[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9094-9100]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           PERSONAL PRIVILEGE

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of 
personal privilege.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. On the basis of House Report 109-51 and 
certain media coverage thereof, the gentlewoman may rise to a question 
of personal privilege under rule IX.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today, Mr. Speaker, because I believe in the integrity of this 
House, the specialness of this House, and the specialness of my 
colleagues.
  I also believe that this time that I will have to share with my 
colleagues and to share with the American people is a moment for us to 
be able to move forward and not to recount or to go back over a pathway 
that is not productive.
  A few weeks ago we were discussing legislation that of its very name 
is extremely controversial. In the course of that legislation, H.R. 
748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, CIANA, the debate 
was vigorous; and I know that in this Congress we have had our 
differences of opinion as it relates to the question of choice, the 
ninth amendment, the right to privacy, and, in this instance, the 
question of parental consent.
  It is interesting to note that those of us who may side on the 
position of choice and the right to privacy recognize the intensity and 
the questions being raised about children who are put in harm's way, 
whether or not that means that a child without counsel, because of some 
tragedy in her life, has to seek an abortion.
  The vigorousness of the debate centered around the idea of the 
enormous range of differences of opinion expressed by different States. 
I think they are equally divided, 23, 22, 27, some States having no 
provisions for parental consent as it relates to a child securing an 
abortion, some States having a very complicated process with judicial 
review, and some States having a medium process.
  The debate in the Committee on the Judiciary by members on my side of 
the aisle really centered and focused on the structure of the 
legislation that seemingly would close the door shut on a child that 
would seek counsel beyond the parent in this very troubling time in 
their life. It also sought to clarify whether an innocent bystander who 
could provide a mode of transportation might, in fact, be held 
criminally liable under this particular law. So there were a number of 
amendments being offered that would hopefully clarify this very 
difficult question.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a time when passions rise high, temperatures 
rise high as well. As I said, there is a vigorous disagreement about 
this question of abortion and even more vigorous when it involves a 
child who is under the age of majority.

                              {time}  1745

  So there were a number of amendments offered by my colleagues, one 
offered that, in particular the description of the amendment simply 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), allowed an adult 
who could be prosecuted under the bill go to a Federal court and seek a 
waiver to the State's parental notice laws if this remedy was not 
available.
  Subsequently, there was a House Report, 109-51, and in that report, a 
series of amendments were described in particular to give license to 
sexual predators. May I repeat that again, Mr. Speaker, to give license 
to sexual predators.
  I started out by saying, and I do intend to follow that charge that I 
have made, that this is an effort to go forward, to be able to 
highlight a mistake, an indiscretion, a pathway that hopefully we will 
not return to and allow us to heal on our own, if you will, but also to 
cite that this is not the way to run the People's House.
  That amendment simply stated that it allowed an adult who could be 
prosecuted under the bill to go to the Federal District Court and seek 
a waiver to the State's parental notice laws. Remember I started out, 
Mr. Speaker, by saying State parental notice laws are varying around 
the Nation. It was ultimately written to suggest that that particular 
gentleman from New York had 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. It suggested that that 
roll call, that particular amendment, was defeated 11 to 16.
  Subsequently, there was another amendment by the gentleman from New 
York to exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and 
civil provisions in the bill, again, simply stated as plain as can be. 
And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, though I am not intending to challenge 
legislation that

[[Page 9095]]

