Privileges of the House-Integrity of Proceedings of the House

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE-INTEGRITY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE -- (House of Representatives - May 03, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is not my intent, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, his side has the right to close as the proponents of the resolution.

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. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I would refer the gentleman to the statement made by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) that is on the bottom of page 84 which talks about the potential of sexual predators.

Mr. 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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov