[Pages H2562-H2573]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 748, CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION
NOTIFICATION ACT

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 236 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 236

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 748) to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prevent the transportation of minors in circumvention of
certain laws relating to abortion, and for other purposes.
The first reading of the bill

[[Page H2563]]

shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in
the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute shall be considered as read. Notwithstanding
clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 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, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such amendments are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the
Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee
amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. GINGREY. 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.

{time} 1200

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.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.

[[Page H2564]]

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. GINGREY. 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

[[Page H2565]]

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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take issue with the
characterizations that the distinguished gentlewoman from New York has
made about the committee report and about my actions in two respects.
First of all, every committee report that is filed in the House of
Representatives does allow the people who disagreed with the
legislation to file dissenting views; and those who did support the
legislation can file additional views, all of which are printed in the
committee report.
The majority has the responsibility in the committee report to
articulate the arguments in favor of the bill because the committee
report represents the views of those who voted in favor of the
legislation at the committee level.
The amendments that were offered and which are the text, or the
description, at issue here in this debate today were all offered by
members of the Committee on the Judiciary who oppose the bill. They
were all defeated by a majority vote in the committee; and my
committee, perhaps in a minority in the Congress, does print the entire
text of our committee markups in committee reports. The text of the
debate in the markup and the text of the amendments are contained in
pages 58 through 120 of House Report 109-51 inclusive.
Now, what the gentlewoman from New York is complaining about is the
majority's arguments in favor of the bill and against the amendments
which were defeated. To attempt to have those who voted against the
bill rewrite the arguments that are in favor of the bill contained in
the committee report is just as wrong as those who voted in favor of
the bill attempting to rewrite the dissenting views which are appended
to the committee report and represent the views of those who voted
against the bill.
Second point: it is against the rules of the House of Representatives
to impugn the motives of another Member. So the intent of the authors
of the amendments that were defeated in the committee and which were
described in the committee report is out of bounds. It cannot be done
on the floor. It cannot be done in committee reports. So all that can
be done in terms of the debate is to look at what the effect of the
amendments was.
Perhaps these amendments were not properly drafted by the authors
when they were submitted in the committee because they did not contain
a specific carve-out of the exemptions that were proposed for the
various classes of people that were proposed to be exempted in the
amendment. This is not the fault of the majority. That is the fault of
the people who drafted the amendments; and because the amendments were
not tightly enough drafted, they did not contain a carve-out of the
exemptions for sexual predators. That is what we pointed out in the
committee report.
It is not the fault of the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary
or me as chairman in filing this report to gloss over a defect that did
allow exemptions for sexual predators. The minority has the chance in
their dissenting views to dispute the conclusion that had been reached
in describing what the amendments were. They chose not to do so.
So the committee report and the headers on the amendments accurately
reflect the fact that those who authored the amendment did not choose
to carve out an exemption for sexual predators in the effect of the
amendment in the clear text of the amendment that was submitted.
I rest my case.

{time} 1215

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

[[Page H2566]]