has already been passed on the floor of the House, albeit I disagree 
with it vigorously in terms of the restraints it puts on the 
interaction between a child and confidante, a trusted adult who can 
help steer them in the right direction, let me just suggest this was a 
constructive amendment because it was to give the child an ability to 
consult with someone that may be out of the pipeline and be out of the 
child's distress area, meaning we have never looked at the point that 
possibly the parent could be the predator or could be engaged in 
incest. All of these are terrible things to discuss, but in a 
responsible debate, these were the considerations why these amendments 
were authored.
  Ultimately, that amendment to allow a grandparent or sibling to 
confide or that child to confide in that particular adult or that 
particular sibling, adult sibling, it was described by the gentleman's 
amendment, was described as having exempted sexual predators from 
prosecution under the bill and suggested that it was defeated in a roll 
call vote.
  Subsequently, the gentleman from Virginia offered an amendment to 
protect innocent bystanders who might have someone take their mode of 
transportation, a taxicab, a bus or other mode of transportation, not 
knowing who they are carrying, and ultimately caught up in the 
legislation and be prosecuted. So this was to exempt innocent bus 
drivers, taxicab drivers and others who would be transporting 
individuals, and, again, the amendment was described as exempting 
sexual predators.
  A subsequent amendment that limited liability to the person 
committing the offense in the first degree was ultimately described and 
suggested that it would aid and abet criminals.
  Then an amendment that I offered, the amendment was to exempt clergy, 
godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins from the penalties in the 
bill, again to give a young woman a greater latitude of who to seek 
comfort and counsel from, and ultimately, that amendment was described, 
``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.''
  Then, Mr. Speaker, though I had two separate amendments, one a GAO 
study that would have determined whether this particular legislation 
was necessary and whether or not the confusion of the States with 
different bases of determining parental consent, whether or not that 
created an added problem, the description in House Report 109-51 just 
lumped them all together, which reads, ``that would require a study by 
the Government Accounting Office.''
  So, in essence, Mr. Speaker, my amendment was described as exempting 
clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins of a minor and 
suggesting that I was exempting sexual predators. And then, adding 
insult to injury, if I might use a phrase, that I then wanted a GAO 
study. Completely wrong. Complete misconstruing of the amendment and of 
the intent.
  So we had a vote last week that ultimately wound up correcting the 
language in some form. It did not, however, distinguish that I had two 
amendments and did not ask for a study of sexual predators who happened 
to be godparents, clergy, aunts, uncles or first cousins.
  First of all, might I say in the prosecution of this particular 
entity, I do not believe that any prosecutor worth his or her salt 
would allow this legislation to exempt an individual who happened to be 
a relative who happened to be a sexual predator. There is no basis in 
the bill. And if that was the case, then it means that the parents, the 
very underlying crux of the bill, parental consent, it means that the 
bill also protects parents that are sexual predators if you follow that 
line of reasoning.
  So, Mr. Speaker, this is an attempt to have us go forward and not 
backwards. The amendments were very clear on their face. The amendments 
stood alone: ``The General Accounting Office shall conduct a study 
detailing the impact of the number of unsafe and illegal abortions 
performed on minors who would be affected by this law.''
  You see, Mr. Speaker, I have lived through a time when women went to 
back alleys, and a coat hanger was a medical device. So I thought it 
was appropriate that if we were going to pass a legislative initiative 
that we thought would help secure young lives, then we needed to have a 
study that would determine whether or not it was in fact securing them 
or endangering them. And the idea, of course, was to suggest that we 
needed to find out more about the impact of this legislation.
  This ultimately got construed, I do not know how, as a GAO study of 
sexual predators. This is not a nice word to say on the floor of the 
House, because as we have seen the rash of attacks on our children, two 
young babies killed just in the last 24 hours; little precious Danielle 
having been determined and identified decapitated a couple of years 
ago; as cochair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, we were briefed 
by Alonzo Washington on that tragic case; the cases in Florida, the 
cases in Texas.
  No one wants to promote the extending of any criminal exemptions for 
the likes of those who prey on our children. Nowhere in this GAO study 
would that say that. And might I say that the war against sexual 
predators and child predators and child sexual predators is a 
bipartisan war. It is not a frivolous desire of any of us to stand up 
against those heinous actors that will go against our children. I would 
not in the least be hesitant to stand alongside of any Member in this 
body and know full well of their undying commitment to weed out, ferret 
out, prosecute and incarcerate those individuals with the most evil 
intent to do harm to our children.
  That is why a number of Members took to the floor of the House to 
express such outrage; not because we do not accept the fact that there 
could be mistakes. There are politics in this House, games that are 
played at all times. There is vigorous debate on the question of 
choice, parental consent. But it was the very fact that something so 
sacred, our children, could fall victim to such a divide.
  As we went to the Committee on Rules we would hope it would have been 
cleared up through that matter. Let me also just cite the other 
Jackson-Lee amendment that was plain and simple, the prohibitions of 
this section do not apply with respect to conduct by clergy, 
godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins, simply to say that they 
could stand in place, for example, if there was some Achilles heel, 
some failure in the parental structure, that this child needed to go 
outside of the family home. A simple process; no more, no less.
  So, we had hoped that there would have been some solution to this in 
the Committee on Rules. As I indicated, this report was filed Thursday, 
April 21, and the accompanying report was 109-51.
  The point that should be part of the rules of this House that I hope 
that we will as we go forward make really part of our institutional 
fabric is that House reports from now on or from last Thursday on 
should describe recorded votes with objective, non-argumentative 
captions.
  The Committee on the Judiciary majority cannot do that in House 
Report 109-51 by captioning the five amendments that I mentioned with 
remarks that would suggest that we are harboring, that we are 
kowtowing, playing to sexual predators.
  The opportunity that was given, Mr. Speaker, to address this question 
in the Committee on Rules was troubling, because questions were posed 
as to why such language was utilized.
  Might I say as an aside, Mr. Speaker, you realize that the House 
reports and my colleagues realize the House reports are used in 
history. They are used by historians and political scientists, 
students, researchers of all kinds, policymakers. They are used to tell 
the story of America. That is why we rise to the floor of the House and 
raise our voices and consent and dissent. That is why we pay tribute to 
Americans on this floor. That is why, each morning, we say the Pledge 
of Allegiance, and the chaplain or one who

