| The Republican-written
rewrites, along with the Democratic description of the
amendments, follows. RAW
STORY has also learned that Republicans have not
rewritten similar amendments in the past. A copy from
the Congressional record in 2002 is included below,
showing the "neutral" language used in a previous
Congress.
###
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):
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION IN HOUSE REPORT 109-51
DEMS: 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. (no 11-16)
GOP REWRITE:. 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
roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment
was defeated.
DEMS: a Nadler amendment to exempt
a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and
civil provisions in the bill (no 12-19)
GOP REWRITE: . 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 roll call vote of
12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.
DEMS: a Scott amendment to exempt
cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business
transportation profession from the criminal provisions
in the bill (no 13-17):
GOP REWRITE. 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 roll
call vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was defeated.
DEMS: a Scott amendment that would
have limited criminal liability to the person committing
the offense in the first degree (no 12-18)
GOP REWRITE:. 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 roll call vote
of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated
DEMS: a Jackson-Lee amendment to exempt
clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins from
the penalties in the bill (no 13-20)
GOP REWRITE. 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 roll call vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the
amendment was defeated.
###
The following statement was issued by Rep. Louise Slaughter
(D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Rules Committee.
"The Rules Committee discovered yesterday that
the Judiciary Committee Report on this very bill, which
was authored by the Majority Staff, contained amendment
summaries which had been re-written by committee staff
for the sole purpose of distorting the original intent
of the authors.
"This Committee Report took liberty to mischaracterize
and even falsify the intent of several amendments offered
in Committee by Democratic Members of this body.
"At least five amendments to this bill, which
were designed to protect the rights of family members
and innocent bystanders from prosecution under this
bill, were rewritten as amendments designed to protect
sexual predators from prosecution and were then included
in the committee report as if that was the original
intent of the authors. The thing is, sexual predators
were not mentioned anywhere in any of these amendments.
I asked the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee about
this deception yesterday afternoon at the Rules Committee
hearing.
"And instead of decrying what I certainly expected
would be revealed as a mistake by an overzealous staffer...The
Chairman stood by those altered
amendment descriptions.
"He made very clear to the Rules Committee that
the alterations to these members' amendments were deliberate.When
pressed as to why his committee staff took such an unprecedented
action, the Chairman immediately offered up his own
anger over the manner in which Democrats had chosen
to debate and oppose this unfortunate piece of legislation
we have before us today.
"In fact...He said, and I quote..."You don't
like what we wrote about your amendments, and we don't
like what you said about our bill."
###
Congressman Jerrold Nadler, Democrat from New York,
said:
“This is truly outrageous, and a gross abuse
of power. The authors of this report suggest that they
described my amendment in accordance with its possible
effect, but if that’s true, consider this:
“Under CIANA, a father who rapes and impregnates
his own daughter can go and sue the doctor or the grandparent
or the clergyman who transported his child across state
lines for the purpose of getting an abortion. Maybe
that wasn’t exactly the intent of this legislation.
But according to the descriptive guidelines now laid
out by the majority, it would therefore be fair to call
this entire bill the Rapists and Sexual Predators Right
to Sue Act.
“The Republicans are trying to determine which
words the Democrats get to use to describe their own
amendments. What next – they get to write our
speeches?”
###
The following is a copy of a page from the Congressional
record as regards amendments put forth when the interstate
abortion bill came up in 2002. The record, also written
under a Republican majority, reflects a neutral tone
with regards to the Democrats' amendments.
Correction:
In the first version of this article, the headings were
incorrectly reversed.
Article originally published Apr. 27, 2005. |