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.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 3
minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the author
of the bill.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my wonderful friend,
the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding me this time and
for managing the bill and allowing us to focus once again on the bill
and the rule.
I want to thank the distinguished, the very distinguished gentleman
who is the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), as well as the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Chabot), who has been a champion of this bill, and it was in his
subcommittee where it was first heard.
I am so proud to stand here in favor of House Resolution 748, the
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. This bill will incorporate
all of the provisions previously contained in the previous legislation
that we had filed, the Child Custody Protection Act, making it a
Federal offense to transport a minor across State lines to circumvent
that State's abortion parental notification laws.
In addition, this year's bill will require that in a State without a
parental notification requirement, abortion providers are required to
notify a parent. It will protect minors from exploitation from the
abortion industry, it will promote strong family ties, and it will help
foster respect for State laws. Similar but not identical legislation
has had the support of the overwhelming majority of the Members of
Congress who have voted in favor of it, not only in 1998 and in 1999,
but also in 2002.
I am extremely hopeful that this commonsense pro-family legislation
will pass both the House, the Senate, and will be signed into law by
our President. As the mother of two teenage daughters, I believe this
bill would protect my girls, and I encourage my colleagues to vote in
favor of the rule and support this commonsense legislation on a concept
that is supported by the majority of Americans. I believe that it is a
bill that pro-choice advocates can support.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), who was also maligned in the
report.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, let me speak briefly about the distortion in the
description of my amendment in the committee report. First, the
suggestion, as the gentleman from New York has indicated, the
suggestion that we had an opportunity to respond to the majority report
is just not accurate. Perhaps we need to change the rules in light of
this distortion, but the dissenting views explain our opposition to the
bill, and we do not see the majority report prior to the submission of
the dissenting views. Therefore, we had no way of knowing that such
distortions would be part of the committee report.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill makes it illegal to transport a
minor across State lines for the purpose of getting an abortion. Let me
read my amendment. ``The prohibitions of this section do not apply with
respect to conduct by taxicab drivers, bus drivers, nurses, medical
providers, or others in the business of professional transport.'' It
was described in the report as saying: ``Mr. Scott offered an amendment
that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are
taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional
transport.''
Let me just say that if a person is known to be a sexual predator,
the last thing a prosecutor would have done would be to say, aha, we
have him for transporting a minor across State lines as a taxicab
driver, and we can get him for a misdemeanor; when, obviously, if they
can show that he is a sexual predator, they have many felonies they
could prosecute him for. But my view on the description and the
distortion of this amendment is that it says more about the character
of the persons responsible for describing the amendment that way, or
for those trying to defend the distortion, than it does about the
amendment.
I would point out that the Committee on Rules changed the description
from the distortion in the committee report and described it as
follows: ``Amendment immunizes taxicab drivers, bus drivers, and others
in the business of professional transport; doctors and nurses and
others, medical providers or their staff, from the transportation
provision of the bill.'' A description of what the amendment says, a
clarification of the distortion, but again, Mr. Speaker, it just says
more about the character of the people who wrote that distortion than
it does about the amendment.
I would hope that we would adopt an amendment to the rules that would
require the Committee on Rules to eliminate that distortion so that the
public will be accurately informed as to what is in the bill and the
amendments.
Mr. GINGREY. 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. NADLER. I never said that. I said it did not come up with respect
to my amendments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Georgia
controls the time.
Mr. GINGREY. 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. PITTS. Mr. Speaker, a woman from my district came to Washington
last month to tell Congress about how her daughter was taken to New
Jersey for an abortion without her knowledge and she said, ``On
February 16th, I sent my daughter to her bus stop with $2 of lunch
money. I thought she was safe at school. She and her boyfriend had a
prenatal class scheduled after school.''
So the mom knew about the 14-year-old daughter's pregnancy. Her
daughter had chosen to keep the baby and was attending prenatal
classes.

[[Page H2567]]

The mom continues, ``However, what really happened was that boyfriend
and his family met with her down the road from the bus stop, called a
taxi, they put the children on a train from Lancaster to Philadelphia.
From there they took two subways to New Jersey. That is where his
family met the children and took them to the abortion clinic. When my
daughter started to cry and have second thoughts, they told her that
they would leave her in New Jersey. They planned, paid for, coerced,
harassed and threatened her into having the abortion. They left her
alone during the abortion and went to eat lunch.''
From this incident let us be clear on what the law allows. A 14-year-
old girl tells her mom she is pregnant. Mom says she will support her
in whatever choice she makes. The daughter chooses to have the baby and
begins to prepare for delivery, even chooses the names. Boyfriend's
family bullies the girl into having an abortion and sends her to New
Jersey. All this time the mother thinks she is sending her daughter to
school. Instead, the boyfriend's family dropped this young girl in
tears off at an abortion clinic and then went to eat lunch. Her unborn
baby is killed and she is in counseling to this day.

{time} 1230

Mr. Speaker, this bill would correct this problem. It would protect
our children. No parent should be kept in the dark when it comes to a
medical issue regarding their children. I urge support for the rule and
the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. 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

[[Page H2568]]

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. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support
of H.R. 748 and the rule that we have in front of us this afternoon. I
commend the sponsor of the legislation, the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), for introducing this legislation, legislation of
which I am a proud cosponsor.
Mr. Speaker, I find it unacceptable that under the current law any
person in this country can take a pregnant minor to another State for
the purpose of having an abortion without parents' knowledge and/or
consent.
As the father of a teenage daughter myself, it is a frightening
scenario. I am particularly happy to see that this bill will require
abortion providers to inform a minor's parent or legal guardian within
24 hours before carrying out an abortion procedure.
Parental notification is not a new idea. I have three children, and
my wife and I have to sign a parental consent form when our children go
on a field trip. But what we are talking about today is the most
serious of subjects, and I strongly believe no parent should find out
after the fact that such a procedure has been performed on their child.
When it comes to such a serious medical procedure being performed on
a minor, we cannot leave that notification up to a scared child. Every
parent or legal guardian has a right to know, and this legislation
ensures that right. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on H.R.
748 which ensures that right.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to
H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It would be
more aptly called the Teenage Abandonment Act because that is what this
bill does. It abandons our teenage children.
When I was a school nurse, I was privileged to administer a school-
based program for teen parents and pregnant teenagers, helping them to
stay in school and support their children. What I saw firsthand was
that for these young women, the discovery that they were pregnant
presented them with the hardest choices they would ever face. They
needed the help of adults to sort through the issues surrounding their
pregnancy, but this bill makes sure that many pregnant teenagers will
be all alone as they face this problem.
Ideally, of course, a pregnant teenager will turn to parents for
advice and support. Believe me, those who can and are able, they do.
But we do not live in an ideal world. Sadly, not all parents are good.
Some parents are abusive; other parents are not equipped to deal with
this. And in some awful situations, a parent is responsible for the
daughter's pregnancy.
In these terrible conditions, it is critical that a young girl coping
with severe emotional distress be able to turn to other loving adults
for help and guidance: perhaps a doctor, a teacher, a clergy, or a
grandparent. This bill discourages that. Judicial bypass sounds easy on
paper, not in real life for a teenager. This bill cuts off other
support a young woman might have. It abandons her at her time of most
critical need.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to be compassionate toward young women,
really compassionate, we are going to defeat this bill.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
Ms. HART. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time on this extremely important issue.
I decided it was important to speak some words about it. As a State
legislator for a number of years, and a lot of us here were, I
understand the importance of State laws and the importance of
respecting families.
I am just shocked at some of the debate I hear on the other side of
the aisle opposing this legislation. The whole point here is to support
the family. The whole point here is to prevent the person who may even
be a sexual predator or the person who is exploiting this minor from
transporting this child across a State line to obtain an abortion and
basically get rid of his problem.
It is outrageous that we would not support this legislation. A minor
needs parental consent to engage in sports in school, to get a tattoo
or a body piercing; yet we are allowing people to take a child across
State lines for an abortion.

[[Page H2569]]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we pass this bill. It is important
to preserve families. I believe with all my heart we are just nuts not
to support this bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, and I know
some people strongly support the bill. This clearly is an emotional
issue. We can debate both sides of this. But I rise to express my deep
regret over the report from the Committee on the Judiciary that
accompanied this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a civility left in this House, and what
little civility is left I want to protect. Listening to my colleagues
on the other side talk about, and the way they have mischaracterized
and misrepresented and, yes, maligned Democratic Members on this side,
and I say maligned because if you use those words that you used to
describe their amendments to describe them on this House floor, your
words would be taken down.
One of the kinds of traditions or the unwritten rules of this House
is when you describe the amendments offered by Republicans or
Democrats, it is done so in a nonpartisan way. In the Committee on
Rules, we get more amendments than any other committee in this House,
and they are all described in a nonpartisan way. We would never
describe anybody's amendment in this kind of a political way. If we
did, there would be an outcry amongst members on that committee.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to kind of take a
step back, to correct the report, to demonstrate some civility and some
rationality on this issue. Nobody deserves to have their amendments
characterized the way these Members did. This is wrong, and I know deep
down you know it is wrong.
It is difficult for me to sit by and watch my colleague from Georgia
and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who I have great
respect for, try to rationalize this. We are better than this. I would
hope there could be a bipartisan consensus when it comes to
descriptions of amendments in reports, we could do this in a
nonpartisan way.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule
and the underlying bill, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification
Act.
Mr. Speaker, eight in 10 Americans favor parental notification laws,
and 44 States have recognized the important role of parents in a minor
child's decision to have an abortion by enacting a parental involvement
statute. Even so, many of these laws are being circumvented by people
who simply transport girls across State lines to States without
parental notification laws for the purpose of getting an abortion.
All too often these other adults are grown men who sexually preyed
upon the young girls, and they used the abortions to cover up their
crimes. CIANA returns parental rights to parents.
Despite the strong deference it gives to abortion rights, even the
U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that parents' rights to control the care
of their children is among the most fundamental of all liberty
interests. The Supreme Court has consistently recognized that parents
have a legal right to be involved in their minor daughter's decision to
seek medical care, including abortion.
The court has consistently affirmed a State's right to restrict the
circumstances under which a minor may obtain an abortion in ways that
adult women seeking abortion are not restricted. The Supreme Court has
also observed that ``the medical, emotion, and psychological
consequences of an abortion are serious and can be lasting,'' and that
``it seems unlikely that a minor will obtain adequate counsel and
support from an attending physician at an abortion clinic where
abortions for pregnant minors frequently take place.''
The Supreme Court has also stated that ``minors often lack the
experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices
that could be detrimental to them.''
No one has the child's best interest at heart more than her parents.
Minors have to have parental permission to be given an aspirin by the
school nurse. Twenty-six States have laws requiring parental consent
before minors can get body piercings or tattoos, and in fact some
States prohibit tattooing of minor children even with parental consent.
Parents must be able to play a role.
The public, State statutes, and Supreme Court precedent all support
parental involvement in a minor's life decision. Please support the
rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.)
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the bill and
to the proposed rule for this bill.
The two amendments made in order under the proposed rule, the Scott
amendment and the Jackson-Lee/Nadler amendment are very important
amendments. At the same time, it is instructive to note that many of
the nine Democratic amendments that were not made in order seek to
protect the people most directly affected by the bill: the young girls
who wish to exercise their constitutional right to end their pregnancy.
For example, I offered an amendment before the Committee on Rules to
create an exception to the criminal penalties and a civil suit imposed
on a person transporting a young girl across State lines in cases where
the minor is a victim of incest. Because the bill lacks a judicial
bypass procedure in circumstances where the Federal notification
requirements apply, under this bill a young girl could be required to
notify a parent who impregnated her before obtaining an abortion even
though it would be inappropriate, traumatic, and potentially dangerous
to require her to do so.
Mr. Speaker, if a young girl is required to notify a parent who has
molested her that she is pregnant before traveling to another State to
seek an abortion, I fear that some girls may seek to end their
pregnancy without help, whether they do so by traveling alone to
another State for the procedure, or even worse, through a self-induced
or illegal back-alley abortion. However, the Republican members on the
Committee on Rules refused to make this amendment in order on a party-
line vote.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and I also
offered a commonsense amendment barring a parent who has molested his
daughter and caused her to be pregnant from any relief under this bill.