[[Page 9096]]

has been so designated offers a word of prayer. It is for all of 
America to reflect and read. It is a document that leaves a legacy that 
2 days from now or 5 weeks or 1 year or 10 years from now cannot be 
changed.
  So, to ask the question why, or to suggest to my colleagues that I 
only stand here today to remind you that if we can find any sense of 
unity in this very fractured Nation and divided House and Senate, I 
would simply ask that it be adhering to the rules of this body and the 
simple reporting of the work we do here every day.
  The reason why, again, I would cite this as an important request and 
one that I hope the correction of last week will not be simply the 
correction of that time, but it will be embedded that we try and work 
not to do it again, is because when we get on this floor, Mr. Speaker, 
and there are words that are not befitting or becoming of the debate, 
albeit the Member did not intend any wrongdoing or missteps, but 
because someone else found those words to be inappropriate, we have a 
procedure called to take the words down. Why do we do that? We do that 
to protect the integrity of this record.

                              {time}  1800

  And I think that is the right thing to do. In the furor of debate, 
sometimes we step beyond the pale. We are committed, we are passionate, 
we believe in what we are standing for, and we are Americans. We stand 
in debate with our eyes on the Flag of the United States and the words 
``In God We Trust.'' This Nation's underpinnings allow us to do so. But 
when sometimes in the heat of debate words flare, we are allowed, and 
some will ask, that the words be taken down. And in the course of the 
debate and the vote occurs, there is a procedure to address that issue. 
That means that we care about the integrity of this process and the 
written word that will then be there for thousands and thousands and 
millions and millions and years and years to be reviewed. We are owed 
that kind of respect.
  So this statement today should not be considered an effort to recount 
or repeat. It is, hopefully, an effort in a moment, of evenhandedness, 
to suggest that this kind of mischaracterization not take place anymore 
in the committees of the House, the final reporting, and/or the 
Committee on Rules, and that we strictly stick to the conciseness and 
integrity of the process which is a nonargumentative, objective 
reporting of the work of an individual Member.
  And certainly, Mr. Speaker, words such as ``predator'' and ``sexual 
predator'' and ``child predator,'' to be thrown in the direction of 
Members who leave their homes and their jurisdictions every day in the 
backdrop of some heinous criminal act, maybe affecting their own 
constituents, maybe some child law.
  Because as I was driving on the freeway yesterday in Texas, because 
of the AMBER Alert that all of the Members of this House were willing 
to support, there unfortunately was a highlight of another kidnapped 
child from New Mexico, possibly on the run into Texas, not knowing 
whether there was an issue of sexual predator or child predator. It was 
a kidnapped child, a child that was vulnerable.
  So it is not something that I personally take lightly, and I would 
just suggest that the gentleman from New York and the gentleman from 
Virginia who raised their voices, I would think that their integrity 
also is well-known, and that to associate their work with that 
definition is one that is enormously frightening.
  This clarification is used as well when you can find that the entity 
or the act or the actions have subjected you to public ridicule. Well, 
a story is a story, Mr. Speaker, and this was written about. So that 
will not be able to be taken down. There will be articles that would 
suggest that amendments by the named persons exempted sexual predators. 
We cannot go back to that. We cannot pull that down. That is in the 
annals of news that will be able to be researched.
  So, frankly, I thought it was enormously important that this misdeed 
be called again to the attention of my colleagues. Why? Because I hope 
going forward we will not do it again.
  Allow me to quote from the ranking member of the Committee on Rules 
who said that it was not indicated how this was brought to our 
attention. The Committee on Rules discovered yesterday that the 
Committee on the Judiciary report on this very bill, which was authored 
by the majority staff, contained amendment summaries which had been 
rewritten by committee staff for the sole purpose of distorting the 
original intent of the authors. So, in essence, no one contacted our 
offices to be able to determine whether or not we actually intended 
that exemption, meaning as the report was being written. If it had not 
been for the staff of the Committee on Rules, we would not have had the 
opportunity to clear the air.
  I do want to pay tribute to the Committee on Rules in this instance, 
Republicans and Democrats, who listened to our protest, if you will. 
And frankly, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped and thought that that matter 
could be resolved there in the Committee on Rules. The response of the 
majority of the Committee on Rules is to stand by it, or they stood by 
those amendments as they were described. It appeared as stated by the 
ranking member that the representations being made in the Committee on 
Rules is that one, the majority stood by it; and, two, that the 
alterations to our amendments were deliberate. When asked again why 
such an out-of-the-ordinary approach was taken, the majority responded 
and suggested that it was the tone of the debate that caused such to be 
done. Because we oppose the legislation, the ``got-you'' game was being 
played.
  Mr. Speaker, that is why I rise today, because I would like to have 
today, May 10, 2005, really be the last, last day that we would 
entertain such actions. No matter how vigorous the debate in 
opposition, how be it that we would step away from the integrity of 
this House, the respect for the three branches of government and do as 
was done. The exact quote, as I understand, and I repeat it here, the 
majority offered to say, ``You don't like what we wrote about your 
amendments, and we don't like what you said about the bill.''
  Mr. Speaker, that can take us all over the map. That is why we are in 
this place. That is why a President of the United States can stand with 
the Georgian people and talk about democracy and hold his head up high, 
because we are allowed to stand on the floor and vigorously disagree in 
a manner where we will not be punished.
  So I would ask as we go forward that this kind of tone, this kind of 
approach not be utilized. I do not know what you would call it, but I 
certainly know that it has no place here.
  So the resolution that was offered and debated on asked for a number 
of actions. I think now I should applaud one of the actions. In the 
emergency supplemental in the rules that were passed last week, the 
opportunity was taken to clarify the amendments. I am not sure whether 
or not any formal apology was made; but I imagine, Mr. Speaker, that 
when the record is corrected, we have received a response that 
addresses the historical record of this body. So it serves no purpose 
to ask for an apology today. I do think we were a little bit off our 
mark, and I would hope that having not asked for an apology and having 
not received it and seeking only the straightforward clarification, 
that will be the approach that we will take. One, that we will be 
allowed to debate in this body, whether it be in committee or on the 
floor, and vigorously disagree, and that in that disagreement, there 
will be no punishment.
  The only factor that we should have as the test of whether we are 
right or wrong or whether or not we prevail is that vote. And, in many 
instances, the majority, now in control of the House, the Senate, the 
Supreme Court, the executive, by one party, prevails. In the instance 
of the Committee on the Judiciary, in this occasion on these 
amendments, the majority prevailed.
  The minority, however, felt passion about the amendments and, in 
fact, believes that they were right; and I personally believe that two 
amendments,

[[Page 9097]]

one to do a study of the negative impact of this legislation, if it 
might occur, or what dangerous procedures might occur of this 
legislation, where would a child seek to go because they were fearful 
of getting parental consent, that was a sincere amendment to get 
important facts. And giving a child the opportunity to talk to 
godparents or aunts and uncles or cousins, clergy or grandparents was 
not sinister; it was simply to protect lives.
  So I would hope that that would be where we would divide on our 
beliefs, our reasons for the legislation; not on how we talked about a 
bill. For there have been many legislative initiatives that have had 
vigorous talk, and Members have agreed and disagreed about the vigorous 
talk. But the only criteria for prevailing or not prevailing is that 
vote, not a characterization by someone else that you are the leader of 
exempting sexual predators. Saying it over and over again, of course, 
may cause some to cringe, and it is not my intent, Mr. Speaker, but I 
think clarification is very important.
  And in the course of the battle of that particular legislation, you 
can be assured as it was being debated, if the glimpses of the words 
that were gotten were only that it was something to do with sexual 
predators, that just muddies the water of the good intentions that you 
might be having and the intent of what you wrote in that amendment.
  It would almost be like those who are abhorring drug cartels and drug 
dealers, that if they were to have an amendment dealing with a GAO 
study, determining the extent of drug cartels' influence in the United 
States or the growth of drug cartels between 1990 and 2005, and all of 
a sudden it was characterized as an amendment for the GAO to promote 
drug dealership and drug cartels, you would not want to hear that on 
the floor; but it certainly would be the complete opposite of your 
intent, and it would have mischarac-
terized the debate where you were standing and trying to determine 
whether some legislation promoted drug cartels more so than broke them 
up.
  The Constitution allows us the opportunity for three branches of 
government, and I think that this country is unique because of it, very 
unique. In its uniqueness, we have checks and balances. The checks and 
balances do not purge into the inner workings of each body. So we are 
the holder of our own records. And it leaves little room sometimes in 
another body to go and complain about the workings of one specific 
body, particularly the words that are spoken.

                              {time}  1815

  And so there are no other grounds or no other opportunities to clear 
the air other than to seek this personal privilege. Mr. Speaker, I hope 
that in the course of this discussion, it was not rendered in anger or 
anguish. It was simply rendered to say that what occurred deserved the 
greater attention of this body and that it was on the brink of abuse, 
and the sadness is that we had to rise to the floor more than once 
before it was ultimately corrected in the waning hours of last week's 
legislative session. Does that speak well of us? It does not. The Rules 
Committee is a place where we ferret out rules. Our respective 
committees is a place where we vigorously oversee legislation and 
provide our input and insight and our thought processes to do what is 
right. I would venture to say there has not been one committee hearing 
and markup where some Member promoted the criminal elements that would 
do harm to America. And if any thought came to the mind of a colleague 
that that was the intent of that Member, I would assure you that the 
best approach of that particular colleague would be to query that 
Member in that committee room. None of us were queried about the 
question of the intent of our amendments, whether or not they had to do 
with predators, child sexual predators, sexual predators. No one was 
queried. And therefore, the interpretation that was attributed to us 
was purposeful. And here on this floor, the same courtesy should be 
extended. And if you are misunderstood, if you misspeak, from the 
integrity again of this record that would be for all to see, someone 
should query you and give you the opportunity to correct your words, or 
in the alternative, when the height of the debate is so furious there 
is a challenge by someone at some point, that the words be called out.
  There are a lot of papers here, Mr. Speaker, because I am looking at 
this debate that went on, and so I will not add to some of the 
accusations that were made in the debate going back and forth. I am 
simply going to conclude by asking, again, that it not ever be done 
again and asking that we respect the individual rights of Members to 
defend and represent their constituents and to offer vigorous debate, 
both consent and dissent, and as well the right to vigorously disagree 
on a legislative initiative. If we can hold to those tenets and the 
idea of the Constitution, which I hold very dear, which I will read 
briefly into the record, ``the sacred rights of mankind'', a statement 
by Alexander Hamilton, 1775, ``are not to be rummaged for among old 
parchments or musty records. They are written as with a sunbeam on the 
whole volume of human nature by the hand of the divinity itself and can 
never be erased or obscured by mortal power.''
  Of course, this is high language to talk about the rights bestowed 
upon mankind, humankind, that they are not found in paper. And this 
quote is correct.
  But one thing is right as well, Mr. Speaker, is that although all is 
not said and done on the written word, it certainly is a parallel to 
our rights, because we look to a written document for our rights. We 
look to the written word. We look to the Madison papers to determine 
our rights. And therefore, the written word is extremely important.
  We have had our say on this, and I hope that it has been a deliberate 
statement. We will do work in the Judiciary Committee in the coming 
days and weeks and months. We will have many opportunities to 
vigorously disagree.
  I might say, Mr. Speaker, we have had many opportunities to agree. 
And I expect that we will find common ground throughout the days and 
weeks and months, Democrats and Republicans, around issues of 
importance to the Nation. But when we use this document to exercise our 
job and to debate vigorously and disagree, we should not be cited for 
what we have said about a bill, or punished because we have said 
something about a bill that others would not agree with.
  Our final act will hopefully be one that is respectful of this House 
and of this place. To the Judiciary Committee Members as we gather on a 
daily basis, weekly basis, I believe they will all agree that we have 
the right to disagree and to debate vigorously in the committee, in the 
Rules Committee and on this floor.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, I close by saying I hope never again, never 
again.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to raise a point of personal privilege under rule 
IX, clause 1 of the House Rules. This point, as did the point raised by 
my colleague on the Judiciary Committee from New York, Mr. Nadler, 
relates to the malreporting by the Republican Leadership of the 
Committee on the Judiciary with respect to H.R. 748, the Child 
Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005.
  While I appreciate the efforts of the Chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee for having filed a supplemental report (part 2 of House 
Report 109-51), I must raise this point of personal privilege 
nonetheless in order to emphasize the fact that the accuracy and the 
veracity of House committee reports carries tremendous weight and 
implications for the reputation, professional record, and personal life 
of Members of Congress.
  Again, while the supplemental report to 109-51 makes some corrections 
to the mistakes made in Part 1, the report still contains an inaccurate 
representation of the amendments that I, Representative Sheila Jackson 
Lee, offered in committee on April 13, 2005 in room 2141 of Rayburn. I 
offered two amendments en bloc that read as such:
  Amendment No. 1, designated as DL-005,

       Page 3, after line 2, insert the following:
       ``(3) The prohibitions of this section do not apply with 
     respect to conduct by clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or 
     first cousins.''


[[Page 9098]]


  Amendment No. 2, designated as DL-006,

       Add at the end the following:

     SEC. 4. STUDY BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE.

       The General Accounting Office shall conduct a study 
     detailing 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 
     1 year of the enactment of this Act.

  Again, while I offered these amendments en bloc, they were separate 
and distinct amendments. The Supplemental Report, page 2 states that:

       Ms. Jackson Lee offered an amendment that would have 
     exempted from the Act any clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, 
     or first cousins, and would require a study by the Government 
     Accounting Office (emphasis added). This combination of the 
     two distinct amendments give an inaccurate representation of 
     the amendments that I offered during Committee and therefore, 
     muddled the import of the very substantive amendment on which 
     I joined my colleagues during our debate of the bill on the 
     Floor on April 27, 2005.

  I would like to cite the insightful and sagacious words of my 
colleague, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules 
on April 27, 2005 on this matter:

       There is no question that we can debate and disagree over 
     the impact the bill can have. We can argue 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.

  As my colleague stated, the amendments ``instruct the American people 
as to what the original intent . . . was.'' It took a resolution of 
privilege introduced by the Ranking Member John Conyers, a point of 
personal privilege, and a wealth of time and debate before the 
Committee on Rules to move the leadership of the Committee on Rules to 
even tender an action to redress the problem. The lack of accuracy in 
the supplemental report just underscores and reiterates the initial 
mal-intent to commit a malfeasance.
  Under rule IX, paragraph (1) of the House Rules, Mr. Nadler 
justifiably asserted his point because not only his but my ``rights and 
reputation'' have been offended by the conduct of the Chairman in 
publishing House Report 109-51. To reiterate, the language used in 
pages 45-49 patently malreported and maligned the authors of amendments 
to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005.
  On May 3, 2005, the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary 
led debate on his resolution of privilege, H. Res. 253 that concerned 
the ways in which the act of the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
negatively affected the ``rights of the House collectively, its safety, 
dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings.''
  So too, was this resolution properly and justifiably introduced 
because, in that 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 still 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.
  The American people must be made aware that we, the authors of the 
amendments on pages 45-49 of House Report 109-51 do not associate 
ourselves with the misreported portions thereof.
  House Report 109-51 not only improperly made negative inferences as 
to the import and intent of my amendments, and the supplemental report 
still combines 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.

                [From the U.S. Fed News, Apr. 26, 2005]

                 House Republicans: Arrogance Unchecked

       Washington, DC.--Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, D-NY (28th CD), 
     issued the following statement:
       Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-NY-28), Ranking Member of the 
     House Committee on Rules, delivered the attached statement on 
     the House Floor this morning regarding the gross abuse of 
     power by Chairman James Sensenbrenner and the Majority on the 
     Judiciary Committee this week.
       Chairman Sensenbrenner and his staff rewrote the captions 
     of five Democratic Amendments to distort their meaning and 
     intent in the Judiciary Committee Report on H.R. 748. The 
     goal of the distortion was to clearly suggest that the 
     amendments were written to protect the rights of sexual 
     predators, which is absolutely false.
       Rep. Slaughter stated during her floor speech, ``. . . 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 as being apologists 
     for sexual predators themselves. That is in effect what the 
     Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has done here . . .''
       The ``Sensenbrenner Standard'' is a Clear Abuse of Power.
       Chairman Sensenbrenner maintains that he was justified in 
     changing the captions, because the language of the amendments 
     did not expressly provide exceptions for grandmothers and 
     grandfathers who also happen to be sexual predators. But the 
     ridiculousness of this argument is easily apparent.
       The amendments didn't have language that expressly included 
     the possibility that the grandparents may be terrorists 
     either, but that doesn't mean it is not still illegal to be a 
     terrorist. In fact, there are an infinite number of possible 
     exceptions that would have to be expressly addressed in every 
     single amendment or bill offered if this new standard were 
     properly utilized. This is called the ``Sensenbrenner 
     Standard.''
       For example, the tax cuts which passed this last Congress 
     do not include specific exceptions for sexual predators. If 
     the ``Sensenbrenner standard were properly applied, it should 
     be renamed the ``Sexual Predator Tax Relief Act''.
       Likewise, the Small Business Bill of Rights, which the 
     House is considering today, would be renamed the ``Sexual 
     Predator Bill of Rights,'' as there are, no doubt, sexual 
     predators who own small businesses in America which are not 
     specifically excluded in this legislation.
       ``For Republicans to deem it their right to falsify and 
     distort the work of other Members of Congress is the height 
     of arrogance and another abuse of power,'' states 
     Congresswoman Slaughter. She added ``The Sensenbrenner 
     Standard is a dishonest and offensive Republican tactic that 
     further damages the waning credibility of this government. 
     Mr. Sensenbrenner and the Republican leadership of this body 
     owe an apology to the Democratic Members of Congress whom 
     they have maligned.''
       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 following chart demonstrates how Judiciary Committee 
     Republicans blatantly mischaracterized these amendments in 
     their official committee report on the bill. This is in a 
     public document containing the legislative history of this 
     bill:
       Description of Amendment: (1) 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. (no 11-16)
       Amendment description in House Report 109-51: Roll Call 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 
     roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was 
     defeated.
       Description of amendment: (2) A Nadler amendment to exempt 
     a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and civil 
     provisions in the bill (no 12-19)
       Amendment description in House Report 109-51: Roll Call 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 roll call 
     vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.
       Description of amendment: (3) A Scott amendment to exempt 
     cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business 
     transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the 
     bill (no 13-17)
       Amendment description in House Report 109-51: Roll Call 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

