mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding me time . 
mr. speaker , i am really disappointed that we have descended to this level because i have some great friends that i admire on the other side . 
the ranking member from michigan is somebody who has had a distinguished career and i appreciate him . 
i appreciate the other members who have spoken tonight and i respect them . 
i have enormous respect for the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. sensenbrenner ) xz4003650 . 
we serve on a committee which is not a fluff committee . 
it often has , as the gentleman from michigan ( mr. conyers ) xz4000800 knows , some very controversial issues . 
and we typically deal with these issues as ladies and gentlemen with the highest respect for one another , even though we often vehemently disagree . 
one thing we know is that last week , the united states house of representatives overwhelmingly , on a bipartisan basis , passed house resolution 748 , the child interstate abortion notification act . 
one thing we know is that the purpose of this bill was to prevent sexual abusers from taking vulnerable young girls across state lines for the purpose of abortion without telling that young lady 's , young woman 's mom or dad . 
support for parental notification as we know is widely supported amongst the american public . 
as a matter of fact , in the state of florida , which i respect , the people of florida , amended our constitution in 2004 and overwhelmingly passed an amendment to our constitution that provides as follows , `` the legislature is authorized to require by general law for notification to a parent or guardian of a minor before termination of the minor 's pregnancy. '' now , mr. speaker , the judiciary , during its mark-up which i participated in considered several amendments . 
i have to say that the gentleman from virginia ( mr. scott ) xz4003641 , the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 who spoke , the gentlewoman from texas ( ms. jackson-lee ) xz4001990 are people that i respect enormously for their passion for their beliefs . 
they offered amendments . 
there is nothing in the committee report that disparages any of the intentions of these members . 
the committee report does describe the effect of some of the amendments that are offered . 
there is a huge difference between accurately describing the effect of an amendment and ascribing ill motives to the people who offered the amendments . 
these are people of great will , of great determination , of great passion , of great belief but we disagree . 
and as the chairman said , there is no exception provided for grandparents who happen to molest a child , for taxicab drivers , for uncles , for nieces in any of the amendments that were offered . 
and i did not speak on the amendments . 
as the gentleman from michigan ( mr. conyers ) xz4000800 , the distinguished ranking member said , there was not a whole lot of discussion about some of these amendments and that is try . 
not because we did not understand the ramifications . 
we understood the effect . 
i did not speak at all because if every one of the members of the committee on the judiciary spoke for 5 minutes on each amendment as we are entitled , we would never get through our business protecting children who are impregnated by people that molest them . 
and so we knew what we were voting on and the job of the committee staff is to describe the effect of the amendment , not the debate . 
that is what the congressional record does . 
that is what our ability when we insert language into the record does . 
it is not the job of the committee staff . 
as the chairman said , my friend from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 has frequently compared this bill to the slave holders protection bill in the 1850s . 
it is a very different story to protect parents and minor children that have been abused , sexually and molested and impregnated than comparing that to the rights of slave holders . 
comparing the rights of parents is something that americans are for . 
protecting the rights of slave holders is something americans are against . 
and to compare that i think is very unfair . 
i will say that the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 is somebody i respect a great deal , but the effect of his amendment did not shield anybody that might have been an abuser or a molester of these children . 
with that , i ask respectfully that the gentleman withdraw this motion . 
we can get back together and agree when we can . 
but , by golly , we would ask the gentleman from michigan ( mr. conyers ) xz4000800 to withdraw this privileged motion . 
