Tom DeLay

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for confusing the Committee. Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment in order to ensure issue-oriented citizens groups their first amendment right to urge like-minded citizens to contact their elected representatives about upcoming votes in Congress. The Shays-Meehan substitute, in my opinion, would restrict communications that express viewpoints to incumbent lawmakers during the period of time that this House could be in session. Now, these communications are intended to encourage like-minded citizens to express themselves regarding upcoming votes on the floor of the House. My amendment makes a distinction between communications that address upcoming votes and communications that endorse candidates for elections, two very real differences. Due to the time limit, I will concentrate on just one of these restrictions. Under section 201 of Shays-Meehan, if a group sends out a communication at any time of the year, this would include flyers or newspaper ads or any other printed communications, that explain that Congressman Doe, for instance, voted incorrectly on a given issue the last time it came up and the same issue is coming up, say, again the next week. And if voters are interested in Congressman Doe reconsidering his vote, they should give him a call. Under the onerous provisions of Shays-Meehan, Congressman Doe would regard this as an attack on him and, therefore, an example of impermissible express advocacy. Congressman Doe's reason would lie in section 201 of the bill which states a given communication is express advocacy if it contains words that can have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate support or defeat, or if it contains words that express unmistakable and unambiguous opposition. These are the words in the bill. Now, maybe the citizens groups' words are like, ``Do you know that Congresswoman Smith has voted time and again in favor of brutal partial- birth abortion procedures and has repeatedly described partial-birth abortion as a godsend?'' Maybe the words are, and I quote, ``Congressman Jones voted to strip women of their constitutional right to choose and call it a great stride for mankind,'' closed quote. It does not matter what the issue is. It does not matter what side of the issue a group is on. These groups have a right, a constitutionally protected right, to inform like-minded constituents to contact their representative, to let their representative know how his constituents may feel. Simply put, issue-oriented citizens' groups have a first amendment right to express their opinions. These citizens deserve an unfettered, unobstructed right, not only to be informed of political issues but also to enjoy freedom of political speech. I think that section 201 of Shays-Meehan prohibits any citizen group, other than, say, a Federal PAC, from even mentioning the name of a Member of Congress in a broadcast communication for 60 days before a primary election and again for 60 days before a general election, easily the most critical periods in the American electoral process. These are the times during which citizens are frantically seeking to inform and educate themselves as to what candidates stand for and against, and this provision undermines and subverts the entire electoral process. So my amendment, I think, is a necessary measure to protect and secure free speech and the integrity of our electoral process and allow citizens' groups to participate in the legislative process. So I ask support for my amendment and support for freedom of speech. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, could the gentleman tell me how much money is enough money in politics? Could the gentleman tell me how much money is enough? The gentleman said there is too much money in it. How much money is enough?