[[Page 9099]]

     business of professional transport. By a roll call vote of 13 
     yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was defeated.
       Description of amendment: (4) A Scott amendment that would 
     have limited criminal liability to the person committing the 
     offense in the first degree (no 12-18)
       Amendment description in House Report 109-51: Roll Call 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 roll 
     call vote of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated.
       Description of amendment: (5) A Jackson-Lee amendment to 
     exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins 
     from the penalties in the bill (no 13-20)
       Amendment description in House Report 109-51: Roll Call 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 roll call vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, 
     the amendment was defeated.
       Text of Rep. Slaughter's Floor Speech:
       ``. . . 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 I have never witnessed in my near 
     twenty years serving in this House.
       The Rules Committee discovered yesterday that the Judiciary 
     Committee Report on this very bill, which was authored by the 
     Majority Staff, contained amendment summaries which had been 
     rewritten by committee staff for the sole purpose of 
     distorting the original intent of the authors.
       This Committee Report took liberty to mischaracterize and 
     even falsify the intent of several amendments offered in 
     Committee by Democratic Members of this body.
       At least five amendments to this bill, which were designed 
     to protect the rights of family members and innocent 
     bystanders from prosecution under this bill, were rewritten 
     as amendments designed to protect sexual predators from 
     prosecution and were then included in the committee report as 
     if that was the original intent of the authors.
       The thing is, sexual predators were not mentioned anywhere 
     in any of these amendments.
       These amendments were no more about sexual predators then 
     they were about terrorists or arsonists or any other criminal 
     class in our society. These amendments were about the rights 
     of grandmothers and siblings and clergy and innocent 
     bystanders.
       I asked the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee about this 
     deception yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee hearing.
       And instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be 
     revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer . . . The 
     Chairman stood by those altered amendment descriptions. He 
     made very clear to the Rules Committee that the alterations 
     to these members' amendments were deliberate.
       When pressed as to why his committee staff took such an 
     unprecedented action, the Chairman immediately offered up his 
     own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to 
     debate and oppose this unfortunate piece of legislation we 
     have before us today.
       In fact . . . He said, and I quote . . . ``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 as being an 
     apologist for sexual predators themselves.
       That is in effect what the Chairman of the Judiciary 
     Committee has done here, with all deliberation.
       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.
       This is a new low for this chamber Mr. Speaker.
       This is a clearly dishonest, unethical attack on the 
     credibility and character of another member. And sadly, it is 
     just the latest in a pattern of unethical and abusive tactics 
     employed by this Majority.
       How incredibly arrogant is this majority . . . 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 politicized 
     interpretation of another member's work upon this body and 
     upon the American people, in an official committee report?
       The Majority's actions are not only an affront to all 
     members of this house, but they are also an affront to the 
     American people.
       There is no question that we can debate and disagree over 
     the impact a bill will have.
       We can argue over how well it has been written or what 
     language it should include to be more effective. But 
     regardless of how that debate turns out, the caption on the 
     top of that bill or amendment serves to instruct the American 
     people as to what original intent of that legislation was.
       It serves as an unbiased reading on what that amendment 
     aims to accomplish.
       To falsify and rewrite that description as a political 
     attack, is not only unprecedented, it is fundamentally 
     dishonest and it is an abuse of the power given to the 
     Majority by the American people.
       And I have no doubts Mr. Speaker, no doubts, that unless 
     the Congressional Record is amended to reflect the true 
     captions of these amendments, then we will surely see these 
     erroneous captions again in the form of campaign attack mail 
     pieces.
       In fact, when we pressed last night in the Rules Committee 
     to have the record amended to reflect the honest and accurate 
     captions that belong on those 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 which were designed to protect sexual 
     predators, when nothing, nothing could be further from the 
     truth.
       Mr. Speaker, I have often heard the Chairman of the Rules 
     Committee as well as other Republicans talk about the loss of 
     civility in this chamber.
       But perhaps they will be the last to realize, that in order 
     to regain some of that lost civility, they need look no 
     further than their own abusive, unethical and arrogant 
     administration of this House of Representatives.''
       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 Republicans blatantly 
     mischaracterized these amendments in their official committee 
     report on the bill. This is in a public document containing 
     the legislative history of this bill.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Amendment description in House
        Description of amendment                  Report 109-51
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) a Nadler amendment allows an adult   Rollcall No. 1. Mr. Nadler
 who could be prosecuted under the bill   offered an amendment that
 to go to a Federal district court and    would have created an
 seek a waiver to the state's parental    additional layer of Federal
 notice laws if this remedy is not        court review that could be
 available in the state court (no 11-     used by sexual predators to
 16).                                     escape conviction under the
                                          bill. By a rollcall vote of 11
                                          yeas to 16 nays, the amendment
                                          was defeated.
(2) a Nadler amendment to exempt a       Rollcall No. 2. Mr. Nadler
 grandparent or adult sibling from the    offered an amendment that
 criminal and civil provisions in the     would have exempted sexual
 bill (no 12-19).                         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.
(3) a Scott amendment to exempt cab      Rollcall No. 3. Mr. Scott
 drivers, bus drivers and others in the   offered an amendment that
 business transportation profession       would have exempted sexual
 from the criminal provisions in the      predators from prosecution if
 bill (no 13-17).                         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.
(4) a Scott amendment that would have    Rollcall No. 4. Mr. Scott
 limited criminal liability to the        offered an amendment that
 person committing the offense in the     would have exempted from
 first degree (no 12-18).                 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
(5) a Jackson-Lee amendment to exempt    Rollcall No. 5. Ms. Jackson-Lee
 clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or     offered an amendment that
 first cousins from the penalties in      would have exempted sexual
 the bill (no 13-20).                     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
                                          Accountability Office. By a
                                          rollcall vote of 13 yeas to 20
                                          nays, the amendment was
                                          defeated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Jackson-Lee, for her courage in bringing this personal privilege before 
the House.
  The very fact that this Member has been mistreated should cause all 
of us deep concern. It is wrong and unacceptable.
  The fact that a report is being supplemented by the Chairman with 
significant and startling changes attests to the fact that the Majority 
knew that the original report was wrongly and inappropriately filed. 
But that does not resolve the matter--an apology is owed to Ms. 
Jackson-Lee by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  I know that the distinguished Chairman, for whom I have great 
respect, would like to call it a drafting dispute or return to a 
discussion on the merits of the bill.
  In fact, I would think that the Chairman of the Judiciary would be 
sensitive to the treatment of committee reports and would share my view 
that committee reports should not be

