill will require 
abortion providers to inform a minor's parent or legal guardian within 
24 hours before carrying out an abortion procedure.
  Parental notification is not a new idea. I have three children, and 
my wife and I have to sign a parental consent form when our children go 
on a field trip. But what we are talking about today is the most 
serious of subjects, and I strongly believe no parent should find out 
after the fact that such a procedure has been performed on their child.
  When it comes to such a serious medical procedure being performed on 
a minor, we cannot leave that notification up to a scared child. Every 
parent or legal guardian has a right to know, and this legislation 
ensures that right. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on H.R. 
748 which ensures that right.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to 
H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It would be 
more aptly called

[[Page 7986]]

the Teenage Abandonment Act because that is what this bill does. It 
abandons our teenage children.
  When I was a school nurse, I was privileged to administer a school-
based program for teen parents and pregnant teenagers, helping them to 
stay in school and support their children. What I saw firsthand was 
that for these young women, the discovery that they were pregnant 
presented them with the hardest choices they would ever face. They 
needed the help of adults to sort through the issues surrounding their 
pregnancy, but this bill makes sure that many pregnant teenagers will 
be all alone as they face this problem.
  Ideally, of course, a pregnant teenager will turn to parents for 
advice and support. Believe me, those who can and are able, they do. 
But we do not live in an ideal world. Sadly, not all parents are good. 
Some parents are abusive; other parents are not equipped to deal with 
this. And in some awful situations, a parent is responsible for the 
daughter's pregnancy.
  In these terrible conditions, it is critical that a young girl coping 
with severe emotional distress be able to turn to other loving adults 
for help and guidance: perhaps a doctor, a teacher, a clergy, or a 
grandparent. This bill discourages that. Judicial bypass sounds easy on 
paper, not in real life for a teenager. This bill cuts off other 
support a young woman might have. It abandons her at her time of most 
critical need.
  Mr. Speaker, if we want to be compassionate toward young women, 
really compassionate, we are going to defeat this bill.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time on this extremely important issue.
  I decided it was important to speak some words about it. As a State 
legislator for a number of years, and a lot of us here were, I 
understand the importance of State laws and the importance of 
respecting families.
  I am just shocked at some of the debate I hear on the other side of 
the aisle opposing this legislation. The whole point here is to support 
the family. The whole point here is to prevent the person who may even 
be a sexual predator or the person who is exploiting this minor from 
transporting this child across a State line to obtain an abortion and 
basically get rid of his problem.
  It is outrageous that we would not support this legislation. A minor 
needs parental consent to engage in sports in school, to get a tattoo 
or a body piercing; yet we are allowing people to take a child across 
State lines for an abortion.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this bill. It is important 
to preserve families. I believe with all my heart we are just nuts not 
to support this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, and I know 
some people strongly support the bill. This clearly is an emotional 
issue. We can debate both sides of this. But I rise to express my deep 
regret over the report from the Committee on the Judiciary that 
accompanied this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a civility left in this House, and what 
little civility is left I want to protect. Listening to my colleagues 
on the other side talk about, and the way they have mischaracterized 
and misrepresented and, yes, maligned Democratic Members on this side, 
