To redesignate the Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia as the Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge.

Mr. Speaker, I am outraged by the incident that the last speaker mentioned. I do not know why there seems to be the ignoring of the obvious. The amendments that Democrats offered in the committee had nothing to do with their compassion and lack thereof. In fact, it was to enhance and give a broader opportunity for a tragedy that occurred like that, which is really people with no feelings and no heart. Those are not relatives of that young woman. That was not her parent. That was almost a criminal act. That has nothing to do with the point that the Democrats were trying to make, which is give the opportunity for a greater latitude of those who can counsel and comfort this young woman.

I do not know where the parent was in this instance, but maybe if a grandparent or a godparent was there or a clergy was there, this terrible tragedy that occurred with people who were not her relatives might have been avoided.

So this distorted debate on the floor of the House mischaracterizes many of those who raise these very issues in the Committee on the Judiciary.

So I not only stand outraged for the tragedy that was just articulated by the previous speaker, a child forced to get on abortion, on the floor by the other side of the aisle, but I am equally outraged at the misconstruing of the amendment offered in the Judiciary Committee suggesting that they exempted child predators. The process that the Committee on the Judiciary Committee has used, and my friends on the other side of the aisle have used deserve absolute disregard, and that is to distort, misquote, ``miswrite'', abuse and mischaracterize the amendments that were offered by a number of members of the Committee on the Judiciary. Mine happened to be one. We did not offer amendments to protect child predator rather our amendments offered a safety net to that minor child.

I thank the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); I thank the ranking member, not only for her passion but also her articulation of the long-standing damage. We are Americans, too, and we are also human beings. The Republican staff well knows that somebody somewhere, and forget about an election, but people who you go home to your district, to be able to hold this document up and say that Sheila Jackson-Lee deals with child predators, how dare you do that. It is an outrage. The only issue my amendment dealt with was to give the minor child more protection.

The only thing that I think is appropriate is for the chairman of the full committee to exercise some sort of comity and collegiality to remove this abusive language.

First of all, the specifics of my amendment says that I offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill. My amendment dealt specifically with allowing clergy, godparents, aunts and uncles or first cousins, minimally speaking; and then I offered a GAO study. The description in the report language also says I have a GAO study dealing with clergy and godparents. This is an abuse of power and incorrect. And I know this is inside the ballpark, but it also says if you have the votes for this legislation, win fair and square. Do not win by maligning colleagues and defeating the purpose of the rules of this House. Vote this rule down.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the restrictive H. Res. 236, the rule governing the debate over H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005--legislation that has come to the Congress before for consideration but that did not pass because of its overwhelming contentious nature. Today is no different.

I thank my Democrat colleagues of the Committee on Rules for their efforts to move this House to bring decorum and professionalism to the committee process. The report as to amendments offered by Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, and me was materially inaccurate to the point of being offensive.

My amendment, in particular, made no mention of sexual predators. One can infer virtually anything about amendments until they are taken into context. In fact, one can infer a myriad of negative things from what is not included in the base legislation. The report was, frankly, ludicrous as to this matter. We must take it upon ourselves to accurately interpret our colleagues' amendments; lest we turn ourselves into a body of mud-slinging, vindictive individuals.

As Chair of the Children's Caucus, the report has risen to an inflammatory inference that must be corrected because justice requires it. However, one thing about this debate is different. The manner in which our committee colleagues have elected to report out the amendments that were offered by Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, and me has morphed from the simple reiteration of the precise idea of the amendment two years ago when we last debated this to an abomination that insinuates that our amendments would protect sexual predators. As my colleague and partner in offering the amendment I will present today stated before the Committee on Rules, our committee colleagues have behaved in an unfair manner and have made a clear partisan attack when the lives of minor females are at stake.

H. Res. 236, while ruling the amendments of Mr. Scott and of Mr. Nadler and me in order, unreasonably restricts the debate on the highly controversial base bill. The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), while good in its intention, was written with several areas of vagueness, overly punitive nature, and constitutional violations that very much deserve debate in order to save lives and to obviate the need for piles upon piles of legal pleadings.

The mandatory parental-involvement laws already create a draconian framework under which a young woman loses many of her civil rights. My state, Texas, is one of 23 states (AL, AZ, AR, GA, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, ND, PA, RI, SD, TN, UT, TX, VA, WY) that follows old provisions of the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' which make it a federal crime for an adult to accompany a minor across state lines for abortion services if a woman comes from a state with a strict parental- involvement mandate. There are 10 states (CO, DE, lA, ME, MD, NC, OH, SC, WI, WV) that are ``non-compliant,'' or require some parental notice but other adults may be notified, may give consent, or the requirement may be waived by a health care provider in lieu of the parental consent. Finally, there are 17 states (AK, CA, CT, DC, FL, ID, IL, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OK, OR, VT, WA) that have no law restricting a woman's access to abortion in this case. The base bill, if passed, would take away the States' rights to make their own determination as to legislating the abortion issue for minors with respect to parental notification.

My amendment to the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, would change the prohibitions to exempt grandparents of the minor or clergy persons. This must be done because some minors want the counsel of a responsible adult, and are unable to turn to their parents. In Idaho, a 13-year-old girl named Spring Adams was shot to death by her father after he learned that she planned to terminate a pregnancy caused by his acts of incest. This is an exact situation where the help of a grandparent or clergy would have been more helpful. Spring Adams may still be with us

today if she could have found someone more compassionate and caring to confide in.

H.R. 748, as drafted, will not improve family communication or help young women facing crisis pregnancies. We all hope that loving parents will be involved when their daughter faces a crisis pregnancy. Every parent hopes that a child confronting a crisis will seek the advice and counsel of those who care for her most and know her best. In fact, even in the absence of laws mandating parental involvement, many young women do turn to their parents when they are considering an abortion. One study found that 61 percent of parents in states without mandatory parental consent or notice laws knew of their daughter's pregnancy.

Unfortunately, some young women cannot involve their parents because they come from homes where physical violence or emotional abuse is prevalent or because their pregnancies are the result of incest. In these situations, the government cannot force healthy family communication where it does not already exist--and attempts to do so can have tragic consequences for some girls.

Major medical associations--including the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American Public Health Association--all have longstanding policies opposing mandatory parental-involvement laws because of the dangers they pose to young women and the need for confidential access to physicians. These physicians see young ladies on a daily basis and hear their stories. They would not protest this law unless they felt there were severe stakes.

CIANA criminalizes caring adults--including grandparents of the minor, who attempt to assist young women facing crisis pregnancies. In one study, 93 percent of minors who did not involve a parent in their decision to obtain an abortion were still accompanied by someone to the doctor's office. If CIANA becomes law, a person could be prosecuted for accompanying a minor to a neighboring state, even if that person does not intend, or even know, that the parental-involvement law of the state of residence has not been followed. Although legal abortion is very safe, it is typically advisable to accompany any patient undergoing even minor surgery. Without the Jackson Lee-Nadler Amendment, a grandmother could be subject to criminal charges for accompanying her granddaughter to an out-of-state facility--even if the facility was the closest to the young woman's home and they were not attempting to evade a parental involvement law.

In a statement given by Dr. Warren Seigel, a member of the Physician for Reproductive Choice and Health, to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, he says, ``I recognize that parents ideally should be--and usually are--involved in health decisions regarding their children. However, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act does nothing to promote such communication. Instead, CIANA places incredible burdens on both young women and physicians; infringes on the rights of adolescents to health care that does not violate their safety and health; makes caring family, friends and doctors criminals; and could be detrimental to the health and emotional well-being of all patients.''

Although this legislation is supposedly aimed at increasing parent- child communication, the government cannot mandate healthy families and, indeed, it is dangerous to attempt to do so. Research has shown that the overwhelming majority of adolescents already tell their parents before receiving an abortion. In fact, the younger the woman is, the more likely she is to tell her parent. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a national medical organization representing the 60,000 physician leaders in pediatric medicine--of which I am a member and leader--has adopted the following statement regarding mandatory parental notification:

Adolescents should be strongly encouraged to involve their

parents and other trusted adults in decisions regarding

pregnancy termination, and the majority of them voluntarily

do so. Legislation mandating parental involvement does not

achieve the intended benefit of promoting family

communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the

adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care.