[[Page 9100]]

misused to hurt a Member, given that the distinguished Chairman was the 
cosponsor of a resolution in 1983 regarding the alteration of committee 
reports, a matter of seriousness that was ultimately investigated by 
the Ethics Committee.
  This issue is about fundamental respect for our democracy, for the 
dignity of the House, and for the integrity of the proceedings of this 
body. It is about how we treat each other, and it is about trust and 
the betrayal of that trust.
  The bounds of trust that we need to function in this Body are 
weakened even further by this sorry and disgusting chapter. What the 
leadership of the Committee on the Judiciary did is just another 
extension of the abuse of power of the Republican majority in both 
Chambers of the Congress of the United States.
  What they are doing with the filibuster in the other body is to try 
to silence the Minority and break the rules. They are using any means 
to justify their partisan agenda to the far right, even if it violates 
the rules, the Constitution, and fundamental decency and trust.
  Here in the House, there is an attempt to disregard the rules that 
protect us all, corrupt the integrity of our proceedings, and demean 
not only the dignity of this House, but going so far as to demean 
individual Members.
  There is an attempt to limit the voice of the Minority, reducing the 
opportunity for Members to speak on the floor, and offer substitutes 
and amendments.
  Comity and trust between the Majority and the Minority are essential 
and must be encouraged. That is why the Republican Leadership has an 
obligation to come here right now on the floor and disavow this 
disgraceful behavior.
  There is no need for this kind of misbehavior and abuse by the 
Majority. We should follow the rules of this House and treat each other 
with the proper respect.
  To preserve the trust that the American people place in us, the 
Republican leadership in this House must pledge that this travesty will 
never happen again.

                          ____________________