during the meeting of the committee which approved the bill 22 to 1, when I asked minority members in the committee, pro-choice members of the committee, to support the bill, I did so partially in reliance on the words of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady). I read from the transcript of the committee meeting, ``And let me say that I think that the gentleman from New York and I have substantial common ground on issues related to this bill. And the gentleman has properly stated the purpose of this bill as being to reaffirm existing legal principle.'' This bill, as I read it, as I read it now does not change the law in any way. It is unnecessary. So why support it? Why vote for it? Because of its dishonest sponsorship, because of the dishonest purpose behind it. The purpose of this bill is only to get the pro-choice members to vote against it so that they can then slander us and say that we are in favor of infanticide. If I had any doubts about that, the manager's amendment and the Dear Colleague letter with it --
Jerry Nadler: “during the meeting of the committee which approved the bill 22 to 1, when I asked minority members in the committee…”
On the recordSeptember 26, 2000
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the motivations behind a bill during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Jerry Nadler
Apr 29, 2026
FISA section 702 can be a powerful tool against foreign threats, but without significant guardrails against abuse, it is also a massive threat to the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans. That is why I must oppose this legislation…
Jan 16, 2025
The Republican majority has chosen to begin this year with a series of bills intended to fearmonger and demonize immigrants. This legislation not only perpetuates that effort, but it would also have serious consequences for survivors of…
Jan 9, 2025
Due to a personal matter, I was not in Washington D.C. today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 7.





