[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8417-8427]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




     PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--INTEGRITY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my request of last 
Thursday, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 253) as to a 
question of the privileges of the House and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 253

       Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary conducted a markup 
     of the bill H.R. 748, the ``Child Interstate Abortion 
     Notification Act,'' on Wednesday, April 13, 2005 and ordered 
     the bill reported on that same day;
       Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary subsequently 
     reported H.R. 748 to the House on Thursday, April 21, 2005, 
     with an accompanying report designated House Report 109-51;
       Whereas, during the markup of H.R. 748, Representatives 
     Nadler, Scott, and Jackson- Lee offered in good faith a total 
     of five amendments to the bill, all of which failed on party-
     line votes;
       Whereas, because Representatives Nadler, Scott, and 
     Jackson-Lee called for recorded votes on their amendments, 
     under section 3(b) of Rule XIII, the votes were published in 
     House Report 109-51;
       Whereas, although it is the long and established practice 
     in House reports to describe recorded votes with objective, 
     nonargumentative captions, the Committee on the Judiciary 
     majority departed from this practice in House Report 109-51 
     by captioning these five amendments with inflammatory, 
     inaccurate captions implying that these three Members of 
     Congress condoned the criminal behavior of ``sexual 
     predators'';
       Whereas, as one example, while an objective, 
     nonargumentative description of one of Representative 
     Nadler's amendments would read, ``exempts a grandparent or 
     adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions of the 
     bill,'' and is in fact the language the Committee on the 
     Judiciary used to caption this amendment in past reports on 
     this legislation, the caption in House Report 109-51 was 
     instead, ``Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have 
     exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if 
     they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor.'' 
     (Similar problems occured in describing amendments offered by 
     Representatives Scott and Jackson-Lee);
       Whereas, when Representative Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary, was asked about this language 
     and given the opportunity to correct it, both in the 
     Committee on Rules and on the House floor, he instead 
     explained that it was his purpose and intention to include 
     these derogatory and inaccurate captions in House Report 109-
     51;
       Whereas, committee reports are official congressional 
     documents to which American citizens will refer when seeking 
     to interpret the bills they accompany;
       Whereas, although the committee markup and reporting 
     process gives Members ample opportunity to debate, 
     characterize, and criticize each other's views, committees 
     have a ministerial, institutional responsibility to 
     accurately report the proceedings of committee activities;
       Whereas the vote captions published in House Report 109-51 
     appear to be purposefully inaccurate and misleading, and 
     therefore belittle the dignity of the House and undermine the 
     integrity of the proceedings of the House; and
       Whereas this unprecedented manipulation of a traditionally 
     nonpartisan portion of a

[[Page 8418]]

     committee report constitutes an abuse of power by the 
     majority of the Committee on the Judiciary: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) finds that the Committee on the Judiciary purposefully 
     and deliberately mischar-
     acterized the above-mentioned votes in House Report 109-51; 
     and
       (2) directs the chairman of such committee to report to the 
     House a supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the 
     record by describing the five amendments with 
     nonargumentative, objective captions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution presents a question of the 
privileges of the House.
  Under rule IX, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as the designee of the 
majority leader, each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a resolution concerning the privileges 
of the House.
  The deliberate misrepresentation of Members of the House of 
Representatives' amendments is unprecedented.
  And I do this because the Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R. 
748 mischaracterized amendments offered by Members in a way that 
distorted both the effect of the amendments and the intentions of the 
Members.
  I offer this resolution to protect the rights of every Member in this 
body. None of us wants to see our amendments mischaracterized in a way 
that undermines our good faith. None of us wants to see our legislative 
work distorted in a way that diminishes our motives. I am not eager to 
bring this matter to the floor of the House, but I do so as a last 
resort to achieve a resolution that is fair and just.
  There is little doubt in my mind that the amendment characterizations 
included in the committee report were distorting and damaging. Taking 
an amendment written to exclude grandparents and describing it as one 
protecting sexual predators crosses a line of good faith and comity so 
essential to the operation of this House.
  Descriptions this pejorative are not only inappropriate; they are 
without precedent. This has never happened before in my memory. If we 
look at the Record, we will see that the three previous committee 
reports describing these amendments use neutral and objective terms. 
The same is true of the amendment descriptions prepared by the majority 
staff on the Committee on Rules as well as the majority staff on the 
Republican Conference.
  I cannot agree with the contention that the obligation should have 
been on the Members to draft these amendments more narrowly. The 
amendments were drafted in a careful and straightforward manner as they 
have been for each of the last four Congresses. The duty should not be 
on us to exclude categories of persons who have nothing to do with the 
underlying amendment.
  Let me close by stating that the majority will not control this body 
forever. There will come a time when members of another party are the 
ones interpreting the rules, writing the committee reports, and 
explaining the amendments. Whoever controls this body tomorrow or next 
year, we will all be better off today if we do not rewrite each other's 
words or disparage each other's intentions.
  I support this privileged resolution and urge the rest of my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the distinguished 
chairman wishes to repeat his tactic of last week of waiting until 
everybody else has spoken and then mischaracterize what we have said so 
that we cannot reply to him.
  Is that his intent today? Is that why he is reserving his time now so 
that he can speak after everybody else has spoken?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is not my intent, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, is it his intent to let anybody on this side 
speak after he has spoken even if he closes?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, his side has the right to close as 
the proponents of the resolution.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) stated the 
point of this resolution pretty accurately and I think completely.
  I want to deal with some misstate-
ments that have been made or have been reported to have been made in 
defense of this unconscionable, lying report of the committee. It was 
said on the floor of the House last week that the question is one of 
intent versus effect. My amendment was very simple. It said that 
grandparents and adult siblings of the person getting the abortion 
should not be subject to the provisions of the bill. It was reported 
as: ``Mr. Nadler offered an amendment to provide sexual predators an 
exemption from the provisions of the bill if they were adult siblings 
or grandparents.''
  The fact is in the entire debate over that amendment, in fact, in the 
entire debate over all of the amendments, all of which were 
characterized as dealing with sexual predators, in the debate in the 
committee over those five amendments, no one, no one in the majority, 
no one in the minority mentioned the words ``sexual predators.'' No one 
in the committee debate said this amendment might protect sexual 
predators. It did not occur to anybody. So on that level the report is 
dishonest, and the chairman or whoever else had anything to do with it 
owes this body an apology.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would refer the gentleman to the 
statement made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that is on the 
bottom of page 84 which talks about the potential of sexual predators.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not with respect 
to my amendment. That was with respect to another amendment. That was 
with respect to a different amendment.
  In respect to my amendment, which was characterized as dealing with 
sexual predators, nobody mentioned the words ``sexual predators'' or 
raised that.
  It has also been said that the intent may have been not with sexual 
predators; the intent may have been grandparents and siblings, but 
could a grandparent or a sibling be a sexual predator? In that 
eventuality this would protect sexual predators.
  Yes, in that eventuality the amendment would protect sexual 
predators. But, of course, the bill itself said that the parents could 
sue, the parents could sue the doctor who performs the abortion or the 
person who transports the minor. But the parent could be a sexual 
predator. The pregnancy could have been caused by rape or incest. This 
would give the sexual predator the right to profit from his own 
predation.
  I, in fact, offered a motion to recommit to correct that defect in 
the bill, but the majority voted it down. Why, I do not know. But they 
voted it down because apparently they wanted sexual predators, in the 
unlikely event that the parent was a sexual predator, to be able to 
sue. There is no other interpretation possible.
  But, as I said last week, if someone wanted to say on the floor of 
the House or in the committee, as no one did in the committee, that one 
has not anticipated the rare eventuality that a grandparent would be a 
sexual predator and maybe they should amend the amendment, that would 
have been a

[[Page 8419]]

fair comment. Fair comment in a debate. It is not a fair 
characterization of the amendment.
  There is a clear difference between expressing views in a debate and 
saying that one's amendment could be used by a sexual predator under 
certain circumstances, which might be a fair comment. It would be fair 
comment to say those circumstances are so rare that we do not have to 
worry about them or they are right or whatever. It is different. It is 
different, it is dishonest, it is a disgusting rape of the rules of 
this House to characterize the amendment in a one-sentence report that 
this was an amendment dealing with sexual predators. No, it was not. It 
would be just as dishonest as if we reported the bill and said this was 
a bill to allow sexual predators to sue doctors.

                              {time}  1745

  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and everybody 
associated with this owes an apology to the House and a correction to 
the American people.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, can we inquire of the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has not used any of his 
time yet, how many speakers he has?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, we have five speakers.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 748, the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, by a bipartisan vote of 270 
to 157. One of the primary purposes of that common sense legislation is 
to prevent sexual abusers from taking vulnerable young girls across 
State lines for an abortion without telling the girl's parents.
  At the Committee on the Judiciary markup on this bill, some Members 
offered amendments that would have created blanket exclusions from the 
criminal prohibitions in the legislation without any exceptions for 
those who would commit statutory rape or incest. The loopholes those 
amendments would have created could be exploited by the very sexual 
predators; that is, those who would exploit vulnerable young girls and 
commit statutory rape or incest whose conduct the bill is designed to 
bring to light. Those amendments were accurately described in the 
committee report. All of the amendments offered would have carved out 
exceptions that could be exploited by sexual predators who sought to 
destroy evidence of their crimes by secretly taking a minor without her 
parent's knowledge to another State to have an abortion.
  The amendments offered by the minority would have created those 
blanket exclusions for certain large classes of people who are not a 
minor's parents. Those classes of people were ``taxicab drivers, bus 
drivers, or others in the business of professional transport;'' 
``clergy, Godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor;'' and 
``grandparents or adult siblings.''
  If any of the people described in the amendments offered became 
involved with a minor in a sexually abusive way, they would have been 
flatly excluded from the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748, one of the 
primary purposes of which is to prevent sexual predators from 
continuing to abuse minors undetected. That purpose is reviewed 
extensively in the committee report in an entire section entitled 
``CIANA Protects Minor Girls From Sexual Assault.'' The amendments 
offered at the Committee on the Judiciary markup were directly contrary 
to a primary purpose of the legislation. If the proponents of this 
resolution only understood that preventing sexual abusers from 
continuing to abuse a minor girl without a parent's knowledge is a 
primary purpose of H.R. 748, they would understand why the descriptions 
of their amendments are what they are.
  If an amendment were offered to a bill that would make it a Federal 
crime to commit terrorist acts and an offered amendment would exclude 
conduct by, for example, taxi drivers, then that amendment would allow 
a taxicab driver to commit terrorist acts without being prosecuted. 
That would be an accurate description of such an amendment. In the very 
same way, those who happen to drive taxi cabs or work in the business 
of professional transportation should not be free to commit statutory 
rape and transport a minor across State lines to get an abortion 
without telling one of the girl's parents. And brothers, uncles, or 
Godparents should not be allowed to commit incest and then transport a 
young girl across State lines to get an abortion so evidence of their 
crimes are destroyed without telling one of the girl's parents about 
the abortion. There is nothing inaccurate with describing amendments 
that would do just that in just that way.
  The incidence of statutory rape in this country is shocking. As a 
recent presentation given at a U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services Conference on the Sexual Exploitation of Teens showed, of 
minor girls' first sexual experiences, 13 percent constitute statutory 
rape. Further, the younger a sexually experienced teen is, the more 
likely they are to experience statutory rape. Of sexually experienced 
teens age 13 or younger, 65 percent experienced statutory rape. Of 
those age 14, 53 percent experienced statutory rape. Of those age 15, 
41 percent experienced statutory rape. And also, blacks and Hispanics 
are much more likely to experience statutory rape. Creating blanket 
exclusions in the bill for large categories of people would create a 
huge loophole in the legislation that statutory rapists could exploit.
  Regarding family incest, one recent Law Review article summarized the 
research regarding the prevalence of sexual conduct among siblings as 
follows: ``Brother-sister sexual contact may be five times as common as 
father-daughter incest.'' A survey of 796 New England college students 
revealed that 15 percent of females had a sexual experience with a 
sibling. Further, among those reporting sexual abuse, the incidence of 
abuse by cousins ranges from 10 percent to 40 percent among various 
studies; and 4.9 percent of women report an incestuous experience with 
an uncle before age 18; and 16 percent of rape victims are raped by 
relatives other than their father.
  Carving out exceptions to the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 for 
adult siblings, cousins, and uncles would not protect young girls who 
are made victims of incest by their adult siblings, cousins, or uncles.
  Further, pregnancy as a result of all these crimes is all too common. 
As one Pennsylvania court has pointed out, ``25 percent of incest 
victims become pregnant. The ratio is greater among victims of incest 
than those of rape because incestuous conduct is usually long-term and 
progressive, whereas rape is usually a one-time occurrence.''
  Another amendment offered at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of 
H.R. 748 accurately described the amendment as ``creating an additional 
layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to 
escape conviction under the bill.'' That statement is true. That 
amendment would have created an opportunity for a sexual predator to 
escape conviction if they could make a showing to a Federal court that 
the judicial bypass provisions of the State law were somehow 
ineffective or somehow violated confidential information related to a 
minor's pregnancy.
  If a sexual predator made a showing to the court of either of these 
issues, neither of which would expose the predator's crimes, then that 
sexual predator would completely evade the requirements of H.R. 748, 
which are designed to expose sexual predators and prevent future sexual 
abuse.
  The final amendment offered was again accurately described in the 
committee report as an amendment that would have exempted from 
prosecution under the bill ``those who aid the criminals who could be 
prosecuted under the bill.'' That is true as well. That amendment would 
have excluded from the bill anyone who did not commit an offense in the 
first degree. The consequences of adopting that amendment would have 
been to allow anyone

[[Page 8420]]

who aided or abetted a criminal who ran afoul of the criminal 
prohibitions of H.R. 748 to instead get off scot-free.
  In sum, the effect of the amendments offered as described in the 
committee report would have been to exempt cab drivers, other 
professional transporters, and certain relatives who are not parents, 
from the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748, and that would have 
prevented the parents from knowing when those perpetrators of statutory 
rape or incest were secretly taking their children across State lines 
for an abortion to destroy evidence of their crimes.
  Now, to be clear, all of the descriptions of the amendments in the 
committee report are descriptions of the amendments and not of the 
intent of anyone offering the amendments. These brief descriptions do 
not impugn the integrity or motivation of any Member offering the 
amendment; they simply describe the consequences, regardless of 
intention, of the amendments. The description of the amendments in the 
committee report were all phrased in the conditional; that is, they 
make it clear that the loopholes created by the amendments as written 
could be used by sexual abusers of vulnerable minors, and could be 
exploited by certain people if those people sexually abused vulnerable 
minors.
  The text of the privileged resolution before us is patently false. 
The resolution states that the chairman of the Committee on the 
Judiciary ``Explained that it was his purpose and intention to include 
derogatory and inaccurate captions in House report 109-51.'' I have 
done nothing of the sort, of course, and that statement is entirely 
false, as I have explained already. The text of the resolution also 
claims that ``the Committee on the Judiciary purposefully and 
deliberately mischarac-
terized the votes'' at the Committee on the Judiciary markup. That too 
is false. Indeed, the tallies of the votes cast are accurately set out 
in simple table form in the committee report for all to see.
  Further, the resolution contains no allegation whatsoever that any 
Rules of the House of Representatives were violated, even in spirit, 
because such is obviously not the case, even to the authors of the 
resolution.
  Finally, I offered to amend the text of the descriptions of the 
amendments offered in the sections of the committee report entitled 
``vote of the committee,'' provided that those who offered the 
amendments acknowledged that, due to the way they were drafted, they 
opened the bill up to the harmful consequences of allowing sexual 
predators to exploit the loopholes such amendments would create in the 
bill.
  Instead of admitting the obvious, and having the committee report 
amended to their liking, and moving on, they refused to do that 
because, for some reason, they felt they could benefit from extending 
the debate on this issue.
  The minority had ample time to include dissenting views in the 
committee report, and they did so. For example, the minority views 
state that the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is ``overtly 
hostile to families.'' The minority views in the committee report also 
describe the legislation as ``antiphysician and antifam-
ily.'' Further, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), over the 
years during which this bill has been debated, including this year, has 
gone so far as to claim that H.R. 748 is akin to the Fugitive Slave Act 
of 1850, which required the return of slaves to their owners in other 
States.
  As the committee report describes, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) stated, ``It seems to me what this bill is, is really akin to 
the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s where you are enabling one State in 
the south, which had slavery, to reach over into another State and say, 
we want our slave back.'' And that is at page 56 of the committee 
report. And, at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of H.R. 748 on 
April 13, 2005, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) stated, ``This 
bill is the only situation that I can think of since the Fugitive Slave 
Act of the 1850s where we have a young person carry the law of one 
State on his back like a cross to another State, to enforce the law of 
the first State in the second State where it is not the law.'' That is 
at page 81.
  The statement of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) directly 
equates parents with slaveholders. But parental rights, which H.R. 748 
protects, are not the rights of the slave owner. They are rights of 
loving and caring people: parents, who deserve a chance to work with 
their children through difficult times and express their love to their 
children in their children's moments of greatest need.
  The Fugitive Slave Act was a catalyst for the Civil War, whereas the 
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act passed with overwhelming 
bipartisan support in the 109th Congress by a vote of 270 to 157, 
including 54 Democrats who voted for the legislation. America's parents 
should not be considered slave owners and their children slaves. 
America's parents are caring, loving mothers and fathers who simply 
want to know when someone else, anyone else is taking their own 
daughter across State lines for an abortion.
  Now, when I hear statements that equate America's parents with slave 
owners and statements that equate America's children to slaves, I will 
tell it as it is.

                              {time}  1800

  And when an amendment is offered that would allow a sexual predator 
to exploit a loophole in the bill directly contrary to that bill's 
purpose, I will also tell it as it is.
  Now, with all of these facts, I would suggest we put this issue to 
rest and be thankful that the House passed, in an overwhelmingly 
bipartisan fashion, a bill that would protect the fundamental rights of 
parents and the safety of our minor daughters everywhere.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the chairman of the 
committee continues to smear other Members of the House on this floor. 
The bill says nothing about sexual predators. The words sexual predator 
or abusers do not appear in the bill, number 1.
  Number 2, by the chairman's logic any bill on the floor of the House 
that gives veterans benefits or gives educational benefits, gives 
benefits to sexual predators as long as it does not specifically 
exclude them; and any such bill could be fairly described as a bill to 
give benefits to sexual predators.
  Number 3, I did use that language that the chairman quoted about the 
Fugitive Slave Act, but I was not comparing parents to slave owners. I 
was saying that the two bills were similar in that both would use, and 
that was in the quote, both would use the power of the Federal 
Government to export the laws of one State into another, and all of 
these things are opinions. Opinions are fine in the views. They are not 
fine in the reports of the amendment. That is where the smear is.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a senior Member in the House.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I very much respect the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner); we are friends and have been for 30 
years.
  I voted for the bill that precipitated this debate. I voted with the 
gentleman for that bill. But this debate is not about that bill, and it 
is not about the issue of sexual predators. It is about whether or not 
we can trust each other to deal with each other with fairness and with 
accuracy. It is about whether or not the majority will use its power to 
unilaterally mischaracterize any effort by any Member of the minority.
  I served a long time ago, and so did the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), with a fellow by the name of Bill Steiger. He was 
one of the great Members in the history of this House.
  He spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that the Congressional 
Record accurately reflected what each and every Member said and did on 
this House floor. I think we owe it to his memory and the memory of 
others who fought the same battle, to remember,

[[Page 8421]]

as this resolution says, that it is the long and established practice 
in the House for reports to describe recorded votes with objective, 
nonargumentative captions.
  I agree with this resolution that the committee majority departed 
from that practice by captioning these five amendments with 
inflammatory captions. There is enough skill on the part of the 
majority staff of the Judiciary Committee to describe any amendment 
offered by any Member in a non-pejorative, non-argumentative way.
  It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the language used was 
intended to hurt the Member who offered it, not to provide an accurate 
description; and I do think the committee owes the minority an apology.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 15 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers) has 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  I rise in support of the resolution. H.R. 748, the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act, makes it illegal to transport a minor across 
State lines for the purposes of getting an abortion. Now, transport is 
not defined in the bill.
  When the Judiciary Committee marked up the bill, I offered an 
amendment which said simply that we should exempt taxicab drivers and 
others in the business of professional transport from the 
transportation provisions of the bill, because as written, it would be 
a Federal crime for a taxicab driver to take a young woman who gets in 
a cab and says, take me to the abortion clinic so I can get an 
abortion.
  If the taxicab driver complied with that task, he would be committing 
a Federal crime. Now, even if he were not prosecuted, there is a civil 
liability provision in the bill which exposes the cab driver and 
through the principles of agency, the entire cab company, to civil 
liability by the parents of the young woman who find out how she got to 
the clinic.
  So let me read my amendment: ``The prohibitions of this section shall 
not apply with respect to conduct of taxicab drivers, bus drivers or 
others in the business of professional transport.''
  However, the report in the markup filed by the majority described the 
amendment thusly: ``Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have 
exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, 
bus drivers or others in the business of professional transport.''
  Now, I will let the public decide whether or not that is a 
distortion. I believe that it is. But I would just say that if a 
prosecutor has evidence that a person is a sexual predator, the last 
thing they would do would be to go to this provision of the code, which 
is a misdemeanor, rather than the various felonies that they could 
prosecute the person for.
  The amendment does not immunize a sexual predator from the crimes of 
being a sexual predator, just the provisions of this transportation 
provision which is just a misdemeanor.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, let me just say, in any event, whatever you think 
of the bill, this distortion obviously speaks to character; but in my 
view, the descriptions in the committee report and the distortion of 
those amendments, particularly the one I just described, say more about 
the character of the person responsible for describing the amendment 
that way and the character of those trying to defend the distortion, 
than it does about my amendment.
  I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, hope that we would pass the 
resolution so that the House will not be on record as condoning such 
misrepresentations.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman on the Subcommittee on the 
Constitution.
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Last Wednesday this House passed H.R. 748, the Child Interstate 
Abortion Notification Act, CIANA. It was a bipartisan vote. It was 270 
to 156; 63 percent of this House voted for this bill. And as was 
mentioned before, 54 Democrats, almost two-thirds of this House voted 
for this bill.
  Now, enacting CIANA was critical. It is very, very important to 
better protect young girls from falling prey to abusive boyfriends and 
older men and ensuring that parents have the opportunity to be involved 
in their daughters' medical decisions.
  CIANA accomplished this, both these purposes, first by making it a 
criminal offense to transport a minor across State lines in order to 
obtain an abortion in another State and avoiding a parental 
notification law in that State.
  The second purpose is accomplished by requiring that a parent or 
legal guardian is notified that an abortion is going to be performed on 
their daughter. The bill was carefully crafted to prevent those who do 
not have the minor's best interests, and more than likely they have 
already committed statutory rape or incest, from being able to destroy 
critical evidence through an abortion.
  Statistics demonstrate that the incident of statutory rape is 
occurring with increasing frequency. Moreover, the number of incest 
cases is becoming all too prevalent. The amendments that are at issue 
here that were offered during the full Judiciary Committee markup would 
have broadened the categories of individuals who could be exempted from 
the bill's reach, thus increasing the likelihood that these provisions 
could be exploited.
  For example, the amendments offered to exempt taxicab drivers, as has 
been mentioned, bus drivers, and others in the business of public 
transport, clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, first cousins of the 
minor, grandparents or adult siblings, it would have given any of those 
individuals who may be sexually abusing a young girl, in essence, a 
safe harbor, thus defeating the primary purpose of CIANA.
  The characterizations of the amendments, as reflected in the 
committee report, accurately describe the safe harbor that would be 
afforded to abusive men through the amendments offered.
  Now, was that the intention of the proponents of the amendments? 
Certainly not. But could it be the result, if the amendments had 
passed? Yes, it could. The American people overwhelmingly support laws 
that require parents to be notified before a minor has an abortion.
  In March 2005, 75 percent of 1,500 registered voters indicated their 
support for parental notification laws. The fundamental rights of 
parents in parental notification laws are supported by Supreme Court 
precedent. Amendments that alter and allow these laws to be exploited 
should have been defeated, and they were.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank 
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for allowing us 
to debate today, really, the integrity of the House.
  This debate is not about the underlying bill, H.R. 748. That is not 
what it is about. It simply is about those in power abusing power, 
taking advantage of the minority, and not telling the truth.
  Frankly, the amendments that were offered, there is no language 
whatsoever that would equate to the description that was in the final 
report or the report of the particular committee.
  In fact, as the resolution reads, although it is the long and 
established practice on House reports to describe recorded votes with 
objective, nonargumentative captions, the Committee on the Judiciary 
majority departed from the practice in House Report 109-51 by 
captioning those five

[[Page 8422]]

amendments with inflammatory, inaccurate captions, implying that these 
three Members of Congress were engaging in criminal behavior.
  Let me tell you that my constituents said to me, we are glad that you 
are concerned about grandparents and clergy. That is what the amendment 
was about. And the inaccuracy subjected the Members, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and 
myself, to ridicule, and, of course, disparaging remarks in newspaper 
articles around the Nation.
  Now, in the course of debate, we welcome the ability to debate 
passionately about these issues. We welcome the media's criticism about 
the accuracy of the work that we do in this body. But what we do not 
welcome is a direct mischaracterization of these actual words that were 
being written and put forward in the debate in the Judiciary Committee.
  And so I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution, because, 
again, as you get up time after time to debate the underlying bill, Mr. 
Speaker, this is not the issue. The issue is, in the report, you 
mischaracterized three Members of Congress whose language did not say 
anything about what you represented it to be: Nothing about criminal 
behavior, simply to protect the rights of grandparents and clergy, 
simply to protect the rights of those who innocently might be carrying 
individuals across State lines.
  I cannot imagine, in the history of this Congress, why an amendment 
offered by Jackson-Lee that had to do with a GAO study turned out to be 
criminal behavior, or an amendment that had to do with clergy and 
grandparents turned out to be criminal behavior.
  Mr. Sensenbrenner, I would simply ask, in the sense of comity, 
collegiality, respect, that this be clarified and you ask your 
colleagues to support this privileged resolution, because the members 
of the Judiciary Committee must go back to Room 2141 in Rayburn and sit 
down and address the laws of this land and the Constitution of the 
United States of America.
  We should not be divided on upholding the laws of this land because 
of the lack of judiciousness of the writing of a report that could be 
solved today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the privileged resolution 
to clarify the record and to make this right by the American people and 
the Members of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution introduced by 
the Gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Ranking Member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, from where the underlying legislation was 
initially reported. In introducing this resolution, he has attempted to 
``set the record straight'' with respect to House Report 109-51 and the 
way that it has been patently malreported and maligned the authors of 
amendments to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act 
of 2005.
  Rule IX, paragraph (1) of the House Rules states that:

       Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
     rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and 
     the integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting 
     the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, Delegates, or 
     the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their 
     representative capacity only.

  This resolution was properly and justifiably introduced because, in 
this case, the privileges of ``dignity'' and ``the integrity of [the 
House's] proceedings'' have been patently violated. To purposefully 
misreport the good-faith amendments that have been offered by Members 
of this venerable House debases the nature and trustworthiness of the 
House Report. After this debacle, Members will have to scan committee 
reports with a fine-toothed comb--not for substantive value, but for 
accuracy and veracity of their reporting value. This is the diminution 
of the dignity of the process. This is the diminution of the integrity 
of the House.
  My distinguished colleagues have joined to introduce this resolution 
in order to make it clear to the American people that we do not 
associate ourselves with the misreported portions of House Report 109-
51. I plan to offer a similar resolution that speaks specifically to 
the nature of the misreporting of amendments that I offered during the 
Committee markup of H.R. 748.
  One point that my resolution will make is that House Report 109-51 
not only improperly made negative inferences as to the import and 
intent of my amendments, but it combined two distinct and separately-
offered amendments into one.
  In terms of the personal privileges violated by the report, the 
misreporting--and the malreporting of the amendments offered by my 
colleagues Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, and me affected our rights, 
reputation, and conduct. As founder and Chair of the Congressional 
Children's Caucus, a report that cites an amendment offered by me that 
would exempt sexual predators from liability is at the very least 
offensive.
  My constituents and the constituents of my colleagues do read House 
Reports, and the nefarious language that the Chairman avers as 
representative of his true intentions should be highlighted as contrary 
to the ideals on which this House, this government, and this nation 
were established.


                Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all Members to please 
address their comments to the Chair and not to individual Members.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Feeney.)

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. FEENEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that we have descended to this 
level because I have some great friends that I admire on the other 
side. The ranking member from Michigan is somebody who has had a 
distinguished career and I appreciate him. I appreciate the other 
Members who have spoken tonight and I respect them. I have enormous 
respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  We serve on a committee which is not a fluff committee. It often has, 
as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) knows, some very 
controversial issues. And we typically deal with these issues as ladies 
and gentlemen with the highest respect for one another, even though we 
often vehemently disagree.
  One thing we know is that last week, the United States House of 
Representatives overwhelmingly, on a bipartisan basis, passed House 
Resolution 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.
  One thing we know is that the purpose of this bill was to prevent 
sexual abusers from taking vulnerable young girls across State lines 
for the purpose of abortion without telling that young lady's, young 
woman's mom or dad.
  Support for parental notification as we know is widely supported 
amongst the American public. As a matter of fact, in the State of 
Florida, which I respect, the people of Florida, amended our 
Constitution in 2004 and overwhelmingly passed an amendment to our 
Constitution that provides as follows, ``The legislature is authorized 
to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a 
minor before termination of the minor's pregnancy.''
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary, during its mark-up which I 
participated in considered several amendments. I have to say that the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Nadler) who spoke, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) are 
people that I respect enormously for their passion for their beliefs. 
They offered amendments. There is nothing in the committee report that 
disparages any of the intentions of these Members. The committee report 
does describe the effect of some of the amendments that are offered.
  There is a huge difference between accurately describing the effect 
of an amendment and ascribing ill motives to the people who offered the 
amendments. These are people of great will, of great determination, of 
great passion, of great belief but we disagree. And as the chairman 
said, there is no exception provided for grandparents who happen to 
molest a child, for taxicab drivers, for uncles, for nieces in any of 
the amendments that were offered.
  And I did not speak on the amendments. As the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), the distinguished ranking member said, there was not a 
whole lot of discussion about some of

[[Page 8423]]

these amendments and that is try. Not because we did not understand the 
ramifications. We understood the effect. I did not speak at all because 
if every one of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary spoke for 
5 minutes on each amendment as we are entitled, we would never get 
through our business protecting children who are impregnated by people 
that molest them.
  And so we knew what we were voting on and the job of the committee 
staff is to describe the effect of the amendment, not the debate. That 
is what the Congressional Record does. That is what our ability when we 
insert language into the Record does. It is not the job of the 
committee staff.
  As the chairman said, my friend from New York (Mr. Nadler) has 
frequently compared this bill to the Slave Holders Protection Bill in 
the 1850s. It is a very different story to protect parents and minor 
children that have been abused, sexually and molested and impregnated 
than comparing that to the rights of slave holders.
  Comparing the rights of parents is something that Americans are for. 
Protecting the rights of slave holders is something Americans are 
against. And to compare that I think is very unfair.
  I will say that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) is somebody 
I respect a great deal, but the effect of his amendment did not shield 
anybody that might have been an abuser or a molester of these children.
  With that, I ask respectfully that the gentleman withdraw this 
motion. We can get back together and agree when we can. But, by golly, 
we would ask the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to withdraw this 
privileged motion.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I want my 
friend, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Feeney) to understand it is not about anything in the 
debate that took place to which we were objecting. It is about the 
entitlement of the amendments which were totally misconstrued.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Zoe Lofgren), a member of the committee.
  Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to defend the 
integrity of the House this evening. The established practice of the 
House regarding committee reports is to accurately and objectively 
describe the proceedings when a bill is considered in committee. These 
reports are historical products that are used to understand and 
determine the intent of a bill, opposition to a bill, and to provide 
any additional information to understand the context of a bill reported 
by committees of the House.
  In committee we argue and we disagree and we offer amendments and we 
vote. We may vote and disagree in committee, but when the report is 
issued it is supposed to be objective. This institution must uphold 
this established practice of describing a committee mark-up in an 
accurate and objective manner so that history is accurately documented 
and reported for generations to come. Unfortunately, that is not what 
happened last week when the Committee on the Judiciary reported H.R. 
748 to the House floor with the committee report, House Report 109-51.
  Republicans that ruled the Committee on the Judiciary mischarac-
terized five Democratic amendments in an extremely disparaging and 
distorting manner. When alerted to the misleading and inaccurate 
description of the amendment in the committee report, they refused to 
correct the mischaracterization.
  Here is something I can say that would be true about H.R. 748. The 
bill could permit a father who raped his daughter to profit in a 
lawsuit against his minister. That is a true thing about that bill. It 
is an argument against the bill. But no one expects that argument 
against the bill to substitute for the name of the bill in the 
committee report.
  In prior Congresses, Democratic amendments like these were described 
in neutral terms. The vote last week was about H.R. 748. The vote this 
week is about arrogance and abuse of power and ignoring the rules.
  The Republicans changed the ethics rules when they were afraid they 
might not work for them at the beginning of this Congress, and we are 
all watching the other body looking about changing the rules relative 
to filibuster because it suits their purpose and now this.
  We, including the chairman of the committee, each have a duty to 
uphold the integrity of this institution. We must not play politics 
with the records of history. The majority should live by the rules and 
precedents of the House. The House cannot function if the majority uses 
its raw power to corrupt the record of the proceedings.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Berman), a member of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) for yielding me time.
  I see the logic of the majority. If they were commenting on the Bill 
of Rights, the fourth amendment is an amendment designed to quash 
evidence coming from an unlawful search and seizure that could allow 
the conviction of sexual predators. The fifth amendment gives sexual 
predators the right to protect themselves from self-incrimination. The 
sixth amendment allows wily and cunning lawyers to use cross 
examination and technical rules to keep sexual predators from getting 
convicted.
  This is how the majority chooses to interpret, in this particular 
case, the substance and the intent of a series of amendments made to 
the bill we voted on last week.
  I have great respect for the chairman of the committee. He is a fair 
and honest man, and he has worked hard to defend the jurisdiction of 
the committee. And what has been done here with this majority report in 
that context is a tremendous disappointment to me. It essentially left 
us with no recourse but to bring a motion like this to the floor of the 
House.
  To create the absurd situation and then characterize the result of a 
particular amendment by that absurd situation does not do any justice 
or any service to this process, to this institution, or to our 
committee.
  We depend, we in the minority depend on a process that relies on 
honesty and good faith and the duties and those duties, I truly 
believe, were breached in the case of this report.
  The minority has regarded to file its dissenting views without the 
benefit of having to have seen the report which they are dissenting. 
That is inherently an illogical system, but we have gone along with it, 
but when something like this happens, it raises serious questions about 
the legitimacy of that particular process.
  I think a great wrong has been done to several Members of this body 
by virtue of the way the majority has characterized this amendment. I 
think those characterizations should be withdrawn. I think an apology 
should be made to them, and I urge the passage of this motion.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King).
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
time on this important issue.
  The stated purpose of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act 
is to protect the health and safety of young girls by allowing parental 
involvement when their home States have thought it appropriate to 
require such involvement.
  As a general rule, no one has a young girl's best interest at heart 
more than her parents. Where this rule is not the case, the law allows 
for judicial bypass of the parental involvement requirements. 
Therefore, the amendments introduced by the Democrats in the Committee 
on the Judiciary are unnecessary. Moreover, these amendments are 
dangerous.
  As my distinguished Committee on the Judiciary colleagues have 
explained, the health and safety of these young girls is not protected 
by providing a blank exemption for those who may have sexually abused 
them. That is precisely what these amendments did. They provided 
blanket exclusions with open doors for sexual predators to exploit to 
cover up their crimes.

[[Page 8424]]

  Far too often, the adults transporting these minors across State 
lines to circumvent their home State's parental involvement laws are 
grown men who have sexually preyed upon the girls. We have heard those 
statistics delivered by the chairman.
  To exempt certain classes which characteristics show are highly 
likely to be sexual predators would gut the intent of this bill, to 
protect the health and safety of young girls. The descriptions of the 
amendments in the committee report only describe the potential effects 
of the amendments if they had been adopted. They do not describe the 
motives of those offering the amendments as has been stated.
  The minority had the opportunity to include dissenting views in the 
committee report and they did. And those dissenting views do 
characterize the motives of those who supported this legislation.
  It has already been spoken to as the remarks by the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Nadler) with regard to the Fugitive Slave Act, and so I 
would just say this, that I am amazed that this subject was brought up. 
I am amazed that the minority wants to have a national debate over this 
subject matter. When I look at these exemptions and exclusions, this 
open door, cabdrivers, bus drivers, professional transport people, 
clergy, godparents, grandparents, adult siblings, aunts, uncles, 
brothers, sisters, not the family cat, not the family dog, but 
everything else you can imagine including the pizza delivery boy are 
exemptions from this bill.
  If those amendments had all gone on the bill, it would have been 
gutted in the bill and it would have gone down because I would have 
voted against it and so would the rest of us in the majority.
  I think it is clear the result of the position that is taken here. 
What is not clear is the motive as to why we would want to have a 
national debate to talk this over again when we clearly understand that 
we are trying to protect the rights of parents, not the rights of 
grandparents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters and siblings.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.
  I tell my dear friend who just left the well, we are not here to 
debate the bill. We debated the bill in committee. We debated it on the 
floor. We are talking about the titles in the section that were 
mislabeled.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by quoting from Section 
1001, Title 18 of the United States Code that also applies to the 
legislative branch.
  ``Anyone knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by 
any trick, scheme or device a material fact; 2, makes any materially 
false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation; or, 3, 
makes or uses any false writing or document, knowing the same to 
contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or 
entry, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 
years or both.''

                              {time}  1830

  The Committee on Rules discovered last week that the Committee on the 
Judiciary report on the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, 
authored by the majority staff, in conflict obviously to the United 
States Code, contained amendment summaries that had been rewritten by 
the staff for the sole purpose of distorting the original intent of the 
authors. I have to admit I was livid.
  I was certain it must have been an oversight because I could not 
imagine that the Committee on the Judiciary, of all things, or the 
Committee on the Judiciary chairman, whom I have known for 18 years, 
would stand by a committee report that would so deeply mischaracterize 
and falsify the intent of several amendments offered by Democrat 
members of the committee.
  At least five amendments to the bill, designed to protect the rights 
of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution, were 
completely rewritten to make as though it was the original intent of 
the authors. This is a shocking abuse of power, and it must not stand.
  The fact is that the Republican majority must do the right thing here 
today. They must give us a new committee report containing the proper 
captions so that it accurately reflects the intentions of the authors. 
Furthermore, I think the chairman of the committee owes those Members 
an apology for soiling their reputation in the names of partisan 
politics.
  To falsely rewrite the intent of amendments submitted by another 
Member, to intentionally distort its description is unacceptable. No 
Member should go through what our colleagues have had to go through. 
None of us should have our reputations dragged through the mud.
  It is absolutely arrogant of this majority to believe that they can 
tamper with official congressional documents for political purposes. It 
is absolutely arrogant, and the American people will not be pleased 
with it. It is an affront not only to those of us in the House but to 
the American people and to history, Mr. Speaker; and unless it is 
amended, I am sure that we will see these again in the form of campaign 
attack mail pieces, and honorable, hardworking Members of this Congress 
will be forever branded. No wonder we have a lack of civility in this 
House.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the committee.
  Mr. WATT. Mr. Speaker, I am really saddened today, and I am not sure 
whether I am more disappointed because of the mischaracterization of 
the amendments in the committee report or whether I am more saddened by 
the fact that the members of a committee on which I have served now for 
13 years would be here on the floor defending the characterization that 
was put in the committee's report.
  I would just hope that we can get the committee to file an amended 
report that clears this up and we can put this behind us and go on. 
This is saddening, and if we cannot get that, I think it would be a 
really, really sad commentary on this institution and what our 
committee has sunk to in this Congress.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).
  Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Speaker, while I am not an attorney, it is my 
understanding that the perfect defense for a charge of libel is the 
truth.
  We have heard no discussions today about the substance of the 
descriptions in the committee report, and that is because the 
descriptions of the effects of the amendments in the committee report 
were accurate.
  Contrast that with the dissenting views the minority attached to the 
committee report. For example, the minority views state that the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act is ``overtly hostile to 
families.'' The minority dissenting views in the committee report also 
describe the legislation as ``anti-physician and anti-family.''
  Now, 270 Members of the House voted for legislation that the minority 
views stated was ``overtly hostile to families.'' Fifty-four Members of 
the other side of the aisle, the Democrat Party, voted for that bill. 
Surely there is no comparison between stating that broadly supported 
legislation, designed to protect parental rights and the health and 
safety of young women, is ``overtly hostile to families'' and 
accurately describing the consequences of poorly drafted amendments to 
the legislation.
  Further, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) who we heard 
from earlier in her press release last week referred to a conspiracy to 
``falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment.''

[[Page 8425]]

  First, there was no rewriting. The majority of the committee, in 
describing offered amendments, do not cut and paste any description of 
an amendment into a committee report. The majority describes the 
amendment offered as it understands it.
  Second, the purpose of describing an amendment is not to describe its 
intent. Its purpose is to describe its meaning and effect. What matters 
is not what is in the mind of a Member offering an amendment. It is 
what the text of the amendment offered would mean if it were made a 
part of the bill. Describing the effects of an amendment as it where is 
not the same as describing the subjective intent of the person offering 
the amendment.
  A committee report should do the former, not the latter, because what 
matters at the end of the day are the actual words on the page of a 
bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, in my 16 years in office, I have seldom seen 
such a blatant disregard for the truth. What occurred in this body last 
week during the consideration of the bill should be an embarrassment to 
every Member of this Congress. To purposely mischarac-
terize amendments offered during committee consideration of a bill is 
simply outrageous, and quite frankly, it sets a dangerous precedent.
  Many of us have different views and even deep disagreements about the 
important issues we consider in this institution, but we should be 
using the power of debate to resolve those differences. Instead, the 
majority is using parliamentary gimmicks and deliberate 
mischaracterizations to misrepresent the intentions of other Members of 
this body.
  The official record exists to record the views and actions of the 
participants of the debate, not to editorialize and inflame the debate. 
To go so far as to change the descriptions of amendments, to use an 
official document to mislead the American people about alternatives 
suggested by the minority is a gross abuse of power by the majority, 
and it is just not honest. If we allowed this or similar action by 
either party to go unchecked, if we let this happen now, it will almost 
certainly happen again.
  The Congress can do better. The American people certainly deserve 
better, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 
this important resolution.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, my comments prepared for now had essentially to do with 
the point that has been made already here many times. Carving out 
exceptions to the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 for adult siblings, 
for cousins and uncles would not protect young girls who are made 
victims of incest by those very adult siblings, cousins or uncles; and 
it would be a terrible idea to add that to a bill whose primary purpose 
is to protect the rights of parents and their children.
  But I had a chance just to kind of step back here for a moment, Mr. 
Speaker, and ask myself why the intensity of this debate. I would have 
to step back and say that respectfully I would submit that maybe it is 
about the foundational issue here of abortion because if we were not 
talking about the surgery of abortion, there would be no debate here. 
No one would say it is not all right to take a young girl across the 
State line for an appendectomy. That would be an outrageous discussion.
  It really is about this whole notion of abortion, and I do not 
understand the intensity completely, but I believe it has something to 
do with the conscience in all of us collectively that we are beginning 
to realize that somehow, as Americans, we are bigger than abortion on 
demand; that 40 million dead children is enough; and that somehow we 
need to start asking the real question. The real questions is, does 
abortion take the life of a child? If it does not, it is a nonissue. If 
it does, then we are in the midst of the greatest human holocaust in 
the history of humanity.
  I think somehow we collectively in our hearts understand that, and 
therefore, it creates all this acrimony on the finer points; but the 
real abuse of power is that this body has the power to protect these 
little babies, and instead, we are debating the finer points in a 
committee report, and I am ashamed of that.
  I pray that somehow we can get to the point where we can come 
together and not have to look back. The Fugitive Slave Act was a 
perfect example. We looked back and said how did we let that happen. 
That was an acrimonious debate, too. There was a little thing called 
the Civil War over it.
  We do not need to proceed down that line. Somehow may compassion and 
the simple truth prevail here.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask the chairman of the committee how 
many speakers he has remaining.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, just me to close.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, 
the lead Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me 
time, and for his great leadership to protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States, the oath of office that we all take.
  I, too, want to express my respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the committee. I 
know that all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary have a 
difficult task. I commend all of the members of the Committee on the 
Judiciary for the very important responsibility that they have in 
protecting the civil liberties of our country. There are so many 
complicated issues where there are differences of opinion but, 
hopefully, respect for that diversity of opinion, which is intrinsic to 
our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very sad that it is necessary to come to the floor 
to speak on a resolution offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Conyers), again the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  I think it is important to note why we are here. I understand why our 
Republican colleagues want to talk about the bill and not talk about 
this privileged resolution, because this resolution strikes right 
directly to the heart of our democracy and our right of freedom of 
speech on this floor and how our words are interpreted.
  Questions of privilege, according to the House rules and manual, Mr. 
Speaker, as I am sure the Speaker well knows, questions of privilege 
shall be those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its 
safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings. It is that last 
point, the integrity of our proceedings, which is what is under assault 
by the Republicans in this action that they took last week. Truth and 
trust, they are the fundamentals of our work. We must speak truth so 
that we will be trusted.
  I view what the Committee on the Judiciary leadership did on this 
bill as just another extension of the abuse of power of the Republican 
majority in the Congress of the United States, both in the House and in 
the Senate.
  In both bodies, and let us just speak to our own, there is an attempt 
to limit the opportunity for Members to speak on the floor, to have 
substitutes, alternative amendments, that can come to the floor; and on 
the occasions when they do allow an amendment, they decide to 
misrepresent the amendment. Just when we think we have seen it all on 
the part of curbing debate in this House, the Republicans not only curb 
the debate; they decide what it is that we said and what it is that we 
wrote in our amendments that we were putting forth.
  The disgusting misrepresentations that were advanced by the 
Republicans demand an apology by the chairman of the committee and a 
pledge by the Republican leadership in this House that this will never 
happen again; that this will never happen again.

[[Page 8426]]



                              {time}  1845

  We must be mindful of a standard we must uphold, not only for 
ourselves, but for the American people, to conduct ourselves at all 
times in a manner which shall reflect credibly on the House of 
Representatives. In doing so, the House must maintain the integrity of 
all of its proceedings, as the rules of the House dictate in the House 
Rules and Manual.
  What happened last week to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson-Lee) was an outrage. An official report that the majority 
of the Committee on the Judiciary prepared to the legislation at hand 
deliberately and purposely mischarac-
terized their amendments in a manner that was insulting and derogatory.
  Again, no wonder the Republicans do not want to talk about what is on 
the floor right now, which is a privileged resolution addressing the 
gross abuse of power of the Republicans. We had tried to say at 
meetings, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) tried to get an 
agreement with the majority that they would change the record and 
apologize; to admit that there was something wrong with what happened 
last week, and that would have made a difference in bringing this 
resolution to the floor. But, no, there was no admission that there was 
anything wrong with misrepresenting, not telling the truth about what 
was contained in those amendments.
  Administrative functions, such as reporting of amendments and 
descriptions of these amendments, relate to the integrity, again, of 
the proceedings of the House and must be fairly described. If there is 
a controversy, then you go to the maker of the amendment and say, what 
is it, how would you characterize your amendment, you who are the maker 
of the amendment? But no, we had placed our trust that the majority 
would fairly describe something as administrative as an amendment 
offered by a Member.
  In short, this should not even be an issue we need to be reviewing 
and scrutinizing. If this were to pass without discussion, think of the 
precedent that it would create; that the majority, on a regular and 
repeated basis, could use their power and abuse their power to write 
any characterization of any amendment that anyone made. Its simply 
wrong.
  The behavior exhibited by the Republican majority with the Committee 
on the Judiciary report flies in the face of the comity and civility 
and honesty that we should all strive for. It is a further reflection, 
again, of the abuse of power we have seen here. It is an embarrassment 
to the House.
  I was deeply disappointed to learn that the chairman of the Committee 
on the Judiciary has refused to apologize on his own accord. Our rules, 
Mr. Speaker, are our best defense. They are what make the debate and 
the democracy work. As I said, Mr. Speaker, you even see in this close 
on this important debate that there is an interest in stopping the 
conversation. I hope that the Speaker and the Republican leadership 
will reflect on their obligations to the House, and indeed, to all the 
Members of both parties, and that they will ask the chairman of the 
Committee on the Judiciary to apologize for the affront to this House 
and the blatant abuse of position as the chairman of the Committee on 
the Judiciary.
  This is, in my view, an aberration for the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner). As I said, many of us, while we may disagree on 
issues, have held him in great esteem and respect. He is an articulate 
spokesperson for his point of view. But his point of view is not 
necessarily the point of view of everyone in this body, and his point 
of view should not be the description of the amendments that Members in 
the minority are presenting to the Congress. The leadership has a 
responsibility to ensure that this will not happen again.
  I want to commend all the Members of the Committee on the Judiciary 
once again, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think you have a very 
challenging task. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the people who were offended by this, 
though all of us were, but particularly in terms of the retelling of 
their amendments, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson-Lee).
  Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by thanking the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers) for his courage, because it takes a degree of courage to 
bring a privileged resolution to this floor when you know there will be 
a continuation of a misrepresentation of what happened last week. We 
are doing this not because of this bill, we are doing this because it 
is our responsibility to have an honest reflection of the proceedings 
of the House. I urge our colleagues to support the resolution of the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the distinguished minority leader said, 
I offered to file a supplemental committee report. However, in order to 
do so, I asked that the authors of the amendment admit that the 
amendment did not specifically exclude the sexual predators from the 
exemptions they proposed. That offer was refused by the minority side 
of the aisle.
  The committee report does accurately state that sexual predators are 
not carved out of the exemptions that were proposed. It is not a 
misrepresentation. It accurately shows that the authors of the 
amendment did not draft those amendments as narrowly as they should 
have. And when we vote on legislation, we vote on what is on the plain 
text of the piece of paper, not on what the author of an amendment 
intended to do.
  I do not like to see this resolution come before us, but what I will 
say is that we were accurate, and if you do not want this to happen 
again, draft your amendments properly.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have been called here today to raise a question of 
the privileges of the House. A very serious matter. A prerogative 
rarely used by the Members of the House of Representatives. But we have 
to deal with the mischaracterizations of the titles of the amendments, 
which is what this debate is about.
  It is incredible to me that the case of the other side is so weak 
that all they can do is continue to talk about the bill itself. We are 
not here to debate H.R. 748, we are here to talk about the power and 
the abuses of the majority party that sets the agenda, that writes the 
reports, and that entitles the amendments submitted to the members of 
the Committee on the Judiciary. The amendment titles of three members 
were twisted and distorted and their meaning was rendered so that the 
entitlement of the amendment was not, indeed, accurate. I believe the 
majority has failed the Congress but, more importantly, the American 
people.
  Now, what we are doing here right now is hoping to raise this 
question of the privileges of the House regarding the blatant abuse of 
power; Republicans' mischaracterizing the description of numerous 
Democratic amendments, when some of the amendments had been considered 
in previous Congresses. These are the same amendments that were 
properly entitled in other Congresses.
  So it is with great reluctance that I come before you to ask that we 
make sure this never happens again; that this deliberate 
mischaracterization of amendments be stopped here and now; that it does 
not happen and that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary 
issue a supplemental report and apologize to the House of 
Representatives. Support the resolution.


              Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kline). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) to lay the 
resolution on the table.

[[Page 8427]]

  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on tabling H. Res. 253 will be followed by a 15-minute vote 
on suspending the rules and adopting H. Res. 228.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 196, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 151]

                               YEAS--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cox
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--196

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Biggert
     Brown (OH)
     Clay
     Culberson
     Davis (FL)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Edwards
     Fattah
     Hoyer
     Johnson (CT)
     Larson (CT)
     Otter
     Shays
     Simpson
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)

                              {time}  1919

  Ms. WOOLSEY and Messrs. RUPPERSBERGER, SERRANO, SMITH of Washington 
and BUTTERFIELD changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. WELLER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________