Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, the debate on stem cell research challenges all of us to think carefully about the value we place on human life. Many of us turn to our faith traditions for guidance and wisdom. None of us has the right to legislate our religious beliefs and impose them on others. But as Members look to the teachings of their faiths for guidance, I ask them to remember that not all faiths hold that stem cell research is the enemy of life. The religious traditions of many of us do not tell us that a 14-day-old blastocyst has the same moral significance as a human being and do tell us that the obligation to preserve life, which includes the obligation to cure disease and alleviate human suffering, is paramount.

I understand and respect the faith of all of my colleagues. It is a sincere faith that reveres life. I ask them to

accord that same respect to the faiths of others.

Unfortunately, words have sometimes been used carelessly, and these words sometimes denigrate the faith of others. When the teachings of a faith are described as ``a culture of death'' because they hold that the potential to save and heal human lives is an integral part of valuing human life, that faith and its adherence are being slandered. How dare anyone slander the faiths of many Americans as ``a culture of death.'' God does not speak to one faith alone.

We hear lots of speeches about respecting people of faith and the need to bring faith into the public square. The people who make those speeches should respect all faiths. We should vote our consciences, but we should not denigrate the faith and consciences of the millions of Americans who seek to preserve life and end suffering and who believe that embryonic stem cell research can save lives and therefore embodies the highest morality.

Mr. Speaker, 36 years ago, Republican Senator Howard Baker took to the Senate floor during a Republican-led filibuster of Abe Fortas, President Johnson's nominee to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Senator Baker justified the Republican filibuster by stating, ``On any issue the majority, at any given moment, is not always right.''

Some people might be surprised that Senate Republicans led a filibuster against a judicial nominee. After all, Senator Frist continues to claim all judicial appointees are entitled to an up-or- down vote, no matter what. It is a disingenuous statement when he himself and other proponents of this extreme measure have used the filibuster to delay and defeat judicial nominations of the past. It is a hypocritical statement when the Republican majority in the Senate derailed and defeated 65 of President Clinton's judicial nominations without ever permitting them

a vote or even a hearing, not a vote in committee, not a vote on the floor.

And now that the Republicans are in the majority and have a President, they want to prevent Democrats from taking the very same actions they have used. They are now trying to change the rules of the Senate in the middle of the game to try to take away the rights of the minority.

Senator Baker was correct in 1968 when he said the majority was not always right, and it is time Senate Republicans realize that their extreme power grab is not in the best interests of either this Congress or this Nation.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment to increase funding for the NEA and the NEH. Without this amendment, the continued flat funding the President requested this year will really amount to another cut. I wish we could return to the days of the first President Bush when the arts were funded at $175 million. The amount we are asking for today amounts to little more than a comma in the budget, a rounding error when compared to Federal spending in other areas such as defense.

Whether it is the educational value, the cultural enrichment, or the substantial economic windfall the arts and humanities create, the NEA and the NEH are two of the best investments this Nation makes. When we shortchange the NEA, we ignore the $134 billion in business that the arts generate, the 4.8 million jobs, the $89.4 billion in household income, and the $25 billion in tax revenues. A recent RAND study noted the importance of the intrinsic benefit of the arts for individuals and communities.

This modest amount asks only to restore the funding level the House supported last year, but that was stripped during conference. It is the very least we should do today. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to vote against any attempts to slash funding from the arts and humanities that may be offered in other amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 4 years ago, fanatic Islamic terrorists attacked our country, hijacked our planes, rammed the Pentagon, and destroyed the World Trade Center that was located in my district. This is deadly serious business, and we do not have a dime to waste. This bill, while certainly an improvement over current law, still includes State-based formula funding.

I offered an amendment to eliminate the State minimum section of the bill to ensure that all homeland security funding is distributed on the basis of risk. Unfortunately, that amendment was not made in order by this restrictive rule. I am saddened that there are still people in this House who still do not get it. How many times do we have to run for our lives before we realize this is not a game? We face the serious threat of terrorism, and we should allocate the homeland security funding based on that threat.

I understand this bill is a delicate political compromise. On the whole, I support it because it is better than current law. But we can do better.

State minimums waste homeland security funding. This bill would give States money that cannot be justified on the basis of the risk, wasting precious resources that should be used to protect the American people from real dangers in other States.

In this wonderful, open, rich, free society in which we live, there are plenty of real targets that need protecting all across America. The issue of State minimums is not just about New York. If there are real threats to our food supply, our energy resources, our national monuments, they should all be protected. But we should not give more money to States who cannot demonstrate a need while we know there are other States that have needs that cannot be met. It just does not make sense.

The bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommended that anti-terrorism funding be distributed based on risk and not based on State formulas or pork-barrel spending. We should follow their excellent advice. The State minimum provision in this bill is in direct violation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. In its report, it said that, Homeland security assistance should be based strictly on an assessment of risks and vulnerabilities.'' The commission went on to say that ``Federal homeland security assistance should not remain a program for general revenue sharing. It should supplement State and local resources based on the risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support. Congress should not use this money as pork barrel.''

My amendment would have stricken these State minimums and distributed these grants in a manner that addresses the highest priority threats and vulnerabilities of the Nation. There are very real and known terrorist threats against specific targets in the country, and these homeland security grant programs were created specifically to address these threats. Distributing terrorism response funding without regard to risk is not wise. It is not cost effective. It is not in the best interests of our country's security. These resources should go where they are needed, where there is the greatest threat of terrorism. Period.

As noted in the 9/11 Commission's report, ``Those who would allocate money on a different basis should then defend their view of the national interest.'' I had hoped that the Rules Committee would have followed the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and made my amendment in order.

