Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the preamble.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, in 2003, along with our former colleague Congressman Rob Portman, I introduced House Concurrent Resolution 106, recognizing the 350th anniversary of Jewish communal life in North America. H. Con. Res. 106 was adopted by unanimous vote. An identical resolution was introduced in the other body by Senators DeWine and Voinovich and was adopted as well. Today, I would like to insert in the Congressional Record a Rabbinical Resolution issued by the Presidents of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Rabbinical Assembly, the Rabbinical Council of America, and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association commemorating the 350th anniversary of Jewish life in America and proclaiming the period from September 2004 to September 2005 ``to be one of special thanksgiving, prayer, study, reflection and celebration.'' The resolution follows. Celebrate 350--Jewish Life in America, 1654-2004 Let it be known that in Elul 5764 (September 2004) the Jewish community of the United States began a year long commemoration marking the 350th Anniversary of Jewish settlement in this country. With the help of God and under the protection of the Constitution of the United States, we have lived and prospered in this land. We have been an integral part of American life. We have worked with all other Americans in the never-ending effort to keep secure the democratic way of life. Our ancient prophetic ideals and the teachings of our sages serve as cornerstones of this nation's values. Our work, our hopes, and above all, our living religion have been among our proudest offerings to the American community. In some lands across the seas the Jewish people have felt the searing flame of prejudice, persecution and death. The American Jew has had the sad yet inspiring opportunity to bring comfort to the oppressed, the joyous opportunity to participate in the reconstitution of the Jewish state on the ancient soil of Israel, and the inescapable and ennobling responsibility to mend the broken places in our world. Even as we have worked for the well-being of our people abroad, the Jewish people in America have struggled to preserve our noble heritage, our historic traditions, our ancient teachings, our ethics, and our spiritual ideals in the free climate of our nation. Mindful of our manifold blessings and with deep gratitude in our hearts to the God of Israel, Who, in 1954, led our forebears to the shores of this great new land, We have proclaimed the period from Elul 5764 (September 2004) through Elul 5765 (September 2005) to be one of special thanksgiving, prayer, study, reflection and celebration to mark the 350th Anniversary of Jewish Communal Life in America. We call on all American Jewry to participate in the observance of this anniversary; to thank God for the bountiful blessings that have been bestowed on us in this remarkable land. Let us express our collective hope that peace, security, and prosperity will reign in our nation for all. May the principles of freedom and liberty that have been the lodestar values of this great Republic continue to radiate their blessings on our nation. Rabbi Harry Danziger, President, Central Conference of American Rabbis. Rabbi Perry Raphael Rank, President, Rabbinical Assembly. Rabbi Dale Polakoff, President, Rabbinical Council of America. Rabbi Brant Rosen, President, Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, I want to take this opportunity to honor the late Supreme Court Justice William Hubbs Rehnquist. Our country was privileged to have Justice Rehnquist serve as a member of our Supreme Court for 33 years, the last 18 years, as we know, as Chief Justice. Once considered the maverick lone star justice for his solo dissents, he eventually led a majority which perhaps most importantly favored a shift in power from Washington back to the States where it belongs. Among other challenges he met during his tenure, Chief Justice Rehnquist presided over the impeachment trial of a President, President Clinton. Having served as one of the House managers myself, I can say that he did so with an evenhanded approach, showing fairness and dignity to both sides. Also, notably, he was the last member of the Court who voted on the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, dissenting from that ruling that legalized abortion. I will always appreciate his respect for the value of human life and his commitment to this body and local government's making decisions to protect life, such as the ban on partial-birth abortion. Through his opinions, the Chief Justice showed that an active Court could uphold conservative policy through judicial restraint. As we begin the process of finding a replacement for Justice Rehnquist, I hope that we will remember the important impact of his presence on the Court and his commitment to upholding the text and history of the Constitution. His strength and dedication to our country could be seen most recently when he fulfilled his duties of swearing in our 43rd President for the second time while battling terminal thyroid cancer. Let us remember this, I believe, historic Chief Justice for his love of the law and his love for his country. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family on this day.