It is important to consider why some young women cannot inform their parents. The threat of physical or emotional abuse upon disclosure of the pregnancy to their parents or a pregnancy that is the result of incest make it impossible for these adolescents to inform their parents. My amendment would allow other trusted adults to be a part of this process. Support the Jackson Lee-Nadler amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, it provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of an amendment.

It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution; it provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report; may be offered only by a Member designated in the report; shall be considered as read; shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; it shall not be subject to an amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question in the House or in the committee of the whole. It waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report, and it provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for her dedication and leadership, not only on this bill, but also on all matters concerning the well-being and defense of our children. She truly has made this fight her own and I would like to applaud her for her hard work.

Mr. Speaker, I fear that the opponents of this bill will demagogue it as an assault on a woman's right to choose, but this bill has absolutely nothing, let me repeat, nothing to do with a woman's right to choose. Rather, this bill ensures that no minor is deprived of any protection according to not only her but also her parents under the laws of her State.

H.R. 748 is a commonsense bill that will prohibit the transportation of a minor across the State line to obtain an abortion when the child's home State requires parental consent. This bill makes an exception in those extremely rare cases in which the abortion is medically necessary to save the life of the minor. Also, this bill makes another exception allowing for judicial bypass.

This bill also affirms the responsibility of a physician prior to performing an abortion on a minor from another State to make sure that they are acting in accordance with the laws of her State.

Having practiced as an OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I am uniquely qualified to discuss the medical and legal obligations of a physician to his or her patient. And this law not only ensures the protection of minors but it also clarifies the responsibility of the physician to make sure that he or she is not inappropriately performing an abortion on a minor without the legally mandated consent of her parents.

This bill also affirms the principles of federalism and it prevents the circumvention and violation of laws passed by State legislatures. Over 30 States have passed parental notification laws, Mr. Speaker. In fact, in my home State of Georgia, the legislature just recently passed a new abortion notification law in an overwhelming and bipartisan fashion, and this Congress has the responsibility to defend that federalism and the integrity of State laws in interstate matters.

Mr. Speaker, while I can address this issue both as a Member of Congress and as a medical physician who has delivered a lot of precious infants, I can also talk about this issue as a father. My wife and I had four children. Three of them are now grown women and two of them have children of their own. However, I knew that when they were still young children, minors, I not only had a moral obligation that I proudly still bear to this day, but also a legal obligation to defend them and their well-being against any and every potential and imminent danger.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation recognizes this fundamental bond between parents and child and it recognizes the obligation of a parent to be involved and to assist in making important decisions affecting both the life and the health of a minor. Children cannot even be given aspirin at school without their parents' permission, so I cannot comprehend how anyone could possibly justify that administering an abortion is less traumatic or potentially dangerous than taking an aspirin. Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the opponents of this bill are saying through their opposition to H.R. 748.

During this debate, I encourage my colleagues to remain focused on the matter at hand and remember that this legislation seeks to uphold the legislatively guaranteed rights of parents and their minor children. Let us not allow this debate to be bogged down with the same tired rhetoric about a woman's right to choose.

I ask my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill for final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to address some of the concerns articulated by my colleague on the Committee on Rules. The other side of the aisle has been concerned about how some of the amendments they offered during the Committee on the Judiciary markup have been characterized in the committee report.

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of intent versus effect. During the Committee on the Judiciary markup, there were several amendments offered that would have exempted certain individuals from prosecution under this bill. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that they did not intend for sexual predators to be exempt from prosecution. I believe them. I would hope it will never be the intent of anyone in this body to in any way inadvertently or otherwise assist in doing harm to a child to offer protection to those who would.

But, Mr. Speaker, this is where the effect of the amendments come to bear. The effect of the amendments would have been to exempt individual classes of people from prosecution. If a case arose where the sexual predator qualified under one of these classes of individuals, that person could not be prosecuted under this bill. This effect is simply unacceptable.

The minority side argues that their intent, not the effect, should be the language used in the report submitted by the Committee on the Judiciary. However, it is the responsibility, in fact it is the charged duty, of the Committee on the Judiciary chairman to write and file the report. It is the prerogative of the chairman to write the report as he sees fit.

On the other side, the minority has ample opportunity to take up any issue they choose in the dissenting views of the report. In this instance, the dissenting views of the minority are found on pages 121 to 133 of House Report 109-51.

If the minority wants their interpretation of the intent or even effect of an amendment to be in the report, it is wholly appropriate for them to articulate those views in their dissenting views. In fact, this is just exactly what they did.

So on the one hand, we have the chairman stating his understanding of the effect of these amendments; and on the other hand, we have the minority stating their intent. Both the minority and majority positions are stated clearly in the committee report.

It seems to me that both the majority and minority used the committee

report to fairly and appropriately state their views. No one was shut out from the opportunity to voice an opinion in this committee report.

Mr. Speaker, I believe both sides of the aisle used the committee report to discuss their efforts on this legislation, and we should not cloud the merit of this legislation because the other side does not like how the effect of their amendments was characterized.

Mr. Speaker, for further clarification, I would like to yield for as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York had said that the issue of sexual abuse never came up in the committee hearing. If you look at page 84.

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected in regard to his amendments, but in regard to a number of these other amendments, let me quote from the committee report on page 84. This is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) speaking. ``This amendment would allow abusers potentially to get off scot-free and doom the victims of sexual abuse to even more abuse. If the girl is afraid to tell her parents of the abortion for fear of past or future sexual abuse, she may utilize the judicial bypass process which is available in her State.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would again emphasize the importance of this bill as a safeguard of parental rights and protection for minors.

As I listened to the opposition on the other side, I cannot help but notice how they remain unwilling to honestly address and debate this bill. H.R. 748 is a clear example of consensus legislation upon which most Americans agree. According to a recent poll by the New York Times, almost 80 percent of Americans favor parental notification law, and yet these laws are currently circumvented and violated through the interstate transportation of minors. Allowing our children to be carted across State lines by nonguardians to get an abortion is absolutely immoral and fundamentally wrong.

With over 30 States requiring some type of parental notification, Congress cannot turn a blind eye to those who would violate the law and endanger our children.

Mr. Speaker, this Congress has an obligation and absolute moral duty to parents and their children alike to make sure that these State laws are upheld so that nonguardians do not make medical decisions for our children. Parents and children deserve better, Mr. Speaker, and this bill will ensure that they get the care and consideration that they need.

Again I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen), the sponsor of the bill, and all my colleagues who support this bill. I encourage each and every Member to think long and hard about this matter, to put rhetoric aside and to listen to their conscience.

Mr. Speaker, I further ask and encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, after being brought to task by the American people for meddling in the personal and private life decisions of an American family during the Schiavo tragedy, you would think that the majority in this Congress would have learned. You would think that they would have learned that the people of the country do not want the government intruding into the lives of American families; but they have not learned, Mr. Speaker, because here we go again.

This bill is another invasion into the private lives of American families making the decisions for themselves, and it is an invasion into the legal rights afforded all women in this country. I am talking about the legal right for women to choose, which is protected by the Constitution of the United States.

We have a duty in this body to consider legislation which will maximize our freedom and equality, values which are the very fabric of our society. Our job here is to protect the legal rights of those we serve and not to take them away, and I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

A report was just recently released that shows that there are more Americans incarcerated than in any other country in the United States. This bill will add Granny and Granddad and the clergy and an occasional cab driver, this is how far this bill goes; but I want to talk for a minute about another abuse which has occurred in this Chamber, a personal affront to three of our colleagues.

The Committee on Rules discovered yesterday that the Committee on the Judiciary report on this very bill, which was offered by the majority staff, contained amendment summaries which had been rewritten by the committee staff for the sole purpose of distorting the intent of the authors.

This committee report took the liberty to mischaracterize and to falsify the intent of several amendments offered in committee by Democrat Members of this body.

