Honoring the contributions of Vietnamese Americans to American society over the past three decades.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

That is not my intent, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, his side has the right to close as the proponents of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would refer the gentleman to the statement made by the gentleman from

Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that is on the bottom of page 84 which talks about the potential of sexual predators.

Mr. Speaker, we have five speakers.

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, by a bipartisan vote of 270 to 157. One of the primary purposes of that common sense legislation is to prevent sexual abusers from taking vulnerable young girls across State lines for an abortion without telling the girl's parents.

At the Committee on the Judiciary markup on this bill, some Members offered amendments that would have created blanket exclusions from the criminal prohibitions in the legislation without any exceptions for those who would commit statutory rape or incest. The loopholes those amendments would have created could be exploited by the very sexual predators; that is, those who would exploit vulnerable young girls and commit statutory rape or incest whose conduct the bill is designed to bring to light. Those amendments were accurately described in the committee report. All of the amendments offered would have carved out exceptions that could be exploited by sexual predators who sought to destroy evidence of their crimes by secretly taking a minor without her parent's knowledge to another State to have an abortion.

The amendments offered by the minority would have created those blanket exclusions for certain large classes of people who are not a minor's parents. Those classes of people were ``taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport;'' ``clergy, Godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor;'' and ``grandparents or adult siblings.''

If any of the people described in the amendments offered became involved with a minor in a sexually abusive way, they would have been flatly excluded from the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748, one of the primary purposes of which is to prevent sexual predators from continuing to abuse minors undetected. That purpose is reviewed extensively in the committee report in an entire section entitled ``CIANA Protects Minor Girls From Sexual Assault.'' The amendments offered at the Committee on the Judiciary markup were directly contrary to a primary purpose of the legislation. If the proponents of this resolution only understood that preventing sexual abusers from continuing to abuse a minor girl without a parent's knowledge is a primary purpose of H.R. 748, they would understand why the descriptions of their amendments are what they are.

If an amendment were offered to a bill that would make it a Federal crime to commit terrorist acts and an offered amendment would exclude conduct by, for example, taxi drivers, then that amendment would allow a taxicab driver to commit terrorist acts without being prosecuted. That would be an accurate description of such an amendment. In the very same way, those who happen to drive taxi cabs or work in the business of professional transportation should not be free to commit statutory rape and transport a minor across State lines to get an abortion without telling one of the girl's parents. And brothers, uncles, or Godparents should not be allowed to commit incest and then transport a young girl across State lines to get an abortion so evidence of their crimes are destroyed without telling one of the girl's parents about the abortion. There is nothing inaccurate with describing amendments that would do just that in just that way.

The incidence of statutory rape in this country is shocking. As a recent presentation given at a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Conference on the Sexual Exploitation of Teens showed, of minor girls' first sexual experiences, 13 percent constitute statutory rape. Further, the younger a sexually experienced teen is, the more likely they are to experience statutory rape. Of sexually experienced teens age 13 or younger, 65 percent experienced statutory rape. Of those age 14, 53 percent experienced statutory rape. Of those age 15, 41 percent experienced statutory rape. And also, blacks and Hispanics are much more likely to experience statutory rape. Creating blanket exclusions in the bill for large categories of people would create a huge loophole in the legislation that statutory rapists could exploit.

Regarding family incest, one recent Law Review article summarized the research regarding the prevalence of sexual conduct among siblings as follows: ``Brother-sister sexual contact may be five times as common as father-daughter incest.'' A survey of 796 New England college students revealed that 15 percent of females had a sexual experience with a sibling. Further, among those reporting sexual abuse, the incidence of abuse by cousins ranges from 10 percent to 40 percent among various studies; and 4.9 percent of women report an incestuous experience with an uncle before age 18; and 16 percent of rape victims are raped by relatives other than their father.

Carving out exceptions to the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 for adult siblings, cousins, and uncles would not protect young girls who are made victims of incest by their adult siblings, cousins, or uncles.