Nevertheless, I am pleased that the State minimum section in this bill is a significant improvement over current law by being much smaller, and I hope that when we enter into conference with the other body, we remain firm and fight to keep State minimums at the lowest possible level so that the risk-based funds can be kept at the highest level to fight the real threat of terrorism in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Gerald Schoenfeld and, posthumously, Bernard B. Jacobs on the occasion of the dedication of the Schoenfeld and Jacobs Theatres on Broadway. For over 20 successful years, Schoenfeld and Jacobs ran the Shubert Organization, America's oldest professional theatre company, as Chairman and President. With today's dedication, they are being honored with one of Broadway's most cherished and esteemed accolades.

Over the last 103 years, the Shubert Organization has owned hundreds of theatres and produced hundreds of plays and musical. Since the 1980s, the company's ticketing service has grown to become the leading ticket provider in New York City's thriving theatre industry. Founded at the end of the 19th century, three brothers, Sam, Lee and Jacob J. Shubert, from Syracuse, New York, founded the organization. Today, the Shubert Organization owns and/or operates 16 Broadway theatres and one Off-Broadway theatre in New York City, as well as theatres in Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC.

Bernard B. Jacobs was born in New York City in 1916. In his long career on Broadway, he produced hundreds of plays, and was nominated for and won numerous Tony Awards. In 1996, the Shubert Organization lost its beloved and much admired President, and he was posthumously honored with the Special Tony Award for Lifetime Achievement in 1997.

Today, the Shubert Organization continues to thrive under the chairmanship of Gerald Schoenfeld. Schoenfeld was born in New York in 1924, and in his career has enjoyed tremendous success on Broadway. He is also deeply committed to the betterment of the City of New York, and is an active participant in civic affairs. Schoenfeld, with his former colleague, has produced hundreds of successful plays, and his been nominated for and won dozens of Tony Awards.

Under the leadership of Schoenfeld and Jacobs, the Shubert Organization was reorganized into the powerhouse it is today. Over the past three decades, the organization has dedicated its energies and resources to a long-term campaign for the revitalization of the American theatre. Its many projects have included the refurbishment of all Shubert playhouses, devoted participation in civic and community affairs, and a continuing effort to rehabilitate the Times Square Theatre District.

Today, May 9, 2005, I am pleased to join the Schoenfeld and Jacobs families, along with Hugh Jackman, Dame Edna Everage, and the cast of the Broadway hit ``Avenue Q'' as the Shubert Organization dedicates the Gerald Schoenfeld and Bernard B. Jacobs Theatres.

For their commitment to the theatre, their passion for the arts, and their efforts to better the lives of all New Yorkers, I congratulate and honor the Shubert Organization, and specifically Gerald Schoenfeld, and Bernard B. Jacobs, here today.

Mr. Speaker, I seek recognition on a question of personal privilege pursuant to rule IX of the rules of the House. I have placed at the desk the documentation on which this question is based.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Have the corrections or the supplemental report to the committee report been filed yet?

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

Mr. Speaker, the basis of my question of personal privilege concerns the manner in which amendments I offered during the Committee on the Judiciary's consideration of H.R. 748 on April 13, 2005, were characterized in the committee's report on that legislation, House Report 109-51.

Specifically, the report, in the section required under clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the rules of the House reporting the votes of the committee described my amendments in a manner that denigrated my ``rights, reputation, and conduct . . . in [my] representative capacity . . . '' within the meaning of clause 1 of rule IX.

The language in question appears on pages 45 and 46 of the committee report, and it mischaracterizes my amendments in a manner that does not reflect the actual content of the amendments nor the actual intent of those amendments. In fact, it uses legislation to describe my legislative actions that is pejorative and inflammatory and that is highly damaging to my reputation.

It is with great sadness and regret that I come to the floor today. I have never previously in my 12 years as a Member of this House, nor in my quarter century representing the people of New York, had the need to rise on a personal privilege. I have never had my reputation, or my legislative efforts, so terrible maligned in an official record of any legislative body in which I have served.

It is my hope that this is the last time I will ever need to claim the floor in a question of personal privilege. I would observe that the filing a few minutes ago of the supplemental report to the Committee on the Judiciary report is a tacit acknowledgment of the inaccuracy and untruthfulness of the original report and its reputation in the public domain, and renders much of what was said in its defense in the Committee on Rules and on the floor, as the saying goes, ``inoperative.''

I commend the chairman for correcting the record and hope that with this correction of the slanderous report language, this unfortunate chapter can be brought to a close.

While I would have hoped that this correction would have been accompanied by an apology and by an acknowledgment that this report was a violation of the tradition and norms of the House, that is, perhaps, in the regrettably poisonous atmosphere of the present day, unobtainable. I regret that things have reached such an unfortunate state.

This situation is especially sad because it involves the Committee on the Judiciary's official report on this bill, which contained false and misleading, indeed libelous, descriptions of the amendments I and my colleagues offered in committee in good faith, and with the intent of protecting children and families in terrible situations.

Those characterizations came in the section of the report, required by the rules, that simply requires an accurate report of all recorded votes.

There are many places in committee reports where commentary is appropriate. Both the majority and the minority have the opportunity in the report to make their cases, and very much to the credit of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) the Committee on the Judiciary reports also contain a transcript of the markup.

What has never been done, and I am not aware of the majority on any committee having so abused its power, is to distort the content of the amendments in the section reserved for reporting votes.

Every Member of this House sits on committees; every Member knows what a report looks like, and every Member of this House knows this was an aberration and that it was wrong.

I do not believe it is necessary to repeat the report language that gave rise to this point of personal privilege. The Chair has the offending language, and it has been plastered all over the Record, the press, and Web logs. I feel no need to repeat it. Enough damage has already been done.

To place this report, and the slanderous language it used in context, the last time the Committee on the Judiciary reported a version of the same bill, the report said: ``An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler prohibiting H.R. 476 from applying `with respect to conduct by a grandparent or adult sibling of the minor.' '' Same amendment, same committee, different year.

Earlier versions of this bill have been reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on three prior occasions, going to 1998. In no case have any of my amendments been described in the inaccurate and pejorative fashion they were in this year's committee report.

The Committee on Rules described the same amendment in the following manner when it reported it to the floor: ``Adds to the exceptions to the offense of transporting minors for the purpose of obtaining an illegal abortion grandparents of the minor and members of the clergy.''

Even the Republican Study Committee, the voice of some of the most conservative of our colleagues, described the amendment this way: ``The amendment allows a grandparent of the minor or a clergy person to bring pregnant minors across State lines for abortions.'' These are factual descriptions of the amendment. They are nonargumentative factual descriptions as the rules call for.

In fact, neither the bill itself nor the amendments contained the offensive terms used in the committee report to describe my amendments. No member of the committee described my amendments in this libelous manner at any time during the debate. Nobody in the majority, none of the Republicans in opposing my amendments in committee debate said that they contained the material which the committee report libelously says they do. As the transcript clearly shows, the transcript contained in the committee's report appearing on page 58 to 120 will clearly show.

It is regrettable that even in filing the supplemental report, the majority felt the need to restate the slander, but this time in the section reserved for majority views. The majority, however, is entitled to its views, even if they are not factually based; and the appropriate place to express them is in debate and in documents reserved for expressing their views, such as the majority view section of the committee report.

The minority has a similar right in debate and in its dissenting views, and I would not expect the majority to tell us what views we should have or how to express them.

Not abusing the power the majority has over the contents and the filing of the report, which the minority does not get to see until it is filed, is really based on nothing more than the honor system. Unfortunately, in this system, the honor system failed.

This abuse of power of mischaracterizing and slandering the amendments and the Members who offered them in the section of the report reserved for simply reporting amendments and the votes thereon, could not be allowed to stand or there would have been no end to it.

This is not about party, nor is it about a bill, nor about an amendment, nor even about the underlying issue. It is about the ``rights, reputation and conduct of Members, delegates or the resident commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only.''

When the majority abuses its power to attack the reputation of Member or Members, as it did in this case, the House must act to correct the injustice. The supplemental report filed by the majority is an important step in that direction, and I thank the chairman for agreeing to file the correction.

We have strayed far from the customary comity and fair play to which this House has long adhered. That is no way to represent our views to the voters of this country. The voters have every right to expect us to fight for our beliefs, to represent them vigorously, and to speak out in clear terms on the important issues of the day.

But, Mr. Speaker, there are limits. When Members of this House transgress those limits, we fail the people who sent us here and we fail the institution in which we are honored to serve. We are elected to 2-year terms. The office does not belong to us, but to the people. We are mere custodians of

the office. I hope that, in our conduct, we can prove ourselves good and responsible stewards of this public trust.

It is my sincere hope that now that the correction has been filed and the slander abated, this will be the last time any Member has the unpleasant duty of rising in this House to defend his or her reputation and the traditions of this institution. I hope that this single aberration will be remembered as just that: a single aberration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

(Mr. SCOTT of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, not seeing the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), I thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for filing the corrected report, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, sixty years ago the guns and bombs in Europe fell silent, and President Truman announced victory over Europe to a proud and free world.

I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of this great and very important day, and to recognize the sacrifices and accomplishments of the men and women who so bravely served to defeat hate and aggression.

I join millions of people participating in thousands of events, in New York City, all across the United States, and around the world, in observing and honoring the courage of American service-members, allied soldiers, and homefront workers.

During April 1945, allied forces led by the United States overran Nazi Germany from the west while Russian forces advanced from the east. On April 25, American and Russian troops met at the Elbe River. After 6 years of war, suffering, and devastation, Nazi Germany was formally defeated a few days later on May 8, 1945.

It was a bittersweet victory. Over 400,000 American soldiers died in World War II; 350,000 British soldiers gave their lives; and a staggering 20 million Russian soldiers and civilians perished in the war fighting German aggression on their home soil. The war also brought about the most horrendous systematic murder which humanity has ever known, the Holocaust.

In memory of all the victims of World War II, it is our duty to raise our voices as one and say to the present and future generations that no one has the right to remain indifferent to anti-Semitism, xenophobia and racial or religious intolerance.

This is an occasion to remember and commemorate. We must remember why the war was fought, remember the victims and heroes, and thank those who fought so hard and sacrificed so much.

V-E Day marked the promise of a peaceful future for a Europe ravaged by unspeakable horror and war. Although freedom did not come to every European nation following the defeat of Nazi Germany, today we stand at the threshold of a very hopeful future based on sovereignty, democracy, freedom and cooperation.

Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to honor those individuals who gave their lives during the liberation of Europe, to thank the veterans of World War II, and to commemorate the defeat of Nazism and Fascism by freedom-loving people.

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago the guns and bombs in Europe fell silent, and President Truman announced victory over Europe to a proud and free world.

I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of this great and very important day, and to recognize the sacrifices and accomplishments of the men and women who so bravely served to defeat hate and aggression.

I join millions of people participating in thousands of events, in New York City, all across the United States, and around the world, in observing and honoring the courage of American service-members, allied soldiers, and home front workers.

