39–006

109TH CONGRESS REPT. 109–51 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session Part 2

CHILD INTERSTATE ABORTION NOTIFICATION ACT 

MAY 5, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT 

together with 

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 748]

Pursuant to clause 3(a)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives for the 109th Congress, the Committee on the 

Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 748) to amend title 

18, United States Code, to prevent the transportation of minors in 

circumvention of certain laws relating to abortion, and for other 

purposes, herein files a supplemental report on the bill. 

On April 21, 2005, the Committee on the Judiciary filed House 

Report 109–51, relating to H.R. 748, the ‘‘Child Interstate Abortion 

Notification Act of 2005’’. 

This supplemental report amends the headings that described 

Committee amendments offered to H.R. 748 that were subject to 

rollcall votes at pages 45 through 49 of House Report 109–51, Part 

1. The following descriptive headings of amendments offered to 

H.R. 748 have been modified. 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that the following 

rollcall votes occurred during the Committee’s consideration of H.R. 

748. 

1. Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have allowed 

anyone subject to prosecution under the Act to challenge the adequacy of a judicial bypass provision provided for under State law 

in federal court. By a rollcall vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated. 

2

1 H.R. Rep. No. 109–51 (2005) at 101 (amendment offered by Mr. Scott). 

2 H.R. Rep. No. 109–51 (2005) at 112 (amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee). 

3 H.R. Rep. No. 109–51 (2005) at 95 (amendment offered by Mr. Nadler). 

4That purpose is reviewed extensively in the Committee Report in an entire section entitled 

‘‘CIANA Protects Minor Girls From Sexual Assault.’’ See H.R. Rep. No. 109–51 (2005) at 35–

36. 

2. Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have exempted 

any grandparent or adult sibling of a minor from the Act. By a rollcall vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated. 

3. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted 

any taxicab driver, bus driver, or those in the business of professional transport from the Act. By a rollcall vote of 13 yeas to 17 

nays, the amendment was defeated. 

4. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted 

from the Act those who did not commit an offense in the first degree. By a rollcall vote of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was 

defeated. 

5. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have exempted from the Act any clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first 

cousins, and would require a study by the Government Accounting 

Office. By a rollcall vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the amendment was 

defeated. 

This supplemental report includes additional information that 

describes amendments offered at the markup of H.R. 748, the 

‘‘Child Interstate Notification Abortion Act of 2005’’. 

AMENDMENTS OFFERED AT COMMITTEE

Amendments offered at the Committee on the Judiciary markup 

of H.R. 748 would have had the effect of creating blanket exclusions from the criminal prohibitions in the legislation without any 

exceptions for those who would commit statutory rape or incest. 

The loopholes those amendments would have created could have 

been exploited by the very sexual predators—that is, those who 

would exploit vulnerable young girls and commit statutory rape or 

incest—whose conduct the bill is designed to bring to light. All of 

the amendments offered would have carved out exceptions that 

could be exploited by sexual predators who sought to destroy evidence of their crimes by secretly taking a minor, without her parents’ knowledge, to another State to have an abortion, contrary to 

the purposes of the legislation. 

The amendments offered by the minority would have created 

blanket exclusions for certain large classes of people who are not 

a minor’s parents. Those classes of people were ‘‘taxicab drivers, 

bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport,’’ 1

‘‘clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor,’’ 2 and 

‘‘grandparents or adult siblings.’’ 3 If any of the people described in 

the amendments offered became involved with a minor in a sexually abusive way, they would have been flatly excluded from the 

criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748, one of the primary purposes of 

which is to prevent sexual predators from continuing to abuse minors undetected.4 The amendments offered at the Judiciary Committee markup of April 13, 2005, were directly contrary to a primary purpose of the legislation. 

Similarly, if an amendment were offered to a bill that would 

make it a federal crime to commit terrorist acts, and an offered 

3

5Kristin Moore, Ph.D. and Jennifer Manlove, Ph.D., ‘‘A Demographic Portrait of Statutory 

Rape,’’ Presentation given at the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ Conference on the Sexual Exploitation of Teens (March 23–24, 2005) (defining statutory rape as occurring when teens aged 15 or younger have sex with a partner 3 or more years older). 6 Id. 

7 Id. (Hispanic, 17%, black, 16%, white, 11%). 

8 Victor Vieth, ‘‘When the Child Abuser is a Child,’’ 25 Hamline L. Rev. 47, 51 (2001). 

9 Vernon R. Wiehe, Sibling Abuse: Hidden Physical, Emotional, and Sexual Trauma 50 (1990). 

10See A. De Jong, Sexual Interactions Among Siblings and Cousins, 12(2), 271–279 (1988). 11See Russell, Diana E.H., ‘‘The Incidence and Prevalence of Intrafamilial and Extrafamilial 

Sexual Abuse of Female Children,’’ in Handbook on Sexual Abuse of Children, edited by Lenore 

E.A. Walker (1988). 12See D.G. Kilpratrick et al., Rape in America: A Report to the Nation (National Victim Center 1992). 

amendment would exclude conduct by, for example, taxicab drivers, 

then that amendment would allow a taxicab driver to commit terrorist acts without being prosecuted. In the very same way, those 

who happen to drive taxicabs, or who work in the business of professional transportation, should not be free to commit statutory 

rape and transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion 

without telling one of the girl’s parents. And brothers, uncles, or 

godparents, should not be allowed to commit incest and then transport a young girl across state lines to get an abortion so evidence 

of their crimes are destroyed without telling one of the girl’s parents about the abortion. The amendments offered would have done 

just that in just that way.

The incidence of statutory rape in this country is shocking. As a 

recent presentation given at a U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services Conference on the Sexual Exploitation of Teens 

showed, of minor girls’ first sexual experiences, 13% constitute 

statutory rape.5 Further, the younger a sexually experienced teen 

is, the more likely they are to experience statutory rape. Of sexually experienced teens age 13 or younger, 65% experienced statutory rape. Of those age 14, 53% experienced statutory rape. Of 

those age 15, 41% experienced statutory rape.6 Also, blacks and 

Hispanics are more likely to experience statutory rape.7 Creating 

blanket exclusions in the bill for large categories of people would 

create a loophole in the legislation that statutory rapists could exploit. 

Regarding family incest, one recent law review article 8 summarized the research regarding the prevalence of sexual contact 

among siblings as follows: ‘‘Brother-sister sexual contact may be 

five times as common as father-daughter incest. A survey of 796 

New England College students revealed that 15% of females . . . 

had a sexual experience with a sibling.’’ 9 Further, among those reporting sexual abuse, the incidence of abuse by cousins ranges from 

10% to 40% among various studies.10 And 4.9% of women report an 

incestuous experience with an uncle before the age of 18,11 and 

16% of rape victims are raped by relatives other than their father.12 Carving out exceptions to the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 

748 for adult siblings, cousins, and uncles would not protect young 

girls who are made victims of incest by their adult siblings, cousins, or uncles. 

Further, pregnancy as a result of all these crimes is all too common. As one Pennsylvania court has pointed out, ‘‘Twenty-five percent of incest victims become pregnant. The ratio is greater among 

victims of incest than those of rape because incestuous conduct is 

4

13Fischner v. Department of Public Welfare, 482 A.2d 1137, 1143 (Pa. Commonwealth 1984). 14 H.R. Rep. No. 109–51 (2005) at 90 (amendment offered by Mr. Nadler). 15 H.R. Rep. No. 109–51 (2005) at 107 (amendment offered by Mr. Scott). 

usually long term and progressive whereas rape is usually a one 

time occurrence.’’ 13

Another amendment offered at the Judiciary Committee markup 

of H.R. 748 would have created an additional layer of Federal court 

review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction 

under the bill.14 That amendment would have created an opportunity for a sexual predator to escape conviction if they could make 

a showing to a federal court that the judicial bypass provisions of 

a state law were somehow ineffective or somehow violated confidential information related to a minor’s pregnancy. If a sexual predator made a showing to the court on either of those issues—neither 

of which would expose the sexual predator’s crimes—then that sexual predator could completely evade the requirements of H.R. 748, 

which are designed to expose sexual predators and prevent future 

sexual abuse. 