Further, pregnancy as a result of all these crimes is all too common. As one Pennsylvania court has pointed out, ``25 percent of incest victims become pregnant. The ratio is greater among victims of incest than those of rape because incestuous conduct is usually

long-term and progressive, whereas rape is usually a one-time occurrence.''

Another amendment offered at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of H.R. 748 accurately described the amendment as ``creating an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill.'' That statement is true. That amendment would have created an opportunity for a sexual predator to escape conviction if they could make a showing to a Federal court that the judicial bypass provisions of the State law were somehow ineffective or somehow violated confidential information related to a minor's pregnancy.

If a sexual predator made a showing to the court of either of these issues, neither of which would expose the predator's crimes, then that sexual predator would completely evade the requirements of H.R. 748, which are designed to expose sexual predators and prevent future sexual abuse.

The final amendment offered was again accurately described in the committee report as an amendment that would have exempted from prosecution under the bill ``those who aid the criminals who could be prosecuted under the bill.'' That is true as well. That amendment would have excluded from the bill anyone who did not commit an offense in the first degree. The consequences of adopting that amendment would have been to allow anyone who aided or abetted a criminal who ran afoul of the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 to instead get off scot-free.

In sum, the effect of the amendments offered as described in the committee report would have been to exempt cab drivers, other professional transporters, and certain relatives who are not parents, from the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748, and that would have prevented the parents from knowing when those perpetrators of statutory rape or incest were secretly taking their children across State lines for an abortion to destroy evidence of their crimes.

Now, to be clear, all of the descriptions of the amendments in the committee report are descriptions of the amendments and not of the intent of anyone offering the amendments. These brief descriptions do not impugn the integrity or motivation of any Member offering the amendment; they simply describe the consequences, regardless of intention, of the amendments. The description of the amendments in the committee report were all phrased in the conditional; that is, they make it clear that the loopholes created by the amendments as written could be used by sexual abusers of vulnerable minors, and could be exploited by certain people if those people sexually abused vulnerable minors.

The text of the privileged resolution before us is patently false. The resolution states that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary ``Explained that it was his purpose and intention to include derogatory and inaccurate captions in House report 109-51.'' I have done nothing of the sort, of course, and that statement is entirely false, as I have explained already. The text of the resolution also claims that ``the Committee on the Judiciary purposefully and deliberately mischaracterized the votes'' at the Committee on the Judiciary markup. That too is false. Indeed, the tallies of the votes cast are accurately set out in simple table form in the committee report for all to see.

Further, the resolution contains no allegation whatsoever that any Rules of the House of Representatives were violated, even in spirit, because such is obviously not the case, even to the authors of the resolution.

Finally, I offered to amend the text of the descriptions of the amendments offered in the sections of the committee report entitled ``vote of the committee,'' provided that those who offered the amendments acknowledged that, due to the way they were drafted, they opened the bill up to the harmful consequences of allowing sexual predators to exploit the loopholes such amendments would create in the bill.

Instead of admitting the obvious, and having the committee report amended to their liking, and moving on, they refused to do that because, for some reason, they felt they could benefit from extending the debate on this issue.

The minority had ample time to include dissenting views in the committee report, and they did so. For example, the minority views state that the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act is ``overtly hostile to families.'' The minority views in the committee report also describe the legislation as ``antiphysician and antifamily.'' Further, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), over the years during which this bill has been debated, including this year, has gone so far as to claim that H.R. 748 is akin to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which required the return of slaves to their owners in other States.

As the committee report describes, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) stated, ``It seems to me what this bill is, is really akin to the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s where you are enabling one State in the south, which had slavery, to reach over into another State and say, we want our slave back.'' And that is at page 56 of the committee report. And, at the Committee on the Judiciary markup of H.R. 748 on April 13, 2005, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) stated, ``This bill is the only situation that I can think of since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s where we have a young person carry the law of one State on his back like a cross to another State, to enforce the law of the first State in the second State where it is not the law.'' That is at page 81.

The statement of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) directly equates parents with slaveholders. But parental rights, which H.R. 748 protects, are not the rights of the slave owner. They are rights of loving and caring people: parents, who deserve a chance to work with their children through difficult times and express their love to their children in their children's moments of greatest need.

