Jerrold Nadler

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his answer. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) stated the point of this resolution pretty accurately and I think completely. I want to deal with some misstatements that have been made or have been reported to have been made in defense of this unconscionable, lying report of the committee. It was said on the floor of the House last week that the question is one of intent versus effect. My amendment was very simple. It said that grandparents and adult siblings of the person getting the abortion should not be subject to the provisions of the bill. It was reported as: ``Mr. Nadler offered an amendment to provide sexual predators an exemption from the provisions of the bill if they were adult siblings or grandparents.'' The fact is in the entire debate over that amendment, in fact, in the entire debate over all of the amendments, all of which were characterized as dealing with sexual predators, in the debate in the committee over those five amendments, no one, no one in the majority, no one in the minority mentioned the words ``sexual predators.'' No one in the committee debate said this amendment might protect sexual predators. It did not occur to anybody. So on that level the report is dishonest, and the chairman or whoever else had anything to do with it owes this body an apology.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not with respect to my amendment. That was with respect to another amendment. That was with respect to a different amendment. In respect to my amendment, which was characterized as dealing with sexual predators, nobody mentioned the words ``sexual predators'' or raised that. It has also been said that the intent may have been not with sexual predators; the intent may have been grandparents and siblings, but could a grandparent or a sibling be a sexual predator? In that eventuality this would protect sexual predators. Yes, in that eventuality the amendment would protect sexual predators. But, of course, the bill itself said that the parents could sue, the parents could sue the doctor who performs the abortion or the person who transports the minor. But the parent could be a sexual predator. The pregnancy could have been caused by rape or incest. This would give the sexual predator the right to profit from his own predation. I, in fact, offered a motion to recommit to correct that defect in the bill, but the majority voted it down. Why, I do not know. But they voted it down because apparently they wanted sexual predators, in the unlikely event that the parent was a sexual predator, to be able to sue. There is no other interpretation possible. But, as I said last week, if someone wanted to say on the floor of the House or in the committee, as no one did in the committee, that one has not anticipated the rare eventuality that a grandparent would be a sexual predator and maybe they should amend the amendment, that would have been a fair comment. Fair comment in a debate. It is not a fair characterization of the amendment. There is a clear difference between expressing views in a debate and saying that one's amendment could be used by a sexual predator under certain circumstances, which might be a fair comment. It would be fair comment to say those circumstances are so rare that we do not have to worry about them or they are right or whatever. It is different. It is different, it is dishonest, it is a disgusting rape of the rules of this House to characterize the amendment in a one-sentence report that this was an amendment dealing with sexual predators. No, it was not. It would be just as dishonest as if we reported the bill and said this was a bill to allow sexual predators to sue doctors. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and everybody associated with this owes an apology to the House and a correction to the American people.

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the distinguished chairman wishes to repeat his tactic of last week of waiting until everybody else has spoken and then mischaracterize what we have said so that we cannot reply to him. Is that his intent today? Is that why he is reserving his time now so that he can speak after everybody else has spoken?

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that the chairman of the committee continues to smear other Members of the House on this floor. The bill says nothing about sexual predators. The words sexual predator or abusers do not appear in the bill, number 1. Number 2, by the chairman's logic any bill on the floor of the House that gives veterans benefits or gives educational benefits, gives benefits to sexual predators as long as it does not specifically exclude them; and any such bill could be fairly described as a bill to give benefits to sexual predators. Number 3, I did use that language that the chairman quoted about the Fugitive Slave Act, but I was not comparing parents to slave owners. I was saying that the two bills were similar in that both would use, and that was in the quote, both would use the power of the Federal Government to export the laws of one State into another, and all of these things are opinions. Opinions are fine in the views. They are not fine in the reports of the amendment. That is where the smear is.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago the guns and bombs in Europe fell silent, and President Truman announced victory over Europe to a proud and free world. I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of this great and very important day, and to recognize the sacrifices and accomplishments of the men and women who so bravely served to defeat hate and aggression. I join millions of people participating in thousands of events, in New York City, all across the United States, and around the world, in observing and honoring the courage of American service-members, allied soldiers, and home front workers. During April 1945, allied forces led by the United States overran Nazi Germany from the west while Russian forces advanced from the east. On April 25, American and Russian troops met at the Elbe River. After 6 years of war, suffering, and devastation, Nazi Germany was formally defeated a few days later on May 8, 1945. It was a bittersweet victory. Over 400,000 American soldiers died in World War II; 350, 000 British soldiers gave their lives; and a staggering 20 million Russian soldiers and civilians perished in the war fighting German aggression on their home soil. The war also brought about the most horrendous systematic murder which humanity has ever known, the Holocaust. In memory of all the victims of World War II, it is our duty to raise our voices as one and say to the present and future generations that no one has the right to remain indifferent to anti-Semitism, xenophobia and racial or religious intolerance. This is an occasion to remember and commemorate. We must remember why the war was fought, remember the victims and heroes, and thank those who fought so hard and sacrificed so much. V-E Day marked the promise of a peaceful future for a Europe ravaged by unspeakable horror and war. Although freedom did not come to every European nation following the defeat of Nazi Germany, today we stand at the threshold of a very hopeful future based on sovereignty, democracy, freedom and cooperation. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to honor those individuals who gave their lives during the liberation of Europe, to thank the veterans of World War II, and to commemorate the defeat of Nazism and Fascism by freedom-loving people.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. ``Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary conducted a markup of the bill H.R. 748, the ``Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act,'' on Wednesday, April 13, 2005, and ordered the bill reported on that same day; Whereas the Committee on the Judiciary subsequently reported H.R. 748 to the House on Thursday, April 21, 2005, with an accompanying report designated House Report 109-51; Whereas, during the markup of H.R. 748, Representatives Nadler, Scott, and Jackson-Lee offered in good faith a total of five amendments to the bill, all of which failed on party-line votes; Whereas, because Representatives Nadler, Scott, and Jackson-Lee called for recorded votes on their amendments, under section 3(b) of Rule XIII, the votes were published in House Report 109-51; Whereas, although it is the long and established practice in House reports to describe recorded votes with objective, nonargumentative captions, the Committee on the Judiciary majority departed from this practice in House Report 109-51 by captioning these five amendments with inflammatory, inaccurate captions; Whereas, when Representative Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, was asked about this language and given the opportunity to correct it, both in the Committee Rules and on the House floor, he instead explained that it was his purpose and intention to include these derogatory and inaccurate captions in House Report 109- 51; Whereas, committee reports are official congressional documents to which American citizens will refer when seeking to interpret the bills they accompany; Whereas, although the committee markup and reporting process gives Members ample opportunity to debate, characterize, and criticize each other's views, committees have a ministerial, institutional responsibility to accurately report the proceedings of committee activities; Whereas, under the procedures of the Committee on the Judiciary, the minority must submit its dissenting views to the majority without having the opportunity to review the report; Whereas, the majority has the opportunity to review the minority's dissent before filing its report; Whereas, earlier versions of H.R. 748 were reported by the Committee on the Judiciary on three separate occasions and in each case, these amendments, or similar amendments, were described in these earlier committee reports with objective, nonargumentative captions; Whereas, this unprecedented manipulation of a traditionally nonpartisan portion of a committee report constitutes an abuse of power by the majority of the Committee on the Judiciary; Whereas, a report of a committee offers the majority and minority the opportunity to provide their views and interpretations of the legislation, amendments, and issues; Whereas, the section of a committee report required by clause 3(b) of Rule XIII was purposely misused as an opportunity to comment on, or characterize, the amendments; and Whereas the vote captions published in House Report 109-51 appear to be purposefully inaccurate and misleading, and reflect negatively on the integrity of the Members offering the amendments, and therefore belittle the dignity of the House and undermine the integrity of the proceedings of the House: Now, therefore, be it: Resolved, That the House of Representatives (1) finds that the Committee on the Judiciary purposefully and deliberately mischaracterized the above-mentioned votes in House Report 109-51; and (2) directs the chairman of such committee to report to the House a supplement to House Report 109-51 that corrects the record by describing the five amendments with nonargumentative, objective captions.''

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I do not ask that unanimous consent. Will the Clerk read the resolution?

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

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

Mr. NADLER

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

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. 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 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. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and first let me begin by noting that the case just alluded to by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), that in the case where a young woman was held coercively, was threatened if she did not go through with an abortion she would not be able to get home, would seem to violate the laws against kidnapping and half a dozen other criminal laws. If those people were not prosecuted, it is the district attorney's fault. We do not need this bill to deal with a situation like that. Mr. Chairman, we consider today legislation that is at once another flagrant violation of the Constitution and an assault on the health and well-being of young women and their health care providers. Some States have chosen to enact parental notification and consent laws. Some, like mine, have considered this issue and decided such laws are not good for the welfare of young women and have declined to enact them. This bill would use Federal authority to impose the restrictive laws of one State on abortions performed in another State. It would, in effect, make a young girl carry the law of her State on her back wherever she goes. Mr. Chairman, I know of no law that has attempted to do this kind of thing since the Fugitive Slave Act of the 1850s. This bill would make criminals of grandparents, boyfriends, brothers, sisters, and clergymen and women who try to help a young woman, a young woman who had a fear or alienation and thinks she cannot confide in her parents. It would even apply to a case such as that of a 13-year-old from Idaho, Spring Adams, who was shot to death by her father after he found out that she planned to terminate a pregnancy, a pregnancy he caused by his act of incest. Under this bill, he would have the parental notification or veto right. This bill is radically different from previous versions. If you voted for this bill in the past, look again. It would now, for the first time, jail doctors. It would now, for the first time, require doctors to know the laws of all 50 States. It would now, for the first time, require a doctor to fly to the young woman's home State and ring her parents' doorbell before treating her. Even if the young girl's State of residence and the doctor's State have both decided not to enact parental notification or consent laws, this bill would impose a new Federal parental notification law that is more Draconian than the laws of most States. This bill imposes a 24-hour waiting period and does not waive that requirement even if the parents accompany the young woman to the abortion doctor and even if a delay would threaten her health. That is not only unconstitutional; it is immoral. Congress should not be tempted to play doctor. It is always bad medicine for women. In an ideal world, loving, supportive and understanding families would join together to face these challenges. That is what happens in the majority of cases, law or no law; but we do not live in a perfect world. Some parents are violent; some parents are rapists. Some young people can turn only to their clergy, to a grandparent, a brother, a sister, or some other trusted adult. We should not turn these people into criminals simply because they are trying to help a young woman in a difficult or dire situation. This bill is the wrong way to deal with a very real problem. It does not provide exceptions to protect the young woman's health. It does not provide exceptions where a parent has raped a young woman. It even allows the rapist to sue the clergyman or the doctor who tries to help the doctor deal with the effects of the rape committed by the rapist. It allows the rapist to sue the doctor and gain from his crime. I urge my colleagues to reject this legislation on both constitutional and policy grounds. If only for the sake of humanity, I urge Members to join in providing the needed flexibility for the most difficult real-world cases involving the lives of real young women. We owe them at least that much. We also owe the States the respect to note that some of them have passed such laws, some have not. Why should we impose these laws in States that have not done it? Why should we tell someone in one State because you came from another State, you are subject to the laws of that State wherever you go. We do not do that in this country generally. We are supposed to be a Federal Republic, although increasingly in this House we seem to forget that. I urge rejection of this bill.

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

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

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, this bill allows a father to sue the person who accompanied the young woman or, if he did not receive the required notice, to sue the doctor who provided the abortion even if he himself, the father, that is, caused the pregnancy by rape or incest. If adopted, my motion to recommit would simply ensure that this right to sue does not extend to a parent who caused the pregnancy through rape or incest. The motion to recommit would ensure that this bill would not enable such rapists to profit from their wrongdoing. I know the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) will say that the bill already prohibits suits by rapists, but the so-called prohibition in the bill applies only to suits against the doctor, not against the person who accompanied her, and even against the doctor only in the unlikely event that the minor declares the rape in a signed written statement to the doctor. Aside from that exception, the rapist under this bill will profit from the newly established rights to sue the doctor or the unlimited newly established right to sue the person who accompanied her. I cannot believe that any Member of this House, even those who support parental-consent laws, could really want to enable a criminal, a father who raped his daughter and caused the pregnancy, to be able to profit from his wrongdoing by suing doctors, grandmothers, and clergymen. This motion would correct this obvious mistake; and I think, or at least I hope, that the sponsors of this bill would agree that this amendment should be adopted. Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of loose talk over the last few days about sexual predators and the need to protect young women. We may not agree in this House on the best way to protect these young women, but we should all be able to agree that a father who rapes his daughter should not profit from his crime. This bill as presently constituted gives him that power. The motion to recommit would take that ability away from him and would do nothing else at all. The motion to recommit simply says a father who rapes his daughter or commits incest with her and causes that pregnancy cannot then sue someone who performs an abortion or who accompanies her to an abortion. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters).

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, we have alluded repeatedly in this debate to the reasons why this bill is oppressive and is wrong, and we have alluded to the fact that it is unconstitutional, but we have not really gone into that. The fact is that under the rulings of the Supreme Court, it is not permissible to pass a law which has the effect of imposing one State's legal requirements on another State, as this bill does. In essence, the bill imposes on States and physicians the laws of the States that have the most stringent requirements on abortion. Federalism dictates that one has the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than an unfriendly alien when temporarily present in another State, according to the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th amendment. In the Saenz case in 1999, the Supreme Court held that a State cannot discriminate against a citizen of another State when there is no substantial reason for the discrimination, except for the fact that they are a citizen of another State. The court specifically referred to Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade, where it said the State cannot limit access to its medical care facilities for abortions to in-State residents. A State must treat all that are seeking medical care within that State in an equal manner. This bill would, in effect, say that there are two legal regimes in a State. One is the regime, the system, the set of laws that apply to residents of that State passed by the State legislature of that State. The second law that applies applies to people who came from another State, and it is the laws of that other State that apply, plus the laws of this State. Constitutionally, you cannot do that. You cannot make, you cannot make a young woman carry the law of one State on her back wherever she goes because she originated in that State. I said before that Congress has made no attempt to use Federal authority to impose the laws of one State on another since the Fugitive Slave Act. The Fugitive Slave Act, if passed today, would clearly be unconstitutional. This bill is clearly unconstitutional, as well as oppressive. It is also wrong because the States that have decided not to impose such laws on their own citizens should not be forced to because we say so.

Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be offering this amendment with my good friend, the gentlewoman from Texas. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the amendments that the committee report lied about. This amendment would prevent terrible and, I assume, unintended injustices. The amendment creates an exception to the provisions that make it a crime to accompany a minor across State lines who is seeking abortion services if the person accompanying the minor is a grandparent or a member of the clergy. These are responsible adults to whom young people often turn when they are in trouble and cannot go to their parents. In an ideal world, that would never happen; but where that is the case, where they feel they cannot turn to their parents, I think we want our young people to able to turn to a grandparent or their minister, priest, or rabbi. At the very least, I do not think Members want to put grandmothers and members of the clergy behind bars simply because they did not want to leave a young person alone and unaided during a very difficult moment. Do we really want to put grandmothers and clergy in jail? Surely the supporters of this bill would not want to put a grandmother or reverend in jail who is only trying to help a minor. I know they argue that the evil abortion providers are spiriting them away, but we are not talking about if that ever occurred. We are talking about the grandmother of the minor. We are talking about the trusted minister, priest, or rabbi of the minor whom she seeks out and confides in. The opponents of this amendment have argued that it is the fundamental right of a parent to be involved in any decision concerning the pregnancy of their child. This is certainly true. But in the real world, there are situations where it is impossible for a minor to tell a parent about a pregnancy, for instance, in cases of incest, where the parents physically abuse their children or in the case that I mentioned while in general debate of the young 13-year-old girl whose father had raped her, found out she was pregnant, and murdered her. In these cases, a minor needs to be able to turn to a responsible adult, such as a grandparent or a clergy member, for assistance. We should not criminalize this assistance. We should not be throwing caring grandmothers, grandparents, or ministers in jail. Now, it may be that a properly drafted amendment that would say if it was a ring of people doing this for money, maybe that would be reasonable, but not a grandparent or a clergy member who was helping a young person in trouble. Some have argued that we should defeat this amendment because there are cases, albeit few and isolated, where a grandparent or a member of the clergy may be a sexual predator. Sadly, this is true sometimes. Thankfully, it is rarely true. It is also true that sometimes a parent is a sexual predator, and this bill not only does not protect the minor in those cases. It requires the doctor to ring the sexual predator's doorbell to tell him what is going on, and it gives the sexual predator the ability to sue the doctor. That is what the bill does. Even with this exception, with the exception in this amendment, any sexual predator will still face the full force of the law. Those crimes can, and should still, be punished. This amendment in no way shields these criminals from the consequences of their acts. It does, however, protect caring grandparents and clergy from going to jail just because they cared enough about a young person to stand with them in a difficult time. Mr. Chairman, it should be the duty of the government and Congress to provide help to young women in these trying times, not to make life more difficult than it needs to be.

Mr. NADLER

Mr. NADLER. Yes, it is.

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