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this bill. I rise in strong support of the bill, and I would urge my colleagues to support it. The costs of the tort system continue to take their toll on the Nation's economy. Medical professional liability insurance rates have skyrocketed, causing major insurers to drop coverage or raise premiums to unaffordable levels. We have heard case after case where this last occurred nationwide. In fact, in my home State of Ohio, it has been designated as a ``crisis State'' by the American Medical Association. According to some estimates, premiums are now rising in Ohio anywhere from 10 percent to 40 percent, with many doctors involved in specialty practices such as obstetrics seeing their premiums rise by 100 percent, 100 percent or, in some cases, even more. Obviously, this has a negative impact on both patients and doctors, causing higher costs and forcing many doctors to close their practices. The HEALTH Act, this act that we are debating here this afternoon, addresses this crisis by eliminating frivolous lawsuits and making health care more accessible and more affordable. We have been talking about doing that for years. This is a bill where we can actually do something about making health more affordable. The HEALTH Act has enjoyed strong support in the House of Representatives in past Congresses, and I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this commonsense legislation if they are serious about bringing the high cost of health care in this country down to affordable levels.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, Ohio's number one-ranked Elder Panthers capped off a season of domination in grand fashion by celebrating its 12th State baseball championship. Here is my dentist's son, the catcher, Billy O'Conner, and pitcher, Matt Klausing, moments after the win on the front page of the Delhi Press. The 3-0 shutout over Toledo Start gave the Panthers 28 victories for the year, the most in school history, and marked the third consecutive Division I State baseball championship by a Cincinnati area team following in the footsteps of fellow GCL rivals Moeller back in 2004 and St. Xavier in 2003. Cincinnati Elder is no stranger to being honored on this House floor for its long-standing tradition of athletic and academic excellence. It gives me great pleasure to, once again, congratulate Elder High School and its players and coaches and students and teachers and parents on capturing yet another State title. As always, they make the west side of Cincinnati proud. An Elder Panther family, the Lysaghts, dropped off this T-shirt at my office, celebrating the win, and this La Salle Lancer intends to wear it with pride. Go Elder.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.J. Res. 10, the flag protection amendment, and I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) for his efforts to protect our country's most sacred symbol, the American flag. I would also like to thank our distinguished Judiciary chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his leadership in this area. I would also like to very briefly just address some of the allegations, particularly the one about not having hearings. As has been stated, we have had a number of hearings on this in the past. The interesting thing is when one holds these hearings or had we chosen to hold hearings again this time, I might add we had experts on both sides come and testify about this, there are allegations thrown at us, oh, here we go again, why are we holding these hearings once again? So you are really damned if you do or damned if you do not. I would also invite those who might be following this debate to listen to where the inflammatory rhetoric, which side it comes from, allegations thrown against us that this is a crass exploitation of the flag when we have not done this, that, or the other thing. I think those of us on this side tend to want to keep this debate on a very civil level and I would encourage my colleagues to do that. Since this country's creation, nothing has represented the United States of America as honorably as has the American flag. From the top of this very Capitol building to porches all across our country, the flag is synonymous with the principles on which this country was founded and the principles on which we still stand. Each day it serves as a source of comfort and strength and holds the promise of a better future for all Americans. However, there are those who, while claiming the very protections our country has to offer, would seek to defile it, to desecrate, to burn or otherwise destroy the very symbol that would seemingly protect their actions. Since 1994, and I want to emphasize this, there have been 119 incidents of such flag desecration, ones like the one that our distinguished chairman just indicated where somebody literally defecated on the flag. Despite the will of both the Federal and State governments to protect the flag from such abuse, the Supreme Court has struck down these efforts to protect our most sacred symbol and instead has protected these un-American acts. Congress must act and a constitutional amendment is the only answer. If we could do this legislatively, if we could pass a statute as we have done in the past which has been struck down by the Supreme Court, we would do that. But the only way that we can protect the flag is to amend the Constitution, and that is what this is all about. Many of us believe very strongly in this. H.J. Res. 10, which has passed the House in its current form on four separate occasions, would give Congress the authority it needs to once again protect the flag. I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader of the House.