The Fugitive Slave Act was a catalyst for the Civil War, whereas the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the 109th Congress by a vote of 270 to 157, including 54 Democrats who voted for the legislation. America's parents should not be considered slave owners and their children slaves. America's parents are caring, loving mothers and fathers who simply want to know when someone else, anyone else is taking their own daughter across State lines for an abortion.

Now, when I hear statements that equate America's parents with slave owners and statements that equate America's children to slaves, I will tell it as it is.

And when an amendment is offered that would allow a sexual predator to exploit a loophole in the bill directly contrary to that bill's purpose, I will also tell it as it is.

Now, with all of these facts, I would suggest we put this issue to rest and be thankful that the House passed, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, a bill that would protect the fundamental rights of parents and the safety of our minor daughters everywhere.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time is left on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the chairman on the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler).

(Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

If the gentleman will yield, just me to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the distinguished minority leader said, I offered to file a supplemental committee report. However, in order to do so, I asked that the authors of the amendment admit that the amendment did not specifically exclude the sexual predators from the exemptions they proposed. That offer was refused by the minority side of the aisle.

The committee report does accurately state that sexual predators are not carved out of the exemptions that were proposed. It is not a misrepresentation. It accurately shows that the authors of the amendment did not draft those amendments as narrowly as they should have. And when we vote on legislation, we vote on what is on the plain text of the piece of paper, not on what the author of an amendment intended to do.

I do not like to see this resolution come before us, but what I will say is that we were accurate, and if you do not want this to happen again, draft your amendments properly.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member very much for yielding me this time and the sponsor of this legislation and my colleagues, because I believe that we come unanimous to the floor to acknowledge the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Republic of Vietnam to, unfortunately, the Communist forces, but to stand tall with the resolved in Vietnam that fought steadfastly against those forces and to applaud the Vietnamese community which I have the opportunity of interacting with and, of course, working with in my own community of Houston.

I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this legislation and to have supported the recent event this past weekend commemorating the contributions and, of course, the commitment of the Vietnamese people and their longstanding commitment to Vietnam. Truly, the Vietnam War has had a lasting impact on our Nation and, indeed, the world in the 30 years since it has ended. The nation of Vietnam today is showing signs of economic revival. Much like China, Vietnam is realizing that market reforms that are more open and free can yield a greater fiscal growth and development.

However, again like China, Vietnam must also take the same approach in respecting opposition and, of course, freedom and civil liberties. Unfortunately, the citizens of Vietnam must still endure arbitrary arrests, detentions without trial and the censorship of peaceful expressions of political and religious beliefs. These practices are not uncommon because they are written into the national constitution. Specifically, article 4 of the constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam ensures the supremacy of the Vietnamese Community Party as the only political party in the country. At the same time, the government continues to enforce an extra-legal administrative decree to detain or place under house arrest any dissidents or civilians for up to 2 years, without trial, under the pretext of endangering national security.

That is why, Madam Speaker, I have been concerned about establishing trade relations that has not answered the question of the freedom of people in parts of Vietnam and particularly in the Communist areas. I also believe it is important to stand up to demand that those who have been incarcerated and detained are released and to say to those who are here, the Vietnamese community, that we stand with them in order to ensure the reuniting of their family members, many of them separated now for decades.

But that has not stopped the Vietnamese community in Houston, in Texas, and around the Nation from being strong advocates and supporters of their individual communities. They are business persons, they are artists, they are teachers, they are community leaders.

I want to thank the community in Houston for raising over $100,000 and coming to the aid of the victims of the tsunami by working with Houston's Solution for Tsunami Relief. I would like to acknowledge their artistic activities by saluting the Vietnamese Dance Company, saluting the first Vietnamese who was elected to the State legislature in the last election, and of course to salute those individuals who befriend and take care of their senior citizens. They have one of the best citizens programs for many of these elderly Vietnamese citizens who do not speak the language because they came to this country way after the prime of their life, but there is no more group that loves freedom as much as the Vietnamese community. And my senior citizens, who may not be able to speak English very well, I can assure Members that freedom is in their hearts, that they love this Nation, that they realize that they are in a country that is free and respects them.

So I am proud to recognize the achievements of Vietnamese Americans in 3 decades since the end of the Vietnam War. And I am proud to say that the city of Houston is home to about 160,000 Vietnamese who maintain an active and vibrant community. They live at Bellaire. They have a Vietnam town there. One can find Vietnamese shops and restaurants, places of worship, but I will say they are very welcoming. 900 AM is Radio Saigon in Houston. They believe in being part of this Nation.

On April 30, 1975, the Republic of Vietnam fell to the Communist forces; but now we are standing to say that even as it fell, it yielded 3 million refugees, at least 500,000 individuals who died at sea trying to escape from danger, but they came to the United States and they stand together as free and united.

I congratulate the community, and I thank the distinguished ranking member for his leadership also.

I rise today as a cosponsor of H. Res. 228, which observes the 30th anniversary of the fall of the Republic of Vietnam to the Communist forces of North Vietnam. In addition, this resolution honors the contributions of Vietnamese Americans to American Society over the past three decades. Truly, the Vietnam War has had a lasting impact on our Nation and indeed the world in the 30 years since it ended.

The nation of Vietnam today is showing signs of economic revival. Much like China, Vietnam is realizing that market reforms that are more open and free can yield greater fiscal growth and development. However, much like China, Vietnam must also take the same approach of open opposition and freedom for its civil liberties. Unfortunately, the citizens of Vietnam must still endure arbitrary arrests, detentions without trial, and the censorship of peaceful expressions of political and religious beliefs. these practices are not uncommon because they are written into the nation Constitution. Specifically, Article 4 of the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam ensures the supremacy of the Vietnamese Communist Party as the only political party in the country. At the same time the government continues to enforce an extra-legal administrative decree to detain or place under house arrest any dissidents or civilians for up to 2 years, without trail, under the pretext of ``endangering national security.'' As a Member of Congress I have always stood for human rights and these practices go against all tenants of good governance. Truly, any nation in this era that hopes to have its place in the international community must maintain proper standards in human rights.

I am proud to recognize the achievements of Vietnamese Americans in the 3 decades since the end of the Vietnam War. I am proud to say that the City of Houston is home to about 160,000 Vietnamese, who have maintained an active and vibrant community. In the Southwest Houston Area at Bellaire Street, there is an area the community refers to as Vietnam Town, where you can find many of the Vietnamese shops, restaurants, and places of worship. In addition, the Vietnamese community in Houston has established their own radio stations including 900 AM Radio Saigon Houston.

On April 30, 1975, the Republic of Vietnam fell to the Communist forces of North Vietnam, resulting in a world refuge crisis of historic proportions, and yielding approximately 3,000,000 refugees around the world and at least 500,000 individuals who died at sea trying to escape from danger. One million five

hundred thousand of those Vietnamese resettled in the United States and like the Vietnamese community in Houston they have contributed to the diversity and vibrancy of our Nation.

As we commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War we should take this time to reflect on our current war in Iraq. Much like the final years of Vietnam we are confronted with the question of how do we end this war and when can we bring our fighting men and women home to be with their families and loved ones? There have been 1,763 coalition troop deaths in Iraq, 1,585 of which have been Americans. At least 12,243 U.S. troops have been wounded in action and their lives will be changed forever because of this war. In addition, the latest attacks in Iraq by insurgents have killed hundreds of innocent Iraqi civilians. We must work vigorously to ensure that we have a proper exit strategy in Iraq. We can not allow more American troops to die without doing all we can to extract them from this danger. We must work to bring the current state of chaos in Iraq to be under control.

Can I thank the good people of Vietnam who came but to this Nation or refugee, who now serve us well. I believe we must likewise find resolve to fix the problem in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member, the lead Democrat on the Committee on the Judiciary, for yielding me time, and for his great leadership to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, the oath of office that we all take.

I, too, want to express my respect for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the committee. I know that all the members of the Committee on the Judiciary have a difficult task. I commend all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for the very important responsibility that they have in protecting the civil liberties of our country. There are so many complicated issues where there are differences of opinion but, hopefully, respect for that diversity of opinion, which is intrinsic to our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I am very sad that it is necessary to come to the floor to speak on a resolution offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), again the distinguished ranking member on the Committee on the Judiciary.

I think it is important to note why we are here. I understand why our Republican colleagues want to talk about the bill and not talk about this privileged resolution, because this resolution strikes right directly to the heart of our democracy and our right of freedom of speech on this floor and how our words are interpreted.

Questions of privilege, according to the House rules and manual, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Speaker well knows, questions of privilege shall be those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings. It is that last point, the integrity of our proceedings, which is what is under assault by the Republicans in this action that they took last week. Truth and trust, they are the fundamentals of our work. We must speak truth so that we will be trusted.

I view what the Committee on the Judiciary leadership did on this bill as just another extension of the abuse of power of the Republican majority in the Congress of the United States, both in the House and in the Senate.

In both bodies, and let us just speak to our own, there is an attempt to limit the opportunity for Members to speak on the floor, to have substitutes, alternative amendments, that can come to the floor; and on the occasions when they do allow an amendment, they decide to misrepresent the amendment. Just when we think we have seen it all on the part of curbing debate in this House, the Republicans not only curb the debate; they decide what it is that we said and what it is that we wrote in our amendments that we were putting forth.

The disgusting misrepresentations that were advanced by the Republicans demand an apology by the chairman of the committee and a pledge by the Republican leadership in this House that this will never happen again; that this will never happen again.

We must be mindful of a standard we must uphold, not only for ourselves, but for the American people, to conduct ourselves at all times in a manner which shall reflect credibly on the House of Representatives. In doing so, the House must maintain the integrity of all of its proceedings, as the rules of the House dictate in the House Rules and Manual.

What happened last week to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), and the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) was an outrage. An official report that the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary prepared to the legislation at hand deliberately and purposely mischaracterized their amendments in a manner that was insulting and derogatory.

Again, no wonder the Republicans do not want to talk about what is on the floor right now, which is a privileged resolution addressing the gross abuse of power of the Republicans. We had tried to say at meetings, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) tried to get an agreement with the majority that they would change the record and apologize; to admit that there was something wrong with what happened last week, and that would have made a difference in bringing this resolution to the floor. But, no, there was no admission that there was anything wrong with misrepresenting, not telling the truth about what was contained in those amendments.

Administrative functions, such as reporting of amendments and descriptions of these amendments, relate to the integrity, again, of the proceedings of the House and must be fairly described. If there is a controversy, then you go to the maker of the amendment and say, what is it, how would you characterize your amendment, you who are the maker of the amendment? But no, we had placed our trust that the majority would fairly describe something as administrative as an amendment offered by a Member.

In short, this should not even be an issue we need to be reviewing and scrutinizing. If this were to pass without discussion, think of the precedent that it would create; that the majority, on a regular and repeated basis, could use their power and abuse their power to write any characterization of any amendment that anyone made. Its simply wrong.

The behavior exhibited by the Republican majority with the Committee on the Judiciary report flies in the face of the comity and civility and honesty that we should all strive for. It is a further reflection, again, of the abuse of power we have seen here. It is an embarrassment to the House.

I was deeply disappointed to learn that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary has refused to apologize on his own accord. Our rules, Mr. Speaker, are our best defense. They are what make the debate and the democracy work. As I said, Mr. Speaker, you even see in this close on this important debate that there is an interest in stopping the conversation. I hope that the Speaker and the Republican leadership will reflect on their obligations to the House, and indeed, to all the Members of both parties, and that they will ask the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to apologize for the affront to this House and the blatant abuse of position as the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

This is, in my view, an aberration for the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner). As I said, many of us, while we may disagree on issues, have held him in great esteem and respect. He is an articulate spokesperson for his point of view. But his point of view is not necessarily the point of view of everyone in this body, and his point of view should not be the description of the amendments that Members in the minority are presenting to the Congress. The leadership has a responsibility to ensure that this will not happen again.

I want to commend all the Members of the Committee on the Judiciary once again, Republicans and Democrats alike. I think you have a very challenging task. I want to particularly commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), and the people who were offended by this, though all of us were, but particularly in terms of the retelling of their amendments, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by thanking the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for his courage, because it takes a degree of courage to bring a privileged resolution to this floor when you know there will be a continuation of a misrepresentation of what happened last week. We are doing this not because of this bill, we are doing this because it is our responsibility to have an honest reflection of the proceedings of the House. I urge our colleagues to support the resolution of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with my request of last Thursday, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 253) as to a question of the privileges of the House and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

(Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise to offer a resolution concerning the privileges of the House.

The deliberate misrepresentation of Members of the House of Representatives' amendments is unprecedented.

And I do this because the Committee on the Judiciary report on H.R. 748 mischaracterized amendments offered by Members in a way that distorted both the effect of the amendments and the intentions of the Members.

I offer this resolution to protect the rights of every Member in this body. None of us wants to see our amendments mischaracterized in a way that undermines our good faith. None of us wants to see our legislative work distorted in a way that diminishes our motives. I am not eager to bring this matter to the floor of the House, but I do so as a last resort to achieve a resolution that is fair and just.

There is little doubt in my mind that the amendment characterizations included in the committee report were distorting and damaging. Taking an amendment written to exclude grandparents and describing it as one protecting sexual predators crosses a line of good faith and comity so essential to the operation of this House.

Descriptions this pejorative are not only inappropriate; they are without precedent. This has never happened before in my memory. If we look at the Record, we will see that the three previous committee reports describing these amendments use neutral and objective terms. The same is true of the amendment descriptions prepared by the majority staff on the Committee on Rules as well as the majority staff on the Republican Conference.

I cannot agree with the contention that the obligation should have been on the Members to draft these amendments more narrowly. The amendments were drafted in a careful and straightforward manner as they have been for each of the last four Congresses. The duty should not be on us to exclude categories of persons who have nothing to do with the underlying amendment.

Let me close by stating that the majority will not control this body forever. There will come a time when members of another party are the ones interpreting the rules, writing the committee reports, and explaining the amendments. Whoever controls this body tomorrow or next year, we will all be better off today if we do not rewrite each other's words or disparage each other's intentions.

I support this privileged resolution and urge the rest of my colleagues to do the same.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, can we inquire of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who has not used any of his time yet, how many speakers he has?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), a senior Member in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds. I want my friend, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Feeney) to understand it is not about anything in the debate that took place to which we were objecting. It is about the entitlement of the amendments which were totally misconstrued.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), a member of the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 seconds.

I tell my dear friend who just left the well, we are not here to debate the bill. We debated the bill in committee. We debated it on the floor. We are talking about the titles in the section that were mislabeled.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey).

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the chairman of the committee how many speakers he has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been called here today to raise a question of the privileges of the House. A very serious matter. A prerogative rarely used by the Members of the House of Representatives. But we have to deal with the mischaracterizations of the titles of the amendments, which is what this debate is about.

It is incredible to me that the case of the other side is so weak that all they can do is continue to talk about the bill itself. We are not here to debate H.R. 748, we are here to talk about the power and the abuses of the majority party that sets the agenda, that writes the reports, and that entitles the amendments submitted to the members of the Committee on the Judiciary. The amendment titles of three members were twisted and distorted and their meaning was rendered so that the entitlement of the amendment was not, indeed, accurate. I believe the majority has failed the Congress but, more importantly, the American people.

Now, what we are doing here right now is hoping to raise this question of the privileges of the House regarding the blatant abuse of power; Republicans' mischaracterizing the description of numerous Democratic amendments, when some of the amendments had been considered in previous Congresses. These are the same amendments that were properly entitled in other Congresses.

So it is with great reluctance that I come before you to ask that we make sure this never happens again; that this deliberate mischaracterization of amendments be stopped here and now; that it does not happen and that the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary issue a supplemental report and apologize to the House of Representatives. Support the resolution.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Sensenbrenner

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

Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to thank the distinguished gentleman from

Michigan (Mr. Conyers) for allowing us to debate today, really, the integrity of the House.

This debate is not about the underlying bill, H.R. 748. That is not what it is about. It simply is about those in power abusing power, taking advantage of the minority, and not telling the truth.

Frankly, the amendments that were offered, there is no language whatsoever that would equate to the description that was in the final report or the report of the particular committee.

In fact, as the resolution reads, although it is the long and established practice on House reports to describe recorded votes with objective, nonargumentative captions, the Committee on the Judiciary majority departed from the practice in House Report 109-51 by captioning those five amendments with inflammatory, inaccurate captions, implying that these three Members of Congress were engaging in criminal behavior.

Let me tell you that my constituents said to me, we are glad that you are concerned about grandparents and clergy. That is what the amendment was about. And the inaccuracy subjected the Members, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), and myself, to ridicule, and, of course, disparaging remarks in newspaper articles around the Nation.

Now, in the course of debate, we welcome the ability to debate passionately about these issues. We welcome the media's criticism about the accuracy of the work that we do in this body. But what we do not welcome is a direct mischaracterization of these actual words that were being written and put forward in the debate in the Judiciary Committee.

And so I would ask my colleagues to support this resolution, because, again, as you get up time after time to debate the underlying bill, Mr. Speaker, this is not the issue. The issue is, in the report, you mischaracterized three Members of Congress whose language did not say anything about what you represented it to be: Nothing about criminal behavior, simply to protect the rights of grandparents and clergy, simply to protect the rights of those who innocently might be carrying individuals across State lines.

I cannot imagine, in the history of this Congress, why an amendment offered by Jackson-Lee that had to do with a GAO study turned out to be criminal behavior, or an amendment that had to do with clergy and grandparents turned out to be criminal behavior.

Mr. Sensenbrenner, I would simply ask, in the sense of comity, collegiality, respect, that this be clarified and you ask your colleagues to support this privileged resolution, because the members of the Judiciary Committee must go back to Room 2141 in Rayburn and sit down and address the laws of this land and the Constitution of the United States of America.

We should not be divided on upholding the laws of this land because of the lack of judiciousness of the writing of a report that could be solved today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to support the privileged resolution to clarify the record and to make this right by the American people and the Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution introduced by the Gentleman from Michigan, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary, from where the underlying legislation was initially reported. In introducing this resolution, he has attempted to ``set the record straight'' with respect to House Report 109-51 and the way that it has been patently malreported and maligned the authors of amendments to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005.

Rule IX, paragraph (1) of the House Rules states that:

Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the

rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and

the integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting

the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, Delegates, or

the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their

representative capacity only.

This resolution was properly and justifiably introduced because, in this case, the privileges of ``dignity'' and ``the integrity of [the House's] proceedings'' have been patently violated. To purposefully misreport the good-faith amendments that have been offered by Members of this venerable House debases the nature and trustworthiness of the House Report. After this debacle, Members will have to scan committee reports with a fine-toothed comb--not for substantive value, but for accuracy and veracity of their reporting value. This is the diminution of the dignity of the process. This is the diminution of the integrity of the House.

My distinguished colleagues have joined to introduce this resolution in order to make it clear to the American people that we do not associate ourselves with the misreported portions of House Report 109- 51. I plan to offer a similar resolution that speaks specifically to the nature of the misreporting of amendments that I offered during the Committee markup of H.R. 748.

One point that my resolution will make is that House Report 109-51 not only improperly made negative inferences as to the import and intent of my amendments, but it combined two distinct and separately- offered amendments into one.

In terms of the personal privileges violated by the report, the misreporting--and the malreporting of the amendments offered by my colleagues Mr. Scott, Mr. Nadler, and me affected our rights, reputation, and conduct. As founder and Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus, a report that cites an amendment offered by me that would exempt sexual predators from liability is at the very least offensive.

My constituents and the constituents of my colleagues do read House Reports, and the nefarious language that the Chairman avers as representative of his true intentions should be highlighted as contrary to the ideals on which this House, this government, and this nation were established.

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore