Recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and French victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adolescents should be strongly encouraged to involve their

parents and other trusted adults in decisions regarding

pregnancy termination, and the majority of them voluntarily

do so. Legislation mandating parental involvement does not

achieve the intended benefit of promoting family

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

adolescent by delaying access to appropriate medical care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, 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).