and I say maligned because if you use those words that you used to 
describe their amendments to describe them on this House floor, your 
words would be taken down.
  One of the kinds of traditions or the unwritten rules of this House 
is when you describe the amendments offered by Republicans or 
Democrats, it is done so in a nonpartisan way. In the Committee on 
Rules, we get more amendments than any other committee in this House, 
and they are all described in a nonpartisan way. We would never 
describe anybody's amendment in this kind of a political way. If we 
did, there would be an outcry amongst members on that committee.
  I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to kind of take a 
step back, to correct the report, to demonstrate some civility and some 
rationality on this issue. Nobody deserves to have their amendments 
characterized the way these Members did. This is wrong, and I know deep 
down you know it is wrong.
  It is difficult for me to sit by and watch my colleague from Georgia 
and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who I have great 
respect for, try to rationalize this. We are better than this. I would 
hope there could be a bipartisan consensus when it comes to 
descriptions of amendments in reports, we could do this in a 
nonpartisan way.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule 
and the underlying bill, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification 
Act.
  Mr. Speaker, eight in 10 Americans favor parental notification laws, 
and 44 States have recognized the important role of parents in a minor 
child's decision to have an abortion by enacting a parental involvement 
statute. Even so, many of these laws are being circumvented by people 
who simply transport girls across State lines to States without 
parental notification laws for the purpose of getting an abortion.
  All too often these other adults are grown men who sexually preyed 
upon the young girls, and they used the abortions to cover up their 
crimes. CIANA returns parental rights to parents.
  Despite the strong deference it gives to abortion rights, even the 
U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that parents' rights to control the care 
of their children is among the most fundamental of all liberty 
interests. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that parents 
have a legal right to be involved in their minor daughter's decision to 
seek medical care, including abortion.
  The court has consistently affirmed a State's right to restrict the 
circumstances under which a minor may obtain an abortion in ways that 
adult women seeking abortion are not restricted. The Supreme Court has 
also observed that ``the medical, emotion, and psychological 
consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting,'' and that 
``it seems unlikely that a minor will obtain adequate counsel and 
support from an attending physician at an abortion clinic where 
abortions for pregnant minors frequently take place.''
  The Supreme Court has also stated that ``minors often lack the 
experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices 
that could be detrimental to them.''
  No one has the child's best interest at heart more than her parents. 
Minors have to have parental permission to be given an aspirin by the 
school nurse. Twenty-six States have laws requiring parental consent 
before minors can get body piercings or tattoos, and in fact some 
States prohibit tattooing of minor children even with parental consent. 
Parents must be able to play a role.
  The public, State statutes, and Supreme Court precedent all support 
parental involvement in a minor's life decision. Please support the 
rule and the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill and 
to the proposed rule for this bill.
  The two amendments made in order under the proposed rule, the Scott 
amendment and the Jackson-Lee/Nadler amendment are very important 
amendments. At the same time, it is instructive to note that many of 
the nine Democratic amendments that were not made in order seek to 
protect the people most directly affected by the bill: the young girls 
who wish to exercise their constitutional right to end their pregnancy.

[[Page 7987]]

  For example, I offered an amendment before the Committee on Rules to 
create an exception to the criminal penalties and a civil suit imposed 
on a person transporting a young girl across State lines in cases where 
the minor is a victim of incest. Because the bill lacks a judicial 
bypass procedure in circumstances where the Federal notification 
requirements apply, under this bill a young girl could be required to 
notify a parent who impregnated her before obtaining an abortion even 
though it would be inappropriate, traumatic, and potentially dangerous 
to require her to do so.
  Mr. Speaker, if a young girl is required to notify a parent who has 
molested her that she is pregnant before traveling to another State to 
seek an abortion, I fear that some girls may seek to end their 
pregnancy without help, whether they do so by traveling alone to 
another State for the procedure, or even worse, through a self-induced 
or illegal back-alley abortion. However, the Republican members on the 
Committee on Rules refused to make this amendment in order on a party-
line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I also 
offered a commonsense amendment barring a parent who has molested his 
daughter and caused her to be pregnant from any relief under this bill.

                              {time}  1245

  However, this too was rejected on a party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill should be considered under an open rule that 
would allow consideration of amendments to protect the young girls who 
choose to seek an abortion. In its current form, the bill gives rights 
to a parent who has victimized his daughter.
  I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act of 2005, introduced by the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and I want to thank her for her leadership 
on this.
  We have passed this bill a number of times in a different form. There 
is one addition in this particular bill. But it is good legislation. I 
strongly encourage my colleagues to support it. CIANA is critical to 
better protecting young girls who fall prey to older men as well as 
ensuring fundamental parental rights, that parents have the right to be 
involved in the decisions of their daughters, particularly one that may 
have the long-term consequences of this particular decision.
  CIANA builds on the Child Custody Protection Act by requiring that 
abortion providers provide 24 hours' notice to one of the minor's 
parents, or legal guardians if necessary, prior to performing an 
abortion, unless one of four carefully crafted exceptions is met. As I 
said, young girls are increasingly falling prey to older men who do not 
have the minor's best interests in mind. Parents are being left out of 
decisions in which they can provide critical information about their 
child's medical history and medical conditions as well as provide 
appropriate follow-up care if necessary. CIANA pushes back against this 
trend by allowing parents to have the chance to exercise their right to 
be involved in what may be the most important decision of their 
daughter's life.
  There has been, obviously, concern raised and some umbrage taken 
about the amendments in the committee report. I do not think we should 
lose track of this important legislation, what it actually does; and I 
think that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) made a very 
important point, and that is that what was being pointed out was in 
regard to these amendments what the effects would be and how predators 
could take advantage of these amendments, not the intent of our 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I commend her for her leadership on this issue and many 
important issues.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking about today is the need to 
prevent teen pregnancy. Let us understand that. We can disagree about 
this issue. But I strongly feel, as a mother of four children, two 
daughters and two sons, that by providing them information I am the one 
who can assure that they behave responsibly. I do not need to 
criminalize the behavior of others in trying to do my best job as a 
mother. So I oppose this bill.
  I also oppose the rule because it did not make in order something I 
thought was totally obvious, and that is an amendment that I offered 
with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to prevent teen 
pregnancy by funding programs which accomplish that. The Committee on 
Rules chose not to make our amendment in order. All it would have done 
was provide a series of criteria by which to judge teen pregnancy 
programs. Those that were effective in preventing teen pregnancy would 
get precious Federal dollars, and those that were not would not.
  I would call that, given my background on the Permanent Select 
Committee on Intelligence, a slam-dunk amendment, but it was not to the 
Committee on Rules. So I oppose this rule because it shut out our 
opportunity to offer our amendment. We will be introducing it as a 
stand-alone bill and it is also part of a comprehensive bill that the 
gentlewoman from New York has introduced. But I would hope that this 
body later this year would do the right thing, and that is to put our 
money where our mouth is. And where our mouth is, is to reduce unwanted 
teen pregnancy. That is a much better answer than the thrust of this 
legislation we are considering here today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members 
that the gentlewoman from New York has 3 minutes remaining and the 
gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes remaining and the right to close.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
  Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 748, the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005, and the rule. I 
want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for 
leading the charge on this important piece of legislation.
  Let us talk about what this piece of legislation does. It does three 
things: one, it upholds the democratic process that has taken place in 
44 States; it respects the rights of parents to be involved in the 
medical decisions for their children; and, most importantly, it 
protects the health of young daughters.
  When someone takes their child to get their teeth cleaned, if they 
are underage today, they have to have a parent's permission. We should 
have parents involved in this very important decision in a young 
woman's life and protect them from those who do not have their best 
interests at heart.
  I encourage the Members of this body to do the right thing today. Let 
us protect these young women and make sure that this important decision 
is with a parent's involvement and not with someone who does not have 
their best interests.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, to show the egregious nature of the 
misconduct engaged in by the committee report, I have here the reports 
from the 107th Congress, the 106th Congress, and several other 
Congresses on these same amendments.
  In the 107th Congress, an amendment was offered prohibiting H.R. 476 
from applying with respect to conduct by a grandparent or adult sibling 
of a minor; 106th Congress, to exempt grandparents and adult siblings 
of the minor from the provisions of the bill; 106th Congress, four 
amendments were

[[Page 7988]]

offered en bloc by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to 
exempt ministers, rabbis, pastors, priests, other religious leaders 
from the provisions of the bill.
  In no case in these prior Congresses was the slander and libel about 
sexual predators mentioned. That has changed for this Congress. It has 
changed because of a dishonest report.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into 
the Record the reports.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.

                                Hearings

       The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a 
     hearing on H.R. 476 on September 6, 2001. Testimony was 
     received from the following witnesses: Ms. Eileen Roberts, 
     Mothers Against Minors' Abortions, Inc.; Professor John C. 
     Harrison, Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of 
     Law; Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, Vicar, St. David's Episcopal 
     Church; and Ms. Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law, South 
     Texas College of Law. Additional material was submitted by 
     Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); Mr. Laurence H. Tribe, 
     Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard University and 
     Mr. Peter J. Rubin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown 
     University; Bill and Karen Bell; and the Center for 
     Reproductive Law and Policy.

                        Committee Consideration

       On February 7, 2002, the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
     met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill 
     H.R. 476, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On March 
     20, 2002, the Committee met in open session and ordered 
     favorably reported the bill H.R. 476 without amendment by a 
     recorded vote of 19 to 6, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

       1. An amendment was offered by Mrs. Waters to prohibit 
     subsection (a) of the Act from applying ``if the pregnancy is 
     the result of sexual contact with a parent or any other 
     person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or 
     responsibility for supervision of the minor, or by any 
     household or family member.'' The amendment was defeated by a 
     rollcall vote of 12 to 16.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

       In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that 
     the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on 
     oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in 
     the descriptive portions of this report.

                    Performance Goals and Objectives

       H.R. 476 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c) 
     of rule XIII of the Rules of the House is inapplicable.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

       Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because 
     this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
     increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

       In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
     of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, 
     with respect to the bill, H.R. 476, the following estimate 
     and comparison prepared by the director of the Congressional 
     Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget 
     Act of 1974:

                                Hearings

       The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a 
     hearing on H.R. 1218, the ``Child Custody Protection Act,'' 
     on May 27, 1999. Testimony was received from the following 
     witnesses: Ms. Eileen Roberts, Mothers Against Minors' 
     Abortions, Inc.; Ms. Billie Lominick of Newbury, South 
     Carolina; Professor Lino A. Graglia, A. Dalton Cross 
     Professor of Law, University of Texas School of Law; Dr. 
     Jonathon D. Klein, M.D., American Academy of Pediatrics; and 
     Professor John C. Harrison, Professor of Law, University of 
     Virginia School of Law. Additional material was submitted by 
     Professor Stephen B. Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal 
     History, Northwestern University School of Law; National 
     Right to Life Committee, Inc.; Center for Reproductive Law 
     and Policy; National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League; 
     and the American Civil Liberties Union.

                        Committee Consideration

       On June 8, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met 
     in open session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 1218, 
     without amendment, by voice vote, a reporting quorum being 
     present. On June 23, 1999, the Committee met in open session 
     and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 1218, without 
     amendment, by a recorded vote of 16 to 13, a quorum being 
     present.