The final amendment offered would have exempted from prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals who could be 

prosecuted under the bill. That amendment would have excluded 

from the bill anyone who did not ‘‘commit[] an offense in the first 

degree.’’ 15 The consequences of adopting that amendment would 

have been to allow anyone who aided or abetted a criminal who ran 

afoul of the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 748 to instead get off scotfree. 

In sum, the effect of the amendments offered would have been 

to exempt cab drivers, other professional transporters, and certain 

relatives who aren’t parents from the criminal prohibitions of H.R. 

748, and that would have prevented parents from knowing when 

those perpetrators of statutory rape or incest were secretly taking 

their children across state lines for an abortion to destroy evidence 

of their crimes. 

This supplemental report also adds the following additional text 

at the end of the Additional Dissenting Views.

(5)

16The five amendments in question are Nadler Amendment No. 11–16 (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); Nadler Amendment No. 12–19 (exempts a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions 

in the bill); Scott Amendment No. 13–17 (exempts cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the 

business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill); Scott Amendment 

No. 12–18 (would have limited criminal liability to the person committing the offense in the first 

degree); Jackson-Lee Amendment No. 13–20 (exempts clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first 

cousins from the penalties in the bill). 17See Mr. Chabot’s remarks on page 107 of H.R. Report No. 109–51. 

ADDITIONAL DISSENTING VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES 

CONYERS 

I understand that some contend that certain Democratic Amendments offered at the markup of H.R. 748 would have protected sexual predators.16 This is not the purpose, intent or effect of the 

Amendments. 

First, it is important to note that the term ‘‘sexual predator’’ is 

not included in the text of any of the Democratic Amendments, nor 

is it included in the text of the legislation itself. In addition, the 

term was only used on a single occasion during the substantive 

consideration of the legislation at full committee, very briefly during debate on the second Scott amendment.17

Second, I believe it is incorrect to assert, for example, that the 

bill creates a loophole for grandparents or taxicab drivers under 

the amendments. In the highly unlikely event that a grandparent 

or a taxicab driver had engaged in sexual relations with a young 

woman, the amendments would not have let such individuals off 

the hook for their acts. That is to say, they would be separately 

and independently culpable for the act of rape, statutory rape, or 

incest, with or without the adoption of these amendments. 

Third, the amendments simply reflected good faith efforts of 

Democratic Members to carve out from the provisions of the legislation certain categories of individuals who were not sexual predators, but were simply acting out of the best interests of the young 

woman involved, For example: 

• When Mr. Nadler offered an amendment to allow a subject 

party to challenge the adequacy of judicial bypass procedures, he 

did so because of his knowledge that quite frequently judicial bypass procedures do not operate to allow a woman who has been 

raped by a parent to find an objective and independent legal forum 

to obtain a waiver. 

• When Mr. Nadler offered an amendment to exempt grandparents and adult siblings from the scope of the legislation, and 

Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment to exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins from the legislation, they did 

so because they understand that quite frequently a trusted relative 

or clergy member is turned to by a young woman who is scared of 

or cannot trust her parents. 

6

• When Mr. Scott offered an amendment to exempt taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or those in the business of professional transport 

from the legislation, he did so because he did not want these innocent common carriers to be caught up in legal danger as the result 

of the actions of an overzealous prosecutor. • When Mr. Scott offered an amendment to exempt individuals 

who did not commit offenses in the first degree, he did so to insure 

that the legislation focused on those who acted with specific intent 

to violate the law, as is ordinarily the case with our criminal laws 

or to be prevented from simply doing their jobs in transporting individuals across state lines. 

In each of these cases far from protecting sexual predators, the 

amendments were designed to make it easier for a young woman 

who wants to obtain an abortion from being able to do so without 

being forced to seek the permission of a parent who is himself a 

sexual predator. I believe the amendments were straightforward 

and justified, and would have provided important improvements to 

the underlying legislation without opening up any additional loopholes.

JOHN CONYERS, JR.

Æ