[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8428-8429]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   ANNOUNCEMENT OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING QUESTION OF 
                        PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution raising a question of 
the privileges of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may give notice.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I give notice of this resolution and that it 
will be brought up as soon as the rules permit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must read the form of the 
resolution and then ask for unanimous consent.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, by the form, does the Speaker mean the text?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I do not ask that unanimous consent.
  Will the Clerk read the resolution?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman must read the resolution.
  Mr. NADLER. ``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;
  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 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, under the procedures of the Committee on the Judiciary, the 
minority must submit its dissenting views to the majority without 
having the opportunity to review the report;
  Whereas, the majority has the opportunity to review the minority's 
dissent before filing its report;
  Whereas, earlier versions of H.R. 748 were reported by the Committee 
on the Judiciary on three separate occasions and in each case, these 
amendments, or similar amendments, were described in these earlier 
committee reports with objective, nonargumentative captions;
  Whereas, this unprecedented manipulation of a traditionally 
nonpartisan

[[Page 8429]]

portion of a committee report constitutes an abuse of power by the 
majority of the Committee on the Judiciary;
  Whereas, a report of a committee offers the majority and minority the 
opportunity to provide their views and interpretations of the 
legislation, amendments, and issues;
  Whereas, the section of a committee report required by clause 3(b) of 
Rule XIII was purposely misused as an opportunity to comment on, or 
characterize, the amendments; and
  Whereas the vote captions published in House Report 109-51 appear to 
be purposefully inaccurate and misleading, and reflect negatively on 
the integrity of the Members offering the amendments, and therefore 
belittle the dignity of the House and undermine the integrity of the 
proceedings of the House:
  Now, therefore, be it:
  Resolved, That the House of Representatives
  (1) finds that the Committee on the Judiciary purposefully and 
deliberately mischaracterized the above-mentioned votes in House Report 
109-51; and
  (2) directs the chairman of such committee to report to the House a 
supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the record by 
describing the five amendments with nonargumentative, objective 
captions.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the 
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader 
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence 
only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after 
the resolution is properly noticed.
  Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) will appear in the Record at this 
point.
  The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution 
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at 
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.

                          ____________________