Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of personal privilege.

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.

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 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 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.

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, 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 mischaracterized 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.

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.''

Amendment No. 2, designated as DL-006,

Add at the end the following:

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.

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