During April 1945, allied forces led by the United States overran Nazi Germany from the west while Russian forces advanced from the east. On April 25, American and Russian troops met at the Elbe River. After 6 years of war, suffering, and devastation, Nazi Germany was formally defeated a few days later on May 8, 1945.

It was a bittersweet victory. Over 400,000 American soldiers died in World War II; 350, 000 British soldiers gave their lives; and a staggering 20 million Russian soldiers and civilians perished in the war fighting German aggression on their home soil. The war also brought about the most horrendous systematic murder which humanity has ever known, the Holocaust.

In memory of all the victims of World War II, it is our duty to raise our voices as one and say to the present and future generations that no one has the right to remain indifferent to anti-Semitism, xenophobia and racial or religious intolerance.

This is an occasion to remember and commemorate. We must remember why the war was fought, remember the victims and heroes, and thank those who fought so hard and sacrificed so much.

V-E Day marked the promise of a peaceful future for a Europe ravaged by unspeakable horror and war. Although freedom did not come to every European nation following the defeat of Nazi Germany, today we stand at the threshold of a very hopeful future based on sovereignty, democracy, freedom and cooperation.

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to honor those individuals who gave their lives during the liberation of Europe, to thank the veterans of World War II, and to commemorate the defeat of Nazism and Fascism by freedom-loving people.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the distinguished chairman wishes to repeat his tactic of last week of waiting until everybody else has spoken and then mischaracterize what we have said so that we cannot reply to him.

Is that his intent today? Is that why he is reserving his time now so that he can speak after everybody else has spoken?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, is it his intent to let anybody on this side speak after he has spoken even if he closes?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) stated the point of this resolution pretty accurately and I think completely.

I want to deal with some misstatements that have been made or have been reported to have been made in defense of this unconscionable, lying report of the committee. It was said on the floor of the House last week that the question is one of intent versus effect. My amendment was very simple. It said that grandparents and adult siblings of the person getting the abortion should not be subject to the provisions of the bill. It was reported as: ``Mr. Nadler offered an amendment to provide sexual predators an exemption from the provisions of the bill if they were adult siblings or grandparents.''

The fact is in the entire debate over that amendment, in fact, in the entire debate over all of the amendments, all of which were characterized as dealing with sexual predators, in the debate in the committee over those five amendments, no one, no one in the majority, no one in the minority mentioned the words ``sexual predators.'' No one in the committee debate said this amendment might protect sexual predators. It did not occur to anybody. So on that level the report is dishonest, and the chairman or whoever else had anything to do with it owes this body an apology.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not with respect to my amendment. That was with respect to another amendment. That was with respect to a different amendment.

In respect to my amendment, which was characterized as dealing with sexual predators, nobody mentioned the words ``sexual predators'' or raised that.

It has also been said that the intent may have been not with sexual predators; the intent may have been grandparents and siblings, but could a grandparent or a sibling be a sexual predator? In that eventuality this would protect sexual predators.

Yes, in that eventuality the amendment would protect sexual predators. But, of course, the bill itself said that the parents could sue, the parents could sue the doctor who performs the abortion or the person who transports the minor. But the parent could be a sexual predator. The pregnancy could have been caused by rape or incest. This would give the sexual predator the right to profit from his own predation.

I, in fact, offered a motion to recommit to correct that defect in the bill, but the majority voted it down. Why, I do not know. But they voted it down because apparently they wanted sexual predators, in the unlikely event that the parent was a sexual predator, to be able to sue. There is no other interpretation possible.

But, as I said last week, if someone wanted to say on the floor of the House or in the committee, as no one did in the committee, that one has not anticipated the rare eventuality that a grandparent would be a sexual predator and maybe they should amend the amendment, that would have been a fair comment. Fair comment in a debate. It is not a fair characterization of the amendment.

There is a clear difference between expressing views in a debate and saying that one's amendment could be used by a sexual predator under certain circumstances, which might be a fair comment. It would be fair comment to say those circumstances are so rare that we do not have to worry about them or they are right or whatever. It is different. It is different, it is dishonest, it is a disgusting rape of the rules of this House to characterize the amendment in a one-sentence report that this was an amendment dealing with sexual predators. No, it was not. It would be just as dishonest as if we reported the bill and said this was a bill to allow sexual predators to sue doctors.

The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and everybody associated with this owes an apology to the House and a correction to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the chairman of the committee continues to smear other Members of the House on this floor. The bill says nothing about sexual predators. The words sexual predator or abusers do not appear in the bill, number 1.

Number 2, by the chairman's logic any bill on the floor of the House that gives veterans benefits or gives educational benefits, gives benefits to sexual predators as long as it does not specifically exclude them; and any such bill could be fairly described as a bill to give benefits to sexual predators.

Number 3, I did use that language that the chairman quoted about the Fugitive Slave Act, but I was not comparing parents to slave owners. I was saying that the two bills were similar in that both would use, and that was in the quote, both would use the power of the Federal Government to export the laws of one State into another, and all of these things are opinions. Opinions are fine in the views. They are not fine in the reports of the amendment. That is where the smear is.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice of this resolution and that it will be brought up as soon as the rules permit.

Mr. Speaker, by the form, does the Speaker mean the text?

Mr. Speaker, I do not ask that unanimous consent.

Will the Clerk read the resolution?

``Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary conducted a markup of the bill H.R. 748, the ``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act,'' on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, and ordered the bill reported on that same day;

Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary subsequently reported H.R. 748 to the House on Thursday, April 21, 2005, with an accompanying report designated House Report 109-51;

Whereas, during the markup of H.R. 748, Representatives Nadler, Scott, and Jackson-Lee offered in good faith a total of five amendments to the bill, all of which failed on party-line votes;

Whereas, because Representatives Nadler, Scott, and Jackson-Lee called for recorded votes on their amendments, under section 3(b) of Rule XIII, the votes were published in House Report 109-51;

Whereas, although it is the long and established practice in House reports to describe recorded votes with objective, nonargumentative captions, the Committee on the Judiciary majority departed from this practice in House Report 109-51 by captioning these five amendments with inflammatory, inaccurate captions;

Whereas, when Representative Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, was asked about this language and given the opportunity to correct it, both in the Committee Rules and on the House floor, he instead explained that it was his purpose and intention to include these derogatory and inaccurate captions in House Report 109- 51;

Whereas, committee reports are official congressional documents to which American citizens will refer when seeking to interpret the bills they accompany;

Whereas, although the committee markup and reporting process gives Members ample opportunity to debate, characterize, and criticize each other's views, committees have a ministerial, institutional responsibility to accurately report the proceedings of committee activities;

Whereas, under the procedures of the Committee on the Judiciary, the minority must submit its dissenting views to the majority without having the opportunity to review the report;

Whereas, the majority has the opportunity to review the minority's dissent before filing its report;

Whereas, earlier versions of H.R. 748 were reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on three separate occasions and in each case, these amendments, or similar amendments, were described in these earlier committee reports with objective, nonargumentative captions;

Whereas, this unprecedented manipulation of a traditionally nonpartisan portion of a committee report constitutes an abuse of power by the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary;

Whereas, a report of a committee offers the majority and minority the opportunity to provide their views and interpretations of the legislation, amendments, and issues;

Whereas, the section of a committee report required by clause 3(b) of Rule XIII was purposely misused as an opportunity to comment on, or characterize, the amendments; and

Whereas the vote captions published in House Report 109-51 appear to be purposefully inaccurate and misleading, and reflect negatively on the integrity of the Members offering the amendments, and therefore belittle the dignity of the House and undermine the integrity of the proceedings of the House:

Now, therefore, be it:

Resolved, That the House of Representatives

(1) finds that the Committee on the Judiciary purposefully and deliberately mischaracterized the above-mentioned votes in House Report 109-51; and

(2) directs the chairman of such committee to report to the House a supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the record by describing the five

amendments with nonargumentative, objective captions.''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and first let me begin by noting that the case just alluded to by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), that in the case where a young woman was held coercively, was threatened if she did not go through with an abortion she would not be able to get home, would seem to violate the laws against kidnapping and half a dozen other criminal laws. If those people were not prosecuted, it is the district attorney's fault. We do not need this bill to deal with a situation like that.

Mr. Chairman, we consider today legislation that is at once another flagrant violation of the Constitution and an assault on the health and well-being of young women and their health care providers. Some States have chosen to enact parental notification and consent laws. Some, like mine, have considered this issue and decided such laws are not good for the welfare of young women and have declined to enact them. This bill would use Federal authority to impose the restrictive laws of one State on abortions performed in another State. It would, in effect, make a young girl carry the law of her State on her back wherever she goes.

Mr. Chairman, I know of no law that has attempted to do this kind of thing since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. This bill would make criminals of grandparents, boyfriends, brothers, sisters, and clergymen and women who try to help a young woman, a young

woman who had a fear or alienation and thinks she cannot confide in her parents.

It would even apply to a case such as that of a 13-year-old from Idaho, Spring Adams, who was shot to death by her father after he found out that she planned to terminate a pregnancy, a pregnancy he caused by his act of incest. Under this bill, he would have the parental notification or veto right.

This bill is radically different from previous versions. If you voted for this bill in the past, look again. It would now, for the first time, jail doctors. It would now, for the first time, require doctors to know the laws of all 50 States. It would now, for the first time, require a doctor to fly to the young woman's home State and ring her parents' doorbell before treating her. Even if the young girl's State of residence and the doctor's State have both decided not to enact parental notification or consent laws, this bill would impose a new Federal parental notification law that is more Draconian than the laws of most States.

This bill imposes a 24-hour waiting period and does not waive that requirement even if the parents accompany the young woman to the abortion doctor and even if a delay would threaten her health. That is not only unconstitutional; it is immoral. Congress should not be tempted to play doctor. It is always bad medicine for women.

In an ideal world, loving, supportive and understanding families would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in the majority of cases, law or no law; but we do not live in a perfect world. Some parents are violent; some parents are rapists. Some young people can turn only to their clergy, to a grandparent, a brother, a sister, or some other trusted adult. We should not turn these people into criminals simply because they are trying to help a young woman in a difficult or dire situation.

This bill is the wrong way to deal with a very real problem. It does not provide exceptions to protect the young woman's health. It does not provide exceptions where a parent has raped a young woman. It even allows the rapist to sue the clergyman or the doctor who tries to help the doctor deal with the effects of the rape committed by the rapist. It allows the rapist to sue the doctor and gain from his crime.

I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation on both constitutional and policy grounds. If only for the sake of humanity, I urge Members to join in providing the needed flexibility for the most difficult real-world cases involving the lives of real young women. We owe them at least that much.

We also owe the States the respect to note that some of them have passed such laws, some have not. Why should we impose these laws in States that have not done it? Why should we tell someone in one State because you came from another State, you are subject to the laws of that State wherever you go. We do not do that in this country generally. We are supposed to be a Federal Republic, although increasingly in this House we seem to forget that. I urge rejection of this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we have alluded repeatedly in this debate to the reasons why this bill is oppressive and is wrong, and we have alluded to the fact that it is unconstitutional, but we have not really gone into that.

The fact is that under the rulings of the Supreme Court, it is not permissible to pass a law which has the effect of imposing one State's legal requirements on another State, as this bill does. In essence, the bill imposes on States and physicians the laws of the States that have the most stringent requirements on abortion. Federalism dictates that one has the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in another State, according to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment.

In the Saenz case in 1999, the Supreme Court held that a State cannot discriminate against a citizen of another State when there is no substantial reason for the discrimination, except for the fact that they are a citizen of another State. The court specifically referred to Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, where it said the State cannot limit access to its medical care facilities for abortions to in-State residents. A State must treat all that are seeking medical care within that State in an equal manner.

This bill would, in effect, say that there are two legal regimes in a State. One is the regime, the system, the set of laws that apply to residents of that State passed by the State legislature of that State. The second law that applies applies to people who came from another State, and it is the laws of that other State that apply, plus the laws of this State. Constitutionally, you cannot do that. You cannot make, you cannot make a young woman carry the law of one State on her back wherever she goes because she originated in that State.

I said before that Congress has made no attempt to use Federal authority to impose the laws of one State on another since the Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act, if passed today, would clearly be unconstitutional. This bill is clearly unconstitutional, as well as oppressive.

It is also wrong because the States that have decided not to impose such laws on their own citizens should not be forced to because we say so.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be offering this amendment with my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, this is one of the amendments that the committee report lied about. This amendment would prevent terrible and, I assume, unintended injustices. The amendment creates an exception to the provisions that make it a crime to accompany a minor across State lines who is seeking abortion services if the person accompanying the minor is a grandparent or a member of the clergy.

These are responsible adults to whom young people often turn when they are in trouble and cannot go to their parents. In an ideal world, that would never happen; but where that is the case, where they feel they cannot turn to their parents, I think we want our young people to able to turn to a grandparent or their minister, priest, or rabbi.

At the very least, I do not think Members want to put grandmothers and members of the clergy behind bars simply because they did not want to leave a young person alone and unaided during a very difficult moment.

Do we really want to put grandmothers and clergy in jail? Surely the supporters of this bill would not want to put a grandmother or reverend in jail who is only trying to help a minor.

I know they argue that the evil abortion providers are spiriting them away, but we are not talking about if that ever occurred. We are talking about the grandmother of the minor. We are talking about the trusted minister, priest, or rabbi of the minor whom she seeks out and confides in.

The opponents of this amendment have argued that it is the fundamental right of a parent to be involved in any decision concerning the pregnancy of their child. This is certainly true.

But in the real world, there are situations where it is impossible for a minor to tell a parent about a pregnancy, for instance, in cases of incest, where the parents physically abuse their children or in the case that I mentioned while in general debate of the young 13-year-old girl whose father had raped her, found out she was pregnant, and murdered her. In these cases, a minor needs to be able to turn to a responsible adult, such as a grandparent or a clergy member, for assistance. We should not criminalize this assistance. We should not be throwing caring grandmothers, grandparents, or ministers in jail.

Now, it may be that a properly drafted amendment that would say if it was a ring of people doing this for money, maybe that would be reasonable, but not a grandparent or a clergy member who was helping a young person in trouble.

Some have argued that we should defeat this amendment because there are cases, albeit few and isolated, where a grandparent or a member of the clergy may be a sexual predator. Sadly, this is true sometimes. Thankfully, it is rarely true. It is also true that sometimes a parent is a sexual predator, and this bill not only does not protect the minor in those cases. It requires the doctor to ring the sexual predator's doorbell to tell him what is going on, and it gives the sexual predator the ability to sue the doctor. That is what the bill does.

Even with this exception, with the exception in this amendment, any sexual predator will still face the full force of the law. Those crimes can, and should still, be punished. This amendment in no way shields these criminals from the consequences of their acts. It does, however, protect caring grandparents and clergy from going to jail just because they cared enough about a young person to stand with them in a difficult time.

Mr. Chairman, it should be the duty of the government and Congress to provide help to young women in these trying times, not to make life more difficult than it needs to be.

Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am most certainly opposed to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill allows a father to sue the person who accompanied the young woman or, if he did not receive the required notice, to sue the doctor who provided the abortion even if he himself, the father, that is, caused the pregnancy by rape or incest.

If adopted, my motion to recommit would simply ensure that this right to sue does not extend to a parent who caused the pregnancy through rape or incest. The motion to recommit would ensure that this bill would not enable such rapists to profit from their wrongdoing.

I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) will say that the bill already prohibits suits by rapists, but the so-called prohibition in the bill applies only to suits against the doctor, not against the person who accompanied her, and even against the doctor only in the unlikely event that the minor declares the rape in a signed written statement to the doctor.

Aside from that exception, the rapist under this bill will profit from the newly established rights to sue the doctor or the unlimited newly established right to sue the person who accompanied her.

I cannot believe that any Member of this House, even those who support parental-consent laws, could really want to enable a criminal, a father who raped his daughter and caused the pregnancy, to be able to profit from his wrongdoing by suing doctors, grandmothers, and clergymen. This motion would correct this obvious mistake; and I think, or at least I hope, that the sponsors of this bill would agree that this amendment should be adopted.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of loose talk over the last few days about sexual predators and the need to protect young women. We may not agree in this House on the best way to protect these young women, but we should all be able to agree that a father who rapes his daughter should not profit from his crime. This bill as presently constituted gives him that power. The motion to recommit would take that ability away from him and would do nothing else at all.