{time} 1245

However, this too was rejected on a party-line vote.
Mr. Speaker, this bill should be considered under an open rule that
would allow consideration of amendments to protect the young girls who
choose to seek an abortion. In its current form, the bill gives rights
to a parent who has victimized his daughter.
I urge my colleagues to reject the rule.
Mr. GINGREY. 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. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act of 2005, introduced by the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), and I want to thank her for her leadership
on this.
We have passed this bill a number of times in a different form. There
is one addition in this particular bill. But it is good legislation. I
strongly encourage my colleagues to support it. CIANA is critical to
better protecting young girls who fall prey to older men as well as
ensuring fundamental parental rights, that parents have the right to be
involved in the decisions of their daughters, particularly one that may
have the long-term consequences of this particular decision.
CIANA builds on the Child Custody Protection Act by requiring that
abortion providers provide 24 hours' notice

[[Page H2570]]

to one of the minor's parents, or legal guardians if necessary, prior
to performing an abortion, unless one of four carefully crafted
exceptions is met. As I said, young girls are increasingly falling prey
to older men who do not have the minor's best interests in mind.
Parents are being left out of decisions in which they can provide
critical information about their child's medical history and medical
conditions as well as provide appropriate follow-up care if necessary.
CIANA pushes back against this trend by allowing parents to have the
chance to exercise their right to be involved in what may be the most
important decision of their daughter's life.
There has been, obviously, concern raised and some umbrage taken
about the amendments in the committee report. I do not think we should
lose track of this important legislation, what it actually does; and I
think that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) made a very
important point, and that is that what was being pointed out was in
regard to these amendments what the effects would be and how predators
could take advantage of these amendments, not the intent of our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.)
Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time, and I commend her for her leadership on this issue and many
important issues.
Mr. Speaker, what we are really talking about today is the need to
prevent teen pregnancy. Let us understand that. We can disagree about
this issue. But I strongly feel, as a mother of four children, two
daughters and two sons, that by providing them information I am the one
who can assure that they behave responsibly. I do not need to
criminalize the behavior of others in trying to do my best job as a
mother. So I oppose this bill.
I also oppose the rule because it did not make in order something I
thought was totally obvious, and that is an amendment that I offered
with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) to prevent teen
pregnancy by funding programs which accomplish that. The Committee on
Rules chose not to make our amendment in order. All it would have done
was provide a series of criteria by which to judge teen pregnancy
programs. Those that were effective in preventing teen pregnancy would
get precious Federal dollars, and those that were not would not.
I would call that, given my background on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, a slam-dunk amendment, but it was not to the
Committee on Rules. So I oppose this rule because it shut out our
opportunity to offer our amendment. We will be introducing it as a
stand-alone bill and it is also part of a comprehensive bill that the
gentlewoman from New York has introduced. But I would hope that this
body later this year would do the right thing, and that is to put our
money where our mouth is. And where our mouth is, is to reduce unwanted
teen pregnancy. That is a much better answer than the thrust of this
legislation we are considering here today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members
that the gentlewoman from New York has 3 minutes remaining and the
gentleman from Georgia has 3 minutes remaining and the right to close.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 748, the
Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005, and the rule. I
want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for
leading the charge on this important piece of legislation.
Let us talk about what this piece of legislation does. It does three
things: one, it upholds the democratic process that has taken place in
44 States; it respects the rights of parents to be involved in the
medical decisions for their children; and, most importantly, it
protects the health of young daughters.
When someone takes their child to get their teeth cleaned, if they
are underage today, they have to have a parent's permission. We should
have parents involved in this very important decision in a young
woman's life and protect them from those who do not have their best
interests at heart.
I encourage the Members of this body to do the right thing today. Let
us protect these young women and make sure that this important decision
is with a parent's involvement and not with someone who does not have
their best interests.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. 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. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into
the Record the reports.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.

Hearings

The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a
hearing on H.R. 476 on September 6, 2001. Testimony was
received from the following witnesses: Ms. Eileen Roberts,
Mothers Against Minors' Abortions, Inc.; Professor John C.
Harrison, Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of
Law; Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, Vicar, St. David's Episcopal
Church; and Ms. Teresa S. Collett, Professor of Law, South
Texas College of Law. Additional material was submitted by
Honorable Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); Mr. Laurence H. Tribe,
Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law, Harvard University and
Mr. Peter J. Rubin, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown
University; Bill and Karen Bell; and the Center for
Reproductive Law and Policy.

Committee Consideration

On February 7, 2002, the Subcommittee on the Constitution
met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill
H.R. 476, by a voice vote, a quorum being present. On March
20, 2002, the Committee met in open session and ordered
favorably reported the bill H.R. 476 without amendment by a
recorded vote of 19 to 6, a quorum being present.

Vote of the Committee

1. An amendment was offered by Mrs. Waters to prohibit
subsection (a) of the Act from applying ``if the pregnancy is
the result of sexual contact with a parent or any other
person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or
responsibility for supervision of the minor, or by any
household or family member.'' The amendment was defeated by a
rollcall vote of 12 to 16.

Committee Oversight Findings

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that
the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in
the descriptive portions of this report.

Performance Goals and Objectives

H.R. 476 does not authorize funding. Therefore, clause 3(c)
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House is inapplicable.

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

Clause 3(c)(2) of House rule XIII is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth,
with respect to the bill, H.R. 476, the following estimate
and comparison prepared by the director of the Congressional
Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974:

Hearings

The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a
hearing on H.R. 1218, the

[[Page H2571]]

``Child Custody Protection Act,'' on May 27, 1999. Testimony
was received from the following witnesses: Ms. Eileen
Roberts, Mothers Against Minors' Abortions, Inc.; Ms. Billie
Lominick of Newbury, South Carolina; Professor Lino A.
Graglia, A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law, University of
Texas School of Law; Dr. Jonathon D. Klein, M.D., American
Academy of Pediatrics; and Professor John C. Harrison,
Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law.
Additional material was submitted by Professor Stephen B.
Presser, Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History,
Northwestern University School of Law; National Right to Life
Committee, Inc.; Center for Reproductive Law and Policy;
National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League; and the
American Civil Liberties Union.

Committee Consideration

On June 8, 1999, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met
in open session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 1218,
without amendment, by voice vote, a reporting quorum being
present. On June 23, 1999, the Committee met in open session
and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 1218, without
amendment, by a recorded vote of 16 to 13, a quorum being
present.

Vote of the Committee

1. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to exempt
grandparents and adult siblings of the minor from the
provisions of the bill. The amendment was defeated by a 13-17
roll call vote.
2. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to permit any
adult who reasonably believed that compliance with state
judicial bypass procedures would either ``compromise the
minor's intent to maintain confidentiality with respect to
her choice to terminate a pregnancy'' or would ``be futile
because the judicial bypass procedure of the minor's state of
residence is unavailable or ineffective,'' to obtain a waiver
of the requirements of the bill from a federal district
court. The amendment was defeated by a 14-17 roll call vote.
3. Four amendments were offered en bloc by Ms. Jackson Lee
to exempt ministers, rabbis, pastors, priests, other
religious leaders, aunts, uncles, godparents, and first
cousins from the provisions of the bill. The en bloc
amendment was defeated by a 14-16 roll call vote.
4. An amendment was offered by Ms. Waters to prevent the
application of the bill ``with respect to an abortion where
the pregnancy resulted from incest.'' The amendment was
defeated by a roll call vote of 12-15.
5. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to require proof
that the defendant acted with the intent to evade the
requirements of a state parental involvement law in order to
be prosecuted under the bill. The amendment was defeated by a
voice vote.
6. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to create an
exception where the abortion was necessary to prevent serious
physical illness, injury, or disability. The amendment was
defeated by a 11-17 roll call vote.
7. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson Lee to require
the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of ``the
impact of the number of unsafe and illegal abortions
performed on minors who would be affected by this law, and
report to Congress the results of that study within one
year.'' The amendment was defeated by a 12-17 roll call vote.
8. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to exempt medical
facilities, doctors, and other medical professionals from
prosecution under the bill. The amendment was defeated by a
12-16 roll call vote.
9. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to exempt
accessories after the fact, aiders and abetters, and other
principals from prosecution under the bill. The amendment was
defeated by a voice vote.
10. Final Passage. the motion to report the bill, H.R.
1218, favorably without amendment to the whole House. The
motion was agreed to by a roll call vote of 16-13.

Committee Oversight Findings

In compliance with clause 2(1)(3)(A) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee, based
on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in
the descriptive portions of this report.

Committee on Government Reform Findings

No findings or recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to
in clause 2(1)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

Clause 2(1)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or
increased tax expenditures.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

In compliance with clause 2(1)(3)(B) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee acts
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 1218, the following
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

Hearings

The Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a
hearing on H.R. 3682, the ``Child Custody Protection Act'' on
May 21, 1998. Testimony was received from the following
witnesses: Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; Representative
James L. Oberstar; Representative Nita Lowey; Representative
Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee;
Representative Christopher H. Smith; Ms. Joyce Farley of
Dushore, Pennsylvania; Ms. Eileen Roberts, Mothers Against
Minors' Abortion; Reverend Katherine Hancock Ragsdale,
Episcopalian Priest; Professor Teresa Collett, Professor of
Law, South Texas College of Law; Professor Stephen Presser,
Raoul Berger Professor of Legal History, Northwestern
University School of Law; and Mr. Robert Graci, Office of the
Attorney General of Pennsylvania.

Committee Consideration

On June 11, 1998, the Subcommittee on the Constitution met
in open session and ordered reported the bill H.R. 3682, as
amended, by a vote of 7 to 2, a reporting quorum being
present. On June 17, and June 23, 1998, the Committee met in
open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R.
3682 with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a
recorded vote of 17 to 10, a quorum being present.

Vote of the Committee

1. Mr. Canady offered an amendment to clarify that neither
the minor girl who is being taken out of state for an
abortion, nor her parents, may be subject to prosecution or
civil action and to add an affirmative defense where the
defendant reasonably believed, based on information the
defendant obtained directly from a parent of the individual
or other compelling facts, that the state parental
involvement law where the minor girl resides had been
complied with. The amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
2. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to Mr. Canady's
amendment to delete the word ``affirmative'' from the
affirmative defense. The amendment was defeated by a 9-15
roll call vote.
3. An amendment was offered by Mr. Nadler to Mr. Canady's
amendment to delete from the affirmative defense the
provision that the defendant's reasonable belief about
compliance with the state law where the minor resides must be
``based on information the defendant obtained directly from a
parent of the individual or other compelling facts.'' The
amendment was defeated by a 8-15 roll call vote.
4. An amendment was offered by Mr. Canady to clarify that
circumventing a state's parental involvement law is an
abridgement of a parent's right and to ensure that either
parental notice or consent or a judicial by-pass is obtained
before the out-of-state abortion, according to what would
have been required by the first state's law. The amendment
was agreed to by a voice vote.
5. An amendment was offered by Mr. Barr to add the phrase
``in fact'' to Mr. Canady's amendment to clarify that, under
the new language as amended, knowledge of violation of the
state law is not an element requiring specific proof. The
amendment was agreed to by a voice vote.
6. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to exempt the
sibling of a minor from the penalty provision of this Act.
The amendment was defeated by a 6-15 roll call vote.
7. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee that would
exempt ministers, rabbis, pastors, priests, or other
religious leaders from the penalty provisions of the Act. The
amendment was defeated by a 5-17 roll call vote.
8. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee to require
that one year after the enactment of this bill, GAO submit a
study on the impact on the number of illegal and unsafe
abortions and increased parental abuse, and report to
Congress the results of that study. The amendment was
defeated by a 8-4 roll call vote.
9. An amendment was offered by Mr. Conyers to create an
exception to the prohibitions of this bill to the extent such
prohibitions would increase ``hazards'' to the minor or place
an undue burden on a minor seeking an abortion. The amendment
was defeated by a 8-14 roll call vote.
10. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to create an
exception where a minor has participated in a judicial bypass
proceeding in any state court. The amendment was defeated by
a 9-16 roll call vote.
11. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to create an
exception where the abortion is necessary to prevent serious
physical illness or a serious health condition. The amendment
was defeated by a 11-16 roll call vote.
12. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to remove the
ability of parents to file a civil action for violation of
their rights under this bill. The amendment was defeated by a
voice vote.
13. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to exempt from
any criminal or civil liability abortion clinics and
providers. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
14. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to create a
health exception. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
15. An amendment was offered by Mr. Watt to require proof
of specific intent to evade a state's parental involvement
law. The amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
16. Two amendments were offered en bloc by Mr. Scott to
remove the applicability of sections 2 and 3 of title 18
dealing with accessory after the fact and aiding and abetting
principals under the bill. The en bloc amendment was defeated
by a voice vote.

[[Page H2572]]

17. An amendment was offered by Mr. Frank to insert a non-
severability clause. The amendment was defeated by a 5-15
roll call vote.
18. An amendment was offered by Mr. Scott to require a
finding of significant federal interest and insufficiency of
state laws before prosecution pursuant to this bill. The
amendment was defeated by a voice vote.
19. An amendment was offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee to exclude
grandparents from the prohibitions of this bill. The
amendment was defeated by an 8-16 rollcall vote.
20. Two amendments were offered en bloc by Ms. Jackson-Lee
to exclude aunts, uncles, and first cousins from the
prohibitions of this bill. The en bloc amendment was defeated
by a 9-16 rollcall vote.
21. Final Passage. Mr. Hyde moved to report the bill, H.R.
3682, favorably as amended by the amendment in the nature of
a substitute to the whole House. The motion was agreed to by
a rollcall vote of 17-10.

Committee Oversight Findings

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

No findings or recommendations of the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to
in clause 2(1)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of
Representatives.

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

Clause (2)(1)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable
because this legislation does not provide new budgetary
authority or increased tax expenditures.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, again I ask a ``no'' vote on the previous
question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
The gentlewoman said she has not heard a single case in which this
law would have affected anything. I will send her the transcript of a
witness at our hearing, Marcia Carroll, whose daughter was taken. An
abortion was provided for that daughter. That daughter said she would
do anything to undo what happened that day and that this is something
the family should have some involvement in.
Mr. GINGREY. 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.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 236--Rule on H.R. 748 Child Interstate
Abortion Notification Act

Text: At the end of the resolution add the following new
section:
``Sec. 2. The Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary
shall file a supplemental report to accompany H.R. 748 that
provides for an objective description of the amendments
offered during consideration.''
The following amendments were offered and voted down by
recorded votes in the Judiciary Committee markup of H.R.
748--The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA):
The Judiciary Committee mischar- acterized these amendments
in their official committee report on the bill.
No. 11-16. Objective Description: A Nadler amendment allows
an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a
Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state's
parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the
state court.
Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 1. 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. By a rollcall
vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.
No. 12-19. Objective Description: A Nadler amendment to
exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and
civil provisions in the bill.
Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 2. 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. By a rollcall vote
of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.
No. 13-17. Objective Description: A Scott amendment to
exempt cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business
transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the
bill.
Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 3. Mr. Scott
offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual
predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus
drivers, or others in the business of professional transport.
By a rollcall vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was
defeated.
No. 12-18. Objective Description: A Scott amendment that
would have limited criminal liability to the person
committing the offense in the first degree (No. 12-18).
Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 4. Mr. Scott
offered an amendment that would have exempted from
prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals
who could be prosecuted under the bill. By a rollcall vote of
12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated.
No. 13-20. Objective Description: A Jackson-Lee amendment
to exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins
from the penalties in the bill.

[[Page H2573]]

Committee Report Description: Rollcall No. 5. Ms. Jackson-
Lee offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual
predators from prosecution under the bill if they were
clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a
minor, and would require a study by the Government Accounting
Office. By a rollcall vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the
amendment was defeated.

Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

____________________