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 ) xz4003650 and everybody associated with this owes an apology to the house and a correction to the american people . 
