mr. speaker , i thank the chairman for yielding me time on this important issue . 
the stated purpose of the child interstate abortion notification act is to protect the health and safety of young girls by allowing parental involvement when their home states have thought it appropriate to require such involvement . 
as a general rule , no one has a young girl 's best interest at heart more than her parents . 
where this rule is not the case , the law allows for judicial bypass of the parental involvement requirements . 
therefore , the amendments introduced by the democrats in the committee on the judiciary are unnecessary . 
moreover , these amendments are dangerous . 
as my distinguished committee on the judiciary colleagues have explained , the health and safety of these young girls is not protected by providing a blank exemption for those who may have sexually abused them . 
that is precisely what these amendments did . 
they provided blanket exclusions with open doors for sexual predators to exploit to cover up their crimes . 
far too often , the adults transporting these minors across state lines to circumvent their home state 's parental involvement laws are grown men who have sexually preyed upon the girls . 
we have heard those statistics delivered by the chairman . 
to exempt certain classes which characteristics show are highly likely to be sexual predators would gut the intent of this bill , to protect the health and safety of young girls . 
the descriptions of the amendments in the committee report only describe the potential effects of the amendments if they had been adopted . 
they do not describe the motives of those offering the amendments as has been stated . 
the minority had the opportunity to include dissenting views in the committee report and they did . 
and those dissenting views do characterize the motives of those who supported this legislation . 
it has already been spoken to as the remarks by the gentleman from new york ( mr. nadler ) xz4002890 with regard to the fugitive slave act , and so i would just say this , that i am amazed that this subject was brought up . 
i am amazed that the minority wants to have a national debate over this subject matter . 
when i look at these exemptions and exclusions , this open door , cabdrivers , bus drivers , professional transport people , clergy , godparents , grandparents , adult siblings , aunts , uncles , brothers , sisters , not the family cat , not the family dog , but everything else you can imagine including the pizza delivery boy are exemptions from this bill . 
if those amendments had all gone on the bill , it would have been gutted in the bill and it would have gone down because i would have voted against it and so would the rest of us in the majority . 
i think it is clear the result of the position that is taken here . 
what is not clear is the motive as to why we would want to have a national debate to talk this over again when we clearly understand that we are trying to protect the rights of parents , not the rights of grandparents , aunts , uncles , brothers , sisters and siblings . 