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, first let me commend the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde), our most distinguished colleague, for his outstanding leadership in bringing this well-crafted and much-needed legislation to the floor. Since being elected to Congress almost 11 years ago, I have had the distinct honor of serving on both of the committees that the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) has led, first the Committee on the Judiciary, and now the Committee on International Relations. And I can sincerely say that I have not served with a more honorable and decent man. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your great service to our country. I am pleased to be offering this amendment today with another distinguished and universally respected Member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), the ranking member of the Committee on International Relations, and it is an honor to be doing this amendment with him. I am pleased to be offering the amendment. Our amendment would add a new section to this legislation requiring the U.S. delegation to the U.N. to make every effort to officially and publicly condemn anti- Semitic statements made at any session of the United Nations. It requires U.N. employees to be subject to punitive actions, including immediate dismissal, for making anti-Semitic statements or references. It requires the development of educational awareness programs about the Holocaust and anti-Semitism throughout the world, and it requires a certification that these requirements have been carried out. The United Nations has for some time been a breeding ground for the dissemination of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli propaganda. It took 16 years to reverse a General Assembly resolution that declared Zionism to be a form of racism and racial discrimination. And it was only reversed after considerable pressure from the United States, coupled with Israel's decision to make its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference conditional upon repeal of that resolution. As noted in H. Res. 282, a bipartisan resolution introduced by the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia, and adopted in this body last week, the U.N. Human Rights Commission took several months to correct in its record a statement by the Syrian Ambassador that Jews allegedly had killed non-Jewish children to make unleavened bread for Passover. If that were not enough, the president of the U.N. Human Rights Commission in 1997 refused to challenge an assertion made by the Palestinian observer that the Government of Israel had injected 300 Palestinian children with the HIV virus. What an absurdity. Speaking from experience, Mr. Chairman, I can assure my colleagues of the anti-Israel activity at the U.N. In 2001, I was honored to be nominated by President Bush to serve as one of the two congressional representatives to the U.N., along with the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega). During the year-long appointment, I traveled back and forth from New York several times to meet with our ambassador at that time, John Negroponte, and our diplomatic delegation. On one occasion, I went to New York to participate in a special summit on children. Throughout the conference, we discussed resolutions on childhood disease, HIV/AIDS, humanitarian assistance, child trafficking, and other critical issues. Throughout the final day, our delegation trudged through the minutiae of resolutions in committee and in plenary session. Aside from the occasional objection to a comma or a whereas from the Chinese or the French, the day passed uneventfully, or so I thought. As I was getting ready to leave that evening, I learned from our diplomatic corps that the real battle was not fought in the committees or on the floor. It was fought behind the scenes as our American delegation successfully fought off an attempt from the Arab bloc to deny Israel its credentials to even participate in the children's summit. So much for the children. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the rationale behind this amendment is simple: hard- working taxpayers should not have to subsidize the advertising costs of food industry associations or cooperatives, or State and regional trade groups. Yet this is exactly what the Market Access Program does. Since 1997, MAP has cost the American taxpayers nearly $1 billion. Let me put that another way. Despite a massive budget deficit and unsustainable spending on entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicaid, the Federal Government continues to spend more than $100 million annually to underwrite the overseas advertising costs of groups like the Popcorn Institute and the Catfish Institute and the Ginseng Board, just to name a few. Let me be clear. I strongly support American businesses of all kinds marketing their products around the world. I just do not think that the American taxpayer should have to pay for their advertising costs. It seems reasonable to believe that if trade associations felt that advertising their products in other countries would be beneficial, they would do it, and they would pay for it. Mr. Chairman, the General Accounting Office, the GAO, has reviewed the MAP program and has concluded that MAP has no discernible effect on U.S. agricultural exports. Let me repeat that: no discernible effect. But at an estimated cost of $140 million last year, MAP does have a discernible impact on the American people in the form of lighter wallets and in the red ink of our budget deficit. Let us be honest. Most American businesses do not benefit and do not try to take advantage of government handouts like MAP. Most businesses want to keep more of what they earn. They want fewer burdensome regulations that limit growth and stifle productivity, and they would like the opportunity to compete on a level playing field in markets around the world. That would be a true Market Access Program. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to spend $125 million on MAP in the 2006 fiscal year. If recent history is any indication, those groups that market pistachios and prunes and papaya and pears and pet food and popcorn will do pretty well, getting nearly $6 million in 2004. The National Watermelon Promotion Board benefited from MAP in the past too. We should ask ourselves, if these groups truly thought it would benefit their bottom line to advertise in foreign markets, would they not do it on their own dime? Would they not do it themselves? If it was their own money, would they not be more likely to work harder to make sure the money was well spent? Would that not make for more effective market access? MAP is the poster child for corporate welfare. It is wasteful spending in the name of job creation and market access that fails to provide either. I urge my fellow Members of Congress to join me and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and join the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers For Common Sense, and U.S. PIRG in casting a vote for the overburdened American taxpayer. Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this proposal, we cannot ignore the fact that every human life begins as a human embryo. Sadly, passage of this bill will put the government and taxpayers in the position of sanctioning and funding the destruction of that human life. Now, we all feel strongly about the need for aggressive and advanced research to cure and combat the myriad of diseases that prematurely take the lives of our friends and our family members and our fellow citizens. When we lost my father to cancer, our family certainly wished that medical breakthroughs had come sooner. That is why I am so supportive of the rapid progress being made in the fields of adult and umbilical cord stem cell research. Cord blood stem cells have already been used to treat patients, we have been hearing, for up to 67 diseases, and it is my understanding they have the potential to become any kind of cell, similar to what embryonic stem cells do. While I recognize that many proponents of this bill offer their support with good intentions, in this case we do have clear alternatives, and I would strongly urge my colleagues to support adult and umbilical and reject this bill.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to be heard very briefly. I acknowledge, I recognize, I would agree with everything that the gentleman from New Jersey just said. I also might bring to the attention the fact that this is essentially the same amendment that was offered and held in order in the last Congress.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the Tongass is our Nation's largest forest, about the size of West Virginia. Located along Alaska's southeastern coast, it is often referred to as America's rain forest and is home to abundant wildlife, bald eagles, grizzly bears, wolves, and salmon, as well as old growth trees such as the giant Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and yellow cedar. Mr. Chairman, each year the timber industry is subsidized by millions of tax dollars, taxpayer, hard working funding tax dollars for logging in the Tongass National Forest, approximately $850 million since 1982. Each year more taxpayer subsidized logging roads are built to extract the timber, and each year the road maintenance backlog gets more expensive. It is about $100 million right now. There are already about 5,000 miles of roads in the Tongass. That is enough road to drive from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles and most of the way back. Even the Forest Service acknowledges that existing roads are, quote, sufficient to satisfy local demand for road, recreation, subsistence, and community connectivity needs, unquote. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would stop the Forest Service from constructing new logging roads at taxpayer expense. Let me repeat that, at taxpayer expense, in the Tongass. It does not prevent the timber industry from building their own roads. It does no prohibit the forest service from constructing roads needed for forest management, community connectivity, or for recreation. I know there are some who would have my colleagues believe differently, but this amendment has nothing to do with the roadless rule. It has everything to do with good government and fiscal responsibility. This amendment is not an attempt to take away jobs in Alaska. In fact, between 1998 and 2004, Tongass-related jobs fell from over 1,500 to less than 300. That means that taxpayers are subsidizing each existing timber job to the tune of about $163,000 per job, about four times the median U.S. household income. Despite massive taxpayer subsidies, Alaskan timber continues to decline. That said, this amendment does not stop timber companies from continuing to log off the roads that the American taxpayers have already built for them. In fact, the Forest Service has a 10-year supply of timber remaining off current roads. Between 1998 and 2004, half of Tongass timber contracts went unsold. This means taxpayers spend millions of dollars for the Forest Service to build roads and plan sales to access timber they often cannot even sell; and those they do sell, they do so at below-market rates. In fact, the Forest Service is offering to let logging companies cancel contracts already sold because the companies do not want the timber. Mr. Chairman, I support logging in our national forests when it makes sense, when it is economically viable. I believe our forests should be actively managed so that they may be as healthy as possible; but while we need to be good stewards of our forests, we must also be good stewards of the American people's money. It is time to restore some common sense and fiscal discipline to the Tongass timber program. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American taxpayers and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Point of Order

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, blocking confirmation of judges by a minority in the Senate ill-serves the American people. Filibustering judges is not part of the Constitution; it is not even part of the old Senate rules. The Constitution is clear on what is required of the Senate and its responsibility under the Advice and Consent Clause as it applies to judicial nominations: Majority support. Never has a nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or- down vote. Four vacancies continue to exist in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals where my district of Cincinnati is contained. One of those vacancies could have been filled by Judge Richard Griffin whose nomination has been pending for 145 days, 145 days. Judge Griffin has the support of his colleagues and individuals such as former President Gerald Ford. He has been rated by the American Bar Association as ``well qualified,'' a rating that has historically secured a nominee's confirmation, but not anymore. If the Senate wants to amend the Constitution, it should do so as provided by our Founding Fathers, not by the threats of a minority to shut the place down if they do not get their way.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1279, the Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for his hard work on this very critical issue. I also want to thank the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for his leadership in this area as well. Gang violence is taking over too many of our communities. What was once thought to be an urban problem has now moved into many suburban and even rural areas, leaving virtually every community and every child in them vulnerable. Sadly, too many children are turning their backs on beneficial extra-curricular activities and turning to the world of guns and drugs and violent activity in order to gain entry into or move up or just maintain status in a gang. In order to gain entry into these things, this legislation is absolutely critical. And for those who have avoided being seduced by gang life, they are too often held hostage in their homes for fear of being the next victim or the unfortunate one who may witness a gang act and who may later be called upon to testify, and they are often times in fear of their life when that happens. In my district, the first district of Ohio which includes the City of Cincinnati, the 22 homicides that have occurred as of March put the city on pace to exceed the record number, 75 homicides that occurred back in 2003. Many of our city officials and law enforcement point toward gang activity centered on drug trafficking as the source of this increase. We cannot allow gangs to control our communities. We must give law enforcement the tools to fight back. H.R. 1279 would help to accomplish this in two ways: It would establish new stronger gang and violent criminal penalties as well as strengthen existing ones to deter the acts of violence commonly associated with these gangs. Most importantly, H.R. 1279 gives our communities the resources to attack the gang problem from all levels. H.R. 1279 ensures that local State and national law enforcement work together to stop gangs and to make our communities finally safe as they ought to be. Our communities cannot fight gangs alone. I would strongly urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation to ensure that we have a coordinated effort in all levels of government. I want to again thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes) for his leadership in this area.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, as an elected official from the First District of Ohio, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. In taking the oath, I have an obligation to ensure that the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers is protected. The American people deserve to know that the Constitution, the intent of the Founders, and 214 years of tradition are being jeopardized by use, or the threatened use, of the filibuster on judicial nominations. Never before has a judicial nominee with clear majority support been denied an up-or-down vote. The filibuster is not part of the Constitution, nor is it even part of the original Senate rules. However, the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations threatens the very principles on which this country was founded by forcing the Constitution to yield to a Senate rule, a predicament that should be untenable to all of us who have sworn to uphold that most sacred document. The filibuster has been and continues to be useful when it comes to legislation. It should remain. However, judicial nominees deserve more and the American people deserve more. They deserve what the Constitution calls for, an up-or-down vote.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, for several years now, President Bush's judicial nominees have been filibustered, including those who would fill four vacancies in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals located in my district in Cincinnati, Ohio. This is unprecedented. Some would have us believe blocking judicial nominations is a long and revered tradition. Nothing could be further from the truth. Never before have judicial nominees with clear majority support been denied the courtesy of an up-or-down vote. Not once. The filibuster is not part of the Constitution. It is not even part of the old Senate rules. While it is a useful tool when considering legislation, and should remain as such, we cannot allow filibustering of judicial nominations. Each time a nominee is denied an up-or-down vote, the impact is vast. Not only is our Federal judiciary weakened, but our Constitution becomes more vulnerable; and as chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, let me emphasize that these actions are unprecedented and should be abhorrent to those of us who are bound by oath to uphold our country's most sacred document, the United States Constitution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Last Wednesday this House passed H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, CIANA. It was a bipartisan vote. It was 270 to 156; 63 percent of this House voted for this bill. And as was mentioned before, 54 Democrats, almost two-thirds of this House voted for this bill. Now, enacting CIANA was critical. It is very, very important to better protect young girls from falling prey to abusive boyfriends and older men and ensuring that parents have the opportunity to be involved in their daughters' medical decisions. CIANA accomplished this, both these purposes, first by making it a criminal offense to transport a minor across State lines in order to obtain an abortion in another State and avoiding a parental notification law in that State. The second purpose is accomplished by requiring that a parent or legal guardian is notified that an abortion is going to be performed on their daughter. The bill was carefully crafted to prevent those who do not have the minor's best interests, and more than likely they have already committed statutory rape or incest, from being able to destroy critical evidence through an abortion. Statistics demonstrate that the incident of statutory rape is occurring with increasing frequency. Moreover, the number of incest cases is becoming all too prevalent. The amendments that are at issue here that were offered during the full Judiciary Committee markup would have broadened the categories of individuals who could be exempted from the bill's reach, thus increasing the likelihood that these provisions could be exploited. For example, the amendments offered to exempt taxicab drivers, as has been mentioned, bus drivers, and others in the business of public transport, clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, first cousins of the minor, grandparents or adult siblings, it would have given any of those individuals who may be sexually abusing a young girl, in essence, a safe harbor, thus defeating the primary purpose of CIANA. The characterizations of the amendments, as reflected in the committee report, accurately describe the safe harbor that would be afforded to abusive men through the amendments offered. Now, was that the intention of the proponents of the amendments? Certainly not. But could it be the result, if the amendments had passed? Yes, it could. The American people overwhelmingly support laws that require parents to be notified before a minor has an abortion. In March 2005, 75 percent of 1,500 registered voters indicated their support for parental notification laws. The fundamental rights of parents in parental notification laws are supported by Supreme Court precedent. Amendments that alter and allow these laws to be exploited should have been defeated, and they were. I urge my colleagues to defeat this resolution.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, this year in the State of Ohio's own version of March Madness, one team in my district, the North College Hill Trojans, celebrated the school's first State basketball championship by defeating second-ranked Ironton 71 to 65. The Trojans left no doubt in people's minds that they were the best Division III basketball team in the State of Ohio, capping off an amazing 27 to 1 record by winning its final 21 games. Something tells me that the State of Ohio is going to be hearing a lot more from North College Hill in the years to come. Four of the team's five starters were freshmen and sophomores, led by Ohio Mr. Basketball and first team All-USA Today team honoree O.J. Mayo. I want to congratulate head coach Jamie Mahaffey and all the rest of the coaching staff and every member of the North College Hill team on a job well done. I also want to congratulate the parents and the students and the fans for a great season. Mr. Speaker, I would not at all be surprised if I am up here again next year at this time congratulating North College Hill on winning back-to-back State basketball championships.

Mr. CHABOT

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 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.