                         Vote of the Committee

       1. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to exempt 
     grandparents and adult siblings of the minor from the 
     provisions of the bill. The amendment was defeated by a 13-17 
     roll call vote.
       2. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to permit any 
     adult who reasonably believed that compliance with state 
     judicial bypass procedures would either ``compromise the 
     minor's intent to maintain confidentiality with respect to 
     her choice to terminate a pregnancy'' or would ``be futile 
     because the judicial bypass procedure of the minor's state of 
     residence is unavailable or ineffective,'' to obtain a waiver 
     of the requirements of the bill from a federal district 
     court. The amendment was defeated by a 14-17 roll call vote.
       3. Four amendments were offered en bloc by Ms. Jackson Lee 
     to exempt ministers, rabbis, pastors, priests, other 
     religious leaders, aunts, uncles, godparents, and first 
     cousins from the provisions of the bill. The en bloc 
     amendment was defeated by a 14-16 roll call vote.
       4. An amendment was offered by Ms. Waters to prevent the 
     application of the bill ``with respect to an abortion where 
     the pregnancy resulted from incest.'' The amendment was 
     defeated by a roll call vote of 12-15.
       5. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to require proof 
     that the defendant acted with the intent to evade the 
     requirements of a state parental involvement law in order to 
     be prosecuted under the bill. The amendment was defeated by a 
     voice vote.
       6. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to create an 
     exception where the abortion was necessary to prevent serious 
     physical illness, injury, or disability. The amendment was 
     defeated by a 11-17 roll call vote.
       7. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to require 
     the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of ``the 
     impact of the number of unsafe and illegal abortions 
     performed on minors who would be affected by this law, and 
     report to Congress the results of that study within one 
     year.'' The amendment was defeated by a 12-17 roll call vote.
       8. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to exempt medical 
     facilities, doctors, and other medical professionals from 
     prosecution under the bill. The amendment was defeated by a 
     12-16 roll call vote.
       9. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to exempt 
     accessories after the fact, aiders and abetters, and other 
     principals from prosecution under the bill. The amendment was 
     defeated by a voice vote.
       10. Final Passage. the motion to report the bill, H.R. 
     1218, favorably without amendment to the whole House. The 
     motion was agreed to by a roll call vote of 16-13.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

       In compliance with clause 2(1)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
     that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
     on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in 
     the descriptive portions of this report.

                Committee on Government Reform Findings

       No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to 
     in clause 2(1)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

       Clause 2(1)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
     this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
     increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

       In compliance with clause 2(1)(3)(B) of rule XI of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee acts 
     forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 1218, the following 
     estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
     Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                Hearings

       The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a 
     hearing on H.R. 3682, the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' on 
     May 21, 1998. Testimony was received from the following 
     witnesses: Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Representative 
     James L. Oberstar; Representative Nita Lowey; Representative 
     Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee; 
     Representative Christopher H. Smith; Ms. Joyce Farley of 
     Dushore, Pennsylvania; Ms. Eileen Roberts, Mothers Against 
     Minors' Abortion; Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale, 
     Episcopalian Priest; Professor Teresa Collett, Professor of 
     Law, South Texas College of Law; Professor Stephen Presser, 
     Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern 
     University School of Law; and Mr. Robert Graci, Office of the 
     Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

                        Committee Consideration

       On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met 
     in open session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 3682, as 
     amended, by a vote of 7 to 2, a reporting quorum being 
     present. On June 17, and June 23, 1998, the Committee met in 
     open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 
     3682 with an

[[Page 7989]]

     amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a recorded vote 
     of 17 to 10, a quorum being present.

                         Vote of the Committee

       1. Mr. Canady offered an amendment to clarify that neither 
     the minor girl who is being taken out of state for an 
     abortion, nor her parents, may be subject to prosecution or 
     civil action and to add an affirmative defense where the 
     defendant reasonably believed, based on information the 
     defendant obtained directly from a parent of the individual 
     or other compelling facts, that the state parental 
     involvement law where the minor girl resides had been 
     complied with. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
       2. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to Mr. Canady's 
     amendment to delete the word ``affirmative'' from the 
     affirmative defense. The amendment was defeated by a 9-15 
     roll call vote.
       3. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to Mr. Canady's 
     amendment to delete from the affirmative defense the 
     provision that the defendant's reasonable belief about 
     compliance with the state law where the minor resides must be 
     ``based on information the defendant obtained directly from a 
     parent of the individual or other compelling facts.'' The 
     amendment was defeated by a 8-15 roll call vote.
       4. An amendment was offered by Mr. Canady to clarify that 
     circumventing a state's parental involvement law is an 
     abridgement of a parent's right and to ensure that either 
     parental notice or consent or a judicial by-pass is obtained 
     before the out-of-state abortion, according to what would 
     have been required by the first state's law. The amendment 
     was agreed to by a voice vote.
       5. An amendment was offered by Mr. Barr to add the phrase 
     ``in fact'' to Mr. Canady's amendment to clarify that, under 
     the new language as amended, knowledge of violation of the 
     state law is not an element requiring specific proof. The 
     amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
       6. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to exempt the 
     sibling of a minor from the penalty provision of this Act. 
     The amendment was defeated by a 6-15 roll call vote.
       7. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee that would 
     exempt ministers, rabbis, pastors, priests, or other 
     religious leaders from the penalty provisions of the Act. The 
     amendment was defeated by a 5-17 roll call vote.
       8. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee to require 
     that one year after the enactment of this bill, GAO submit a 
     study on the impact on the number of illegal and unsafe 
     abortions and increased parental abuse, and report to 
     Congress the results of that study. The amendment was 
     defeated by a 8-4 roll call vote.
       9. An amendment was offered by Mr. Conyers to create an 
     exception to the prohibitions of this bill to the extent such 
     prohibitions would increase ``hazards'' to the minor or place 
     an undue burden on a minor seeking an abortion. The amendment 
     was defeated by a 8-14 roll call vote.
       10. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to create an 
     exception where a minor has participated in a judicial bypass 
     proceeding in any state court. The amendment was defeated by 
     a 9-16 roll call vote.
       11. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to create an 
     exception where the abortion is necessary to prevent serious 
     physical illness or a serious health condition. The amendment 
     was defeated by a 11-16 roll call vote.
       12. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to remove the 
     ability of parents to file a civil action for violation of 
     their rights under this bill. The amendment was defeated by a 
     voice vote.
       13. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to exempt from 
     any criminal or civil liability abortion clinics and 
     providers. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
       14. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to create a 
     health exception. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
       15. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to require proof 
     of specific intent to evade a state's parental involvement 
     law. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
       16. Two amendments were offered en bloc by Mr. Scott to 
     remove the applicability of sections 2 and 3 of title 18 
     dealing with accessory after the fact and aiding and abetting 
     principals under the bill. The en bloc amendment was defeated 
     by a voice vote.
       17. An amendment was offered by Mr. Frank to insert a non-
     severability clause. The amendment was defeated by a 5-15 
     roll call vote.
       18. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to require a 
     finding of significant federal interest and insufficiency of 
     state laws before prosecution pursuant to this bill. The 
     amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
       19. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee to exclude 
     grandparents from the prohibitions of this bill. The 
     amendment was defeated by an 8-16 rollcall vote.
       20. Two amendments were offered en bloc by Ms. Jackson-Lee 
     to exclude aunts, uncles, and first cousins from the 
     prohibitions of this bill. The en bloc amendment was defeated 
     by a 9-16 rollcall vote.
       21. Final Passage. Mr. Hyde moved to report the bill, H.R. 
     3682, favorably as amended by the amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute to the whole House. The motion was agreed to by 
     a rollcall vote of 17-10.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

       In compliance with clause 2(1)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
     that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based 
     on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
     Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in 
     the descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

       No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
     Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to 
     in clause 2(1)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