At least five amendments of this bill which were designed to protect the rights of family members and innocent bystanders from prosecution under the bill were rewritten as amendments designed instead to protect sexual predators from prosecution and were then included in the committee report as if that was the actual intent of the amendment.

No Member of Congress on either side of the aisle would do such a despicable thing as attempt to protect sexual predators, and these amendments were no more about sexual predators than they were about terrorists or arsonists or any other criminal class in our society. No one was attempting to protect them.

Indeed, what they were trying to do was produce amendments which apparently the fact of writing an amendment was offensive. The amendments were about the rights of the grandmothers and siblings and clergy and the cab drivers, and I asked the chairman of the committee about this deception yesterday at the Committee on Rules hearing.

Instead of decrying what I certainly expected would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer, the chairman stood by the authored amendment descriptions, to my great surprise. I have known the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) since I first arrived in Congress, and I did not believe that he would allow such a thing to happen and particularly not in the Committee on the Judiciary, but he made it very clear to us that the alterations to the Members' amendments were deliberate.

When pressed as to why his committee staff took such unprecedented action, the chairman immediately offered up his own anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen to debate and oppose the unfortunate piece of legislation we have before us today. In fact, he said, ``You don't like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't like what you said about our bill.''

To falsely rewrite the intent of an amendment submitted by another Member, to intentionally distort its description as being designed to protect sexual predators is no different than accusing a fellow Member of Congress of being an apologist for sexual predators themselves.

That is, in effect, what the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has done here, and he has ensured that these amendment descriptions will be encapsulated in the Record for all time by including those unfair and incorrect amendment summaries in the committee report. He has mischaracterized these Members forever.

This is a new low for this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. This is a clearly dishonest and unethical attack on the credibility and character of other Members; and sadly, it is just the latest in a pattern of unethical and abusive tactics employed by this majority.

How incredibly arrogant it is that they believe they have the right to tamper with official congressional documents for their own political purposes. How unbelievably arrogant is the leadership of this Congress that they would force their own political interpretation of another Member's work upon this body and upon American people in perpetuity in an official committee report.

The majority's actions are not only an affront to the Members in the House but an affront to the American people.

There is no question that we can debate and disagree over the impact the bill can have. We can argue over how well it has been written or what language it should include to be more effective; but regardless of the way the debate turns out, the caption on the top of that bill or amendment serves to instruct the American people as to what the original intent of the legislation was.

It serves as an unbiased reading on what the amendment aims to accomplish. To falsify and rewrite that description as a political attack is not only unprecedented; it is fundamentally dishonest and an abuse of the power given to the majority by the American people and their votes.

I have no doubts, Mr. Speaker, no doubts that unless this Congressional Record is amended to reflect the true captions of these amendments, we will see these erroneous captions again in the form of campaign attack mail pieces. In fact, when pressed last night in the Committee on Rules to have the record amended to reflect the honest and accurate captions that belong on the amendments, we were defeated on a party-line vote.

So now, these honorable and hardworking Members of Congress will be forever branded in the official record as having offered amendments designed to protect sexual predators when nothing, nothing could be further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, I have often heard the chairman of the Committee on Rules, as well as other Members of the leadership, talk about the loss of civility in this Chamber. How can we be civil under this attack? Is this a disguised attack to say to the Democrat Members of the House, if you have the effrontery to offer an amendment on a bill of ours, we will destroy you in the committee report? Have they reached that low?

Perhaps they have; but if we are going to regain lost civility, they do not need to look any further than the abusive, unethical, and arrogant administration of this House of Representatives and this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), one of those maligned.

Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who was also maligned in the report.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a Member maligned in the report.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

(Ms. WATERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman).

(Ms. HARMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the reports.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First let me say that, once again, the Congress of the United States is beginning to meddle in the affairs of the American public. They tried to tell us in the Schiavo case that they did not care for it, but undeterred by that, Congress is coming back again to make decisions for the American family.

In 19 years in the House of Representatives, I have heard of no single case of any problem that this bill would attach to, and try as I might, I can find that there is no great epidemic or any outbreak of this sort of thing, of coercing young women against their will, or for any other reason; and to occupy this kind of time in Congress is appalling to me.

But I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that I can modify the rule to require that the Committee on the Judiciary file a supplemental report to clarify the descriptions of the five Democrat amendments that were so grossly mischaracterized in the original Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R. 748. I attempted to add this language in the Committee on Rules last night, but it was defeated on a party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, when an amendment to protect grandparents and adult siblings from being called criminals simply for helping a young granddaughter's sister is twisted beyond the pale and labled pro-sexual offender, something is terribly wrong. And when it is included in an official committee report and historic document, it is even worse. We are offended by this kind of character assassination.

I cannot stress enough the importance of a ``no'' vote on the previous question to correct this injustice. A ``no'' vote will not keep us from discussing the underlying bill but will simply correct what is a gross miscarriage of justice that has never happened before.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment, along with the descriptions of the five amendments, be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, again I ask a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to keep my temper when I listen to the sophistry of the distinguished, and I use that word advisedly because of protocol only, Chairman.

First of all, it is not true that the minority had a chance to see these comments. The distinguished chairman is very well aware that we do not see the majority views of the committee until after we hand in the minority views of the committee, the dissenting views, until in fact they are published. The majority sees the dissenting views. We never see the majority views. We have no opportunity to reply, number one.

Number two. The distinguished chairman says, and the other gentleman said that the question is intent versus effect; that it may have been my intent to deal with grandparents and clergy members, but in fact it might have led to a sexual predator being able to take advantage of the amendment. That would be fair comment in a debate. That would be fair comment in the body of the views, if they said in the majority views we oppose this amendment because under certain circumstances it might be used to the advantage of a sexual predator. And to that we could reply and say, no, they are wrong because, in the minority views. But that is not what we are discussing. We are not discussing an exchange of views. We are discussing how the amendment is reported in a one-sentence summary of the amendment without any views.

The amendment, and here the report simply lies about all five Democratic amendments. In reporting the amendment, the first amendment, which reads in its entirety, the actual text of the amendment offered by me was: ``The prohibition of subsection 8 does not apply with respect to conduct by a grandparent or adult sibling of the minor.''

In the 107th Congress House Judiciary Report on the same amendment it was reported as follows: ``An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler prohibiting H.R. 476 from applying with respect to conduct by a grandparent or adult sibling of the minor.'' That is exactly right. In fact, that is how the amendment, which was made in order for the floor, was reported by the Committee on Rules.

What does this dishonest committee report say? ``Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor.'' I find it strange in the entire debate, and I give the chairman credit for including the transcript of the debate in the committee report, but if you actually turn to the debate and look at the transcript, no one raised the question of the application of this amendment to sexual predators. No member of the majority, no member of the minority. It did not occur to anybody.

Now, maybe it should have occurred to somebody. Maybe the views are valid that this amendment could be used that way. Maybe not. That is a matter of opinion. But that is not what this amendment says. What this amendment says is that these prohibitions shall not apply with respect to conduct by a grandparent or an adult sibling of the minor, period. That is the only honest way to report this amendment.

Second amendment. The second amendment which I offered said that where there is reason to believe that the judicial bypass system in a State is not real, that the local judges are bypassed or whatever, the person can go to Federal court and ask for a Federal judicial bypass. Now, you can agree or disagree with the implications of that amendment, but the proper description of that amendment is to provide a Federal judicial bypass where there is evidence that the local judicial bypass is not available.

It is described on page 45 of the committee report as: ``Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill.'' Now, it is a judicial bypass of getting an abortion. It has nothing to do with conviction, number one. Number two, this does not even mention judicial bypass. It is entirely dishonest. And, again, in the entire debate in the

committee over this amendment, nobody mentioned the word sexual predators. The first we hear of sexual predators in connection with these amendments is when we are told, when we see the committee report in print that I offered an amendment to protect sexual predators. How dishonest. How disingenuous of an argument that we hear on this floor and in the Committee on Rules last night that these are matters of opinion; that the amendments might be used.

You know, this bill, never mind the amendment, this bill has a provision in it that says that the parents of a minor transported across State lines to get an abortion can sue the person who transported them, can sue the doctor who performs an abortion. Okay, you can debate that provision on the merits, pro and con. But did you stop to think what if the father raped the daughter, committing incest in doing so? Two crimes, rape and incest, and caused the pregnancy that she is now trying to abort. Under this bill, he profits from his wrongdoing. He now, because he raped the daughter and caused the pregnancy, he can now because of this bill go and sue the doctor or the boyfriend or the clergyman or the grandmother who transported her to get the abortion.

Well, that is a defect in the bill. It was not drafted properly. I doubt that that was the intent. And maybe it was the intent, maybe it was not. We can debate that. Would it be fair for a news report or an official report of this Congress to call this entire bill the Rapists and Sexual Predators Right to Sue Act? That is what this bill is, it is the Sexual Predators Right to Sue Act. And if the Democrats were in the majority and the Committee on Rules reported a rule saying we will now consider the Sexual Predators Right to Sue Act, I think the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) would say that is a disgusting misuse of power.

This was a disgusting misuse of power. It is a rape of the rules of this House and it must be corrected.

I never said that. I said it did not come up with respect to my amendments.

Mr. Speaker, to show the egregious nature of the misconduct engaged in by the committee report, I have here the reports from the 107th Congress, the 106th Congress, and several other Congresses on these same amendments.

In the 107th Congress, an amendment was offered prohibiting H.R. 476 from applying with respect to conduct by a grandparent or adult sibling of a minor; 106th Congress, to exempt grandparents and adult siblings of the minor from the provisions of the bill; 106th Congress, four amendments were offered en bloc by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) to exempt ministers, rabbis, pastors, priests, other religious leaders from the provisions of the bill.

In no case in these prior Congresses was the slander and libel about sexual predators mentioned. That has changed for this Congress. It has changed because of a dishonest report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take issue with the characterizations that the distinguished gentlewoman from New York has made about the committee report and about my actions in two respects.

First of all, every committee report that is filed in the House of Representatives does allow the people who disagreed with the legislation to file dissenting views; and those who did support the legislation can file additional views, all of which are printed in the committee report.

The majority has the responsibility in the committee report to articulate the arguments in favor of the bill because the committee report represents the views of those who voted in favor of the legislation at the committee level.

The amendments that were offered and which are the text, or the description, at issue here in this debate today were all offered by members of the Committee on the Judiciary who oppose the bill. They were all defeated by a majority vote in the committee; and my committee, perhaps in a minority in the Congress, does print the entire text of our committee markups in committee reports. The text of the debate in the markup and the text of the amendments are contained in pages 58 through 120 of House Report 109-51 inclusive.

Now, what the gentlewoman from New York is complaining about is the majority's arguments in favor of the bill and against the amendments which were defeated. To attempt to have those who voted against the bill rewrite the arguments that are in favor of the bill contained in the committee report is just as wrong as those who voted in favor of the bill attempting to rewrite the dissenting views which are appended to the committee report and represent the views of those who voted against the bill.

Second point: it is against the rules of the House of Representatives to impugn the motives of another Member. So the intent of the authors of the amendments that were defeated in the committee and which were described in the committee report is out of bounds. It cannot be done on the floor. It cannot be done in committee reports. So all that can be done in terms of the debate is to look at what the effect of the amendments was.

Perhaps these amendments were not properly drafted by the authors when they were submitted in the committee because they did not contain a specific carve-out of the exemptions that were proposed for the various classes of people that were proposed to be exempted in the amendment. This is not the fault of the majority. That is the fault of the people who drafted the amendments; and because the amendments were not tightly enough drafted, they did not contain a carve-out of the exemptions for sexual predators. That is what we pointed out in the committee report.

It is not the fault of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary or me as chairman in filing this report to gloss over a defect that did allow exemptions for sexual predators. The minority has the chance in their dissenting views to dispute the conclusion that had been reached in describing what the amendments were. They chose not to do so.

So the committee report and the headers on the amendments accurately reflect the fact that those who authored the amendment did not choose to carve out an exemption for sexual predators in the effect of the amendment in the clear text of the amendment that was submitted.

I rest my case.