Mr. DeLAY. No, Mr. Chairman. No. 25, I ask unanimous consent to take No. 25 out of order and consider it.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is exposing Shays-Meehan for what it is. The opposition to my amendment is trying to confuse the Members. In one section of 202, they do talk about 60 days before an election. But in other sections in 202, they talk about other parts of the year. And 60 days it is radio or television communication. But in other parts of the year it could be the kind of ad that the gentleman from Kentucky was talking about. My amendment is very, very simple. It simply states that an exemption to the express advocacy part of their bill that deals solely with an issue or legislation. I do not understand why the proponents of Shays- Meehan are scared to death to have ads run against them dealing with issues while we are in session or the next week of the session.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I think the opponents to my amendment are very upset with this amendment because this amendment may pass, and they are upset with this amendment and oppose this amendment because it exposes the biggest part of the Shays-Meehan bill that we object to, and that is the part that manages free speech. The gentleman from Pennsylvania used the term we need to ``manage'' free speech. To me, that is an oxymoron. We cannot manage free speech, particularly in the part of political advocacy and political participation that my amendment addresses. My amendment is very simple. It just exempts from the section of the bill any ads or alerts sent out by groups that deal solely with an issue or legislation which is or may be subject to a vote in the Senate or the House of Representatives. Now why would they be afraid of issue ads that express opposition for or support for a vote in the House of Representatives or the Senate? And it also exempts any communication that encourages an individual to contact an elected representative in Congress in order to exercise the right protected under the first amendment of the Constitution to inform the representative of the individual's views on such an issue of legislation. Now, if we look at some of the opponents and what they have actually been saying, I am going to dissect a little of it. Number one, they confuse the whole issue by talking about bigger issues, smaller issues, loopholes, sham ads. In fact, the gentlewoman from New York has turned a new term of art in addition to the term of art ``sham ads'' that has been started by the Shays-Meehan. Now we have sham issue alerts. Can my colleagues imagine in this country of free speech, free speech guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, we are talking about sham issue alerts in the House of Representatives? We want to manage the free speech of groups that may want to tell the American people how we vote? This is what we have been talking about all along. The proponents of Shays-Meehan are proponents, number one, that are incumbents, and they are sick and tired of people around America revealing, using our communication services in this country to reveal how they vote, and so they want to get rid of these sham ads. Or they want to manage them in such a way as to discourage them. The gentleman from New Jersey was talking about capping spending. The gentleman from Maine was talking about we need to know who these subversive people are that are writing ads that may tell the American people how we vote. And we need to know who is we? Who decides? Is we the big-brother government at the Federal Election Commission? Of course it is. They want big-brother government to manage free speech, if we put all the opponents' speech together. That is what they have been saying here. What we are saying is very simple: As the gentleman from Connecticut has said, we take care of issue alerts in our bill. It is no problem. Of course, we cannot find it in their bill, but they just arbitrarily say we take care of it. Well, if they take care of it, why are they afraid of my amendment? They are afraid of my amendment because they are afraid for people to gather together, raise some money, send out an ad, do a radio spot that tells the American people and District 22 of Texas how the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay) votes. Mr. Chairman, I am not afraid of how I vote, and I am not afraid to stand up and stand toe-to-toe and debate those groups that are against the way that I vote. That is the American process. What Shays-Meehan does in its limitation of free speech and its now-management of free speech is wants to shut down organizations' abilities and rights to freely express themselves in the political process because in their bill they say communications, radio and TV, that is run 60 days before an election, which means when we get back from the August recess in September, if my colleagues run a radio spot that happens to say, ``Tom DeLay voted to ban partial-birth abortions and he is a bad dude for doing it,'' that organization could come under attack by the Federal Election Commission, and they have no defense to say we are just advocating a vote on the floor of the House during a pre-election period. But in my amendment that group, whether it be Planned Parenthood or others, could stand up and say, no, in the law it says that we are dealing with a vote on the floor of the Senate and the House of Representatives. It just amazes me every time I debate this campaign reform why people want to limit people's freedom of speech to participate in the political process, and it all comes back to the same reason: They are afraid for the American people to know what is going on in this town, to know what is going on on the floor of this House, and they are uncomfortable sometimes by some of the ads that groups run, and they want to do away with them once and for all. So I just ask the Members to look at my amendment, digest it, understand it and vote for it.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I probably will not take the entire 5 minutes, for those who are waiting to speak. I just wanted to add to last night, when I read into the Record some of my staff's memories of Detective John Gibson. Today I had a few more that my staff offers, and I wanted to read them into the Record as well. From Jim Morrell, Working in the front office at the Whip Office for a year and a half, I had the opportunity to come to know John; the opportunity to know what an outstanding human being he truly was. When the nights got late with Congressman DeLay up in leadership meetings or on the House Floor, there would often be just a few of us left in the office. I can remember staying up there until 11:00 or 12:00 at night with John watching TV or talking about the latest events in the sports world. With John being a die-hard Red Sox fan and me being a die-hard Cubs fan, we often commiserated on the respective futility of our favorite baseball teams. I walked into the Whip's office last Friday, minutes before the tragic events unfolded. Although I came in the front door, I turned my head towards the back hallway before continuing on. There sat John at the back desk dutifully guarding his post. For the rest of my life, that image of John will stay with me. The image of a guardian, a defender, a protector. I can imagine John, even as shots were being fired, thinking, ``There is no way you are going to harm the people in this office.'' Well, no one in our office was harmed, thanks to John. The hardest part of this tragedy is that I will never have the opportunity to thank John personally. In every sense of the word, he was a part of our office, a part of our family, and he will be sorely missed. God was very gracious to allow me to know John Gibson. I will always remember his life and will always remember his sacrifice. From Shannon Graves, she says, John was my father, my uncle, my brother, my protective shield. For the year and a half that I sat in a desk right in front of him, I saw John from sunup to sundown. Gibson, as I would always call him, was always there with a cheery ``good morning'' and a smile throughout the day. He took on the role of a father to a very young female in the office. He was there to give you congratulations, give you that stern lecture that was needed, and if someone was ever bothering you he was there to make it go away. As we sat together, it became the competition of dueling TVs, always helping him with the Internet, e-mail, and loading the latest computer games for him, Doug, and Bob to play. I remember the day he was on detail for John Travolta. It was about 6:30 at night. He came running into the office asking me to grab any film that I might have. He would give no details, except to grab the film and follow him. I ran with him, and the next thing I know, I am handing the film over to John Travolta's photographer. It seems that she ran out of film and Travolta was going into a meeting with the Speaker. I spent the next hour up on the balcony and then was ushered over to have my picture taken. John was always watching out for everyone. He wanted to make sure that everyone benefited. He escorted Stephanie and myself to see Mother Theresa when she was leaving the Capitol. He was always right there for you. Now my Hill father is gone. From Dani DeLay, my own daughter, who is now Dani Farrell, John always treated me like he was another father. Whenever I was in Washington, he always was looking out for me and watching me like a hawk. I liked to tease him and tell him I feel sorry for his own daughter. I was sure that, at age 17, he still had not let her go out on a date. I feel so safe knowing that now he will always be watching over me wherever I am. The last conversation John and I had, he told me how much he and my family meant to him and how much he loved us. John, I love you, too. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to just thank all the Members for all the wonderful words they have said on this floor on behalf of J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson.

Mr. DeLAY. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight be discharged from further consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 310) and I ask for its immediate consideration and adoption by the House.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for yielding, and I appreciate the gentleman's expression of sympathy. The gentleman has always shown a true regard for the Capitol community and the people that work here, and particularly the Capitol Police that protect us. I appreciate the gentleman joining me in this resolution. Mr. Speaker, this resolution will do several things. I want Members to understand that this is not the only resolution we will be doing today. Later on today, when Members