       Clause (2)(1)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable 
     because this legislation does not provide new budgetary 
     authority or increased tax expenditures.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  First let me say that, once again, the Congress of the United States 
is beginning to meddle in the affairs of the American public. They 
tried to tell us in the Schiavo case that they did not care for it, but 
undeterred by that, Congress is coming back again to make decisions for 
the American family.
  In 19 years in the House of Representatives, I have heard of no 
single case of any problem that this bill would attach to, and try as I 
might, I can find that there is no great epidemic or any outbreak of 
this sort of thing, of coercing young women against their will, or for 
any other reason; and to occupy this kind of time in Congress is 
appalling to me.
  But I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I 
can modify the rule to require that the Committee on the Judiciary file 
a supplemental report to clarify the descriptions of the five Democrat 
amendments that were so grossly mischaracterized in the original 
Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R. 748. I attempted to add this 
language in the Committee on Rules last night, but it was defeated on a 
party-line vote.
  Mr. Speaker, when an amendment to protect grandparents and adult 
siblings from being called criminals simply for helping a young 
granddaughter's sister is twisted beyond the pale and labled pro-sexual 
offender, something is terribly wrong. And when it is included in an 
official committee report and historic document, it is even worse. We 
are offended by this kind of character assassination.
  I cannot stress enough the importance of a ``no'' vote on the 
previous question to correct this injustice. A ``no'' vote will not 
keep us from discussing the underlying bill but will simply correct 
what is a gross miscarriage of justice that has never happened before.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, 
along with the descriptions of the five amendments, be printed in the 
Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again I ask a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The gentlewoman said she has not heard a single case in which this 
law would have affected anything. I will send her the transcript of a 
witness at our hearing, Marcia Carroll, whose daughter was taken. An 
abortion was provided for that daughter. That daughter said she would 
do anything to undo what happened that day and that this is something 
the family should have some involvement in.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I would again emphasize the importance of this bill as a safeguard of 
parental rights and protection for minors.
  As I listened to the opposition on the other side, I cannot help but 
notice how they remain unwilling to honestly

[[Page 7990]]

address and debate this bill. H.R. 748 is a clear example of consensus 
legislation upon which most Americans agree. According to a recent poll 
by the New York Times, almost 80 percent of Americans favor parental 
notification law, and yet these laws are currently circumvented and 
violated through the interstate transportation of minors. Allowing our 
children to be carted across State lines by nonguardians to get an 
abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally wrong.
  With over 30 States requiring some type of parental notification, 
Congress cannot turn a blind eye to those who would violate the law and 
endanger our children.
  Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and absolute moral duty 
to parents and their children alike to make sure that these State laws 
are upheld so that nonguardians do not make medical decisions for our 
children. Parents and children deserve better, Mr. Speaker, and this 
bill will ensure that they get the care and consideration that they 
need.
  Again I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-
Lehtinen), the sponsor of the bill, and all my colleagues who support 
this bill. I encourage each and every Member to think long and hard 
about this matter, to put rhetoric aside and to listen to their 
conscience.
  Mr. Speaker, I further ask and encourage my colleagues to vote in 
favor of this rule and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

 Previous Question for H. Res. 236--Rule on H.R. 748 Child Interstate 
                       Abortion Notification Act

       Text: At the end of the resolution add the following new 
     section:
       ``Sec. 2. The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
     shall file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748 that 
     provides for an objective description of the amendments 
     offered during consideration.''
       The following amendments were offered and voted down by 
     recorded votes in the Judiciary Committee markup of H.R. 
     748--The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA):
       The Judiciary Committee mischar- acterized these amendments 
     in their official committee report on the bill.
       No. 11-16. Objective Description: A Nadler amendment allows 
     an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a 
     Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state's 
     parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the 
     state court.
       Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 1. Mr. Nadler 
     offered an amendment that would have created an additional 
     layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual 
     predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a rollcall 
     vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.
       No. 12-19. Objective Description: A Nadler amendment to 
     exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and 
     civil provisions in the bill.
       Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 2. 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. By a rollcall vote 
     of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.
       No. 13-17. Objective Description: A Scott amendment to 
     exempt cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business 
     transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the 
     bill.
       Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 3. 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. 
     By a rollcall vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was 
     defeated.
       No. 12-18. Objective Description: A Scott amendment that 
     would have limited criminal liability to the person 
     committing the offense in the first degree (No. 12-18).
       Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 4. Mr. Scott 
     offered an amendment that would have exempted from 
     prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals 
     who could be prosecuted under the bill. By a rollcall vote of 
     12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated.
       No. 13-20. Objective Description: A Jackson-Lee amendment 
     to exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins 
     from the penalties in the bill.
       Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 5. Ms. Jackson-
     Lee offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual 
     predators from prosecution under the bill if they were 
     clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a 
     minor, and would require a study by the Government Accounting 
     Office. By a rollcall vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the 
     amendment was defeated.

  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________