The motion to recommit simply says a father who rapes his daughter or commits incest with her and causes that pregnancy cannot then sue someone who performs an abortion or who accompanies her to an abortion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

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

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker. What is the basis for the objection to a request for insertion into the Record of material?

Mr. Speaker, is it not customary as a normal matter of comity in this House to allow all material requested to be placed in the Record?

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Yes, it is.

Mr. Speaker, in light of new information, I withdraw the appeal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the worst giveaway to special interests, the worst rip-off of the public, of the middle class than I have ever seen in my public life. The people who understand how bankruptcy law functions in the real world, the scholars, judges, trustees and lawyers, whether they represent debtors, creditors, businesses or individuals, have all told us this bill will not work, that it will be costly, and that it will produce unfair and irrational results. But we are ignoring them, trusting instead lobbyists, credit card companies, banks, and anyone else who wants a special favor; and, boy, are there special favors galore.

The credit card companies are the big winners, but so are shopping centers, car lenders, crooked debt collectors, investment bankers, credit unions, and assorted sub-prime lenders.

Those credit counseling operations that we have investigated for dishonest activity, they now get a monopoly on granting access to bankruptcy. Credit card companies that want their debts to survive the bankruptcy and compete with child support claims, they get their wish. Landlords who want to boot tenants out of their apartments, it is easier.

Did you buy a trailer home or a car on credit? Now you will have to pay the lender more than the home or car is worth to keep it.

Are you a tax collector? There is an entire title in the bill just to squeeze more money out of debtors.

Are you a pawnbroker? Section 1230 is for you. You get to keep the pawned property, and it cannot be sold to pay other debts like child support or medical expenses. That is right. Congress is more worried about the rights of pawnbrokers than about the rights of children.

So what is going on here? Why are bankers and bureaucrats telling us this bill is great for single parents with children while children and family advocates are telling us that it is not? Why does Congress believe studies paid for by the credit card industry that label millions of Americans crooks, while ignoring our own Congressional Budget Office, the independent and nonpartisan American Bankruptcy Institute, and the Government Accountability Office, all say these studies are bunk?

The supporters say if we help the banks collect more money from bankrupt families, we will not have to pay that $400 bankruptcy tax. Our interest rates will go down because the banks will be able to collect more money. But the Republican leadership would not allow us to consider an amendment that would sunset the bill in several years if no savings are passed on to consumers, and they will not be. Interest rates have come down over the last 10 years on mortgages, on cars, on everything, but not on credit cards.

Does anyone here trust VISA and MasterCard? Because we are writing them a blank check paid for with taxpayer money and trusting them to share the benefits with American consumers. Trust the banks. Trust the lobbyists. Do not trust the people who do these cases for a living. Do not trust the advocates for women and kids. Do not trust the civil rights community. Do not trust the laboring community. Do not trust disabled veterans and military family advocates. Do not trust crime victims organizations.

Trust the banks. Trust the credit card companies. Trust VISA card. Trust MasterCard. They are the beneficiaries. The public will be the victims, and we will rue the day in a few years when the 60 or 70 different ways in which this bill enables the credit card companies to stick their hands in the pockets of low- and middle-income people and extremists going bankrupt because of a medical emergency, and take more money out of that. Then the voters will know who really owns this place.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the worst giveaway to special interests, the worst rip-off of the public, of the middle class, I have ever seen in my public life.

Mr. Speaker, it is fitting that this House take up this 512-page goodie bag for every special interest in town. Just yesterday, the Republican majority rammed through a bill that would eliminate the estate tax for the very wealthiest Americans. At least the Republican majority is consistent: more for the very wealthy, no responsibility for big banks, and squeeze the middle class.

This bill, which can only be described as the poster-child for campaign finance reform, will soon shoot through this House and to a President who has vowed that he would sign it.

Mr. Speaker, bankruptcy is notoriously complicated, but the members of this House have certainly never let the complexity of a problem get in the way of a good deal. The people who understand how bankruptcy law functions in the real world: the scholars, judges, trustees, and lawyers--whether they represent debtors, creditors, businesses or individuals--have all told us this bill won't work, that it will be costly, that it will produce unfair and irrational results. But we are ignoring them, trusting instead lobbyists, credit card companies, banks, and anyone else who wants some special favor.

And boy, are there favors galore. The credit card companies are the big winners, but so are shopping centers, car lenders, crooked debt collectors, investment bankers, credit unions, and assorted sub-prime lenders.

Those credit counseling operations that we've investigated for dishonest activity? They now get a monopoly on granting access to bankruptcy. Credit card companies that want their debts to survive the bankruptcy and compete with child support claims? They get their wish?

Landlords who want to boot tenants out of their apartments? This bill makes it easier.

Did you buy a trailer home or a car on credit? Now you will have to pay the lender more than the home or car is worth to keep it.

Are you a tax collector? There is an entire title in this bill just for you to squeeze more money out of debtors.

Are you a pawn broker? Section 1230 is for you! You get to keep the pawned property and it can't be sold to pay other debts, like child support, or medical expenses. That's right, Congress is more worried about the rights of pawn brokers than about the rights of children.

So what's going on here? Why are bankers and bureaucrats telling us that this bill is great for single parents with children while children and family advocates are telling us that it is not? More to the point-- why are so many members of Congress so willing to believe bankers over the people who we work with day in and day out to protect the rights of children?

Why does Congress believe studies paid for by the credit card industry that label millions of Americans crooks, while ignoring our own Congressional Budget Office, the independent and non-partisan American Bankruptcy Institute, and the Government Accountability Office, all of whom tell us these studies are bunk?

Why are we willing to spend so much public money to collect private debts for banks? According to the Congressional Budget Office, this bill will cost the government $392 million over the first 5 years, increasing the deficit by $280 million. It will impose new costs on the private sector of more than $123 million per year, in violation of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. That number does not include increased costs to debtors.

What are we spending this money on?

Means testing alone will cost the government $150 million over the first 5 years.

The government will be a private collection agency for credit card companies. Government funded audits will cost $66 million. The government will collect and store debtors' tax returns for another $10 million.

Just to administer this whole mess, we will spend another $26 million on extra judges--and no one here thinks that will be enough.

So why should taxpayers spend all these millions to collect private debts for MasterCard and Visa? I asked George Wallace, the representative of the creditor coalition, that question. I asked whether he was aware that current law gives creditors the right to challenge the discharge of debts, examine debtors under oath, demand any documents from the debtors, seek dismissal of a case, and many other legal remedies.

He said ``I have done these things and they do take a fair amount of time and I bill my clients for them. They are expensive.'' So I asked him why the government should pay to collect these debts if the banks think it's too expensive to collect their debts themselves.

His response explains this whole bill. ``Because it's a governmental program, sir. Because it is not the job of the creditor.''

A governmental program? We need to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to help the nation's biggest banks collect money from bankrupt families? Is this the new welfare?

I want to thank Mr. Wallace for his honesty. He may be the only honest lobbyist left in Washington.

Some will say that if we help the banks collect more money from bankrupt families, then we won't have to pay that $400 ``bankruptcy tax.'' Our interest rates will go down because the banks will be able to collect more money.

The distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee has made this the cornerstone of the legislation. He recently told the Financial Times of London, ``The responsible thing for the credit card issuers to do would be to reduce interest rates because there is less risk. If they don't they will play into the hands of the opponents of the bill-- it would reduce their credibility.''

I agree, but the Republican leadership wouldn't allow us to consider an amendment that would sunset the bill in 2 years if no savings are passed on to consumers. So I guess we're being asked to trust the biggest banks in America not to pocket the extra money. And they won't be. Interest rates have come down. Mortgage rates, car loans, but not credit card rates.

Ask yourself: Where's my $400? Does any one here trust Visa and MasterCard? Because you are writing them a blank check, paid for with taxpayer money, and trusting them to share the benefits with American consumers.

Anyone who really trust them to do this, raise your hand. Anyone?

Go ahead and vote for this. Why not? It's a done deal. Trust the banks. Trust the lobbyists. Don't trust the people who do these cases for a living. Don't trust the advocates for women and kids. Don't trust the civil rights community. Don't trust labor. Don't trust disabled veterans' and military family advocates. Don't trust crime victims organizations. Trust the banks. Trust Visa. Trust MasterCard.

At least the voters will know who really runs this place.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to join hundreds of thousands of young people across the Nation to ``break the silence'' surrounding the scourge of anti-gay bullying and harassment in our schools. In more than 4,000 schools in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, students have taken a day-long vow of silence to peacefully and poignantly draw attention to the abuse routinely faced by their lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) classmates. Over 450,000 students are expected to participate in this year's National Day of Silence.

This ever-growing, student-led effort, co-sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) and the United States Student Association, is a clarion call to parents, teachers, and school administrators to help end the all too common practice of dismissing or discounting student-on-student harassment. It is increasingly clear that young people of conscience will not sit idly by as their LGBT friends or classmates are preyed upon by bullies and bigots. They will stand up and speak out against such bigotry and intolerance, even if the adults in their lives will not.

We have all heard the saying, ``sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me,'' which has been used for generations by countless children to fend off verbal attacks from their peers. Unfortunately, the notion that such verbal bullying or harassment is a ``normal'' and unavoidable part of growing up remains a widely accepted attitude amongst school administrators and teachers in this country. Too often, adults tend to dismiss or even romanticize schoolyard bullying as some sort of coming of age ritual or an inevitable ``right of passage.'' Today, I join with the growing chorus of voices, including informed educators, children's rights advocates and students, who reject such anachronistic, survival-of-the-fittest thinking.

The uncomfortable truth is that ``names'' and labels can indeed hurt. For sensitive or vulnerable young people--particularly LGBT youth who are already struggling with their sexuality in a cultural and social context that often is overwhelmingly hostile to it--such verbal

abuse, and the social and emotional isolation that often accompanies it, can leave lasting emotional scars.

And too many schools have a culture that fosters and sustains a hostile environment for these youth. Surveys indicate that the average high school student hears 25 anti-gay slurs daily; 97 percent of high school students regularly hear homophobic remarks. Even more alarming are the results of GLSEN's must recent National School Climate Survey, which found that 84 percent of LGBT students had suffered some form of abuse and 82.9 percent of these reported that adults never or rarely intervened when present. It is unsurprising that such a pervasive atmosphere of harassment takes its toll. LGBT students are far more likely to skip classes, drop out of school and, most disturbingly, attempt suicide.

According to numerous studies, LGBT teens are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide. Such statistics are a sobering reminder that we must redouble our efforts to provide our children with safe and secure learning environments. No student should be harassed or attacked simply because they are perceived as different, or because they have had the courage to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation.

Through their actions, the student organizers and participants of the Day of Silence set an example for their peers and their elders alike. Their silence has spoken volumes about the need for us to recognize the corrosive climate of fear and intimidation that any kind of bullying creates. Our schools should be havens for learning and personal growth, not arenas for conflict and harassment. For their courage, their compassion, and their tenacity, I honor all those who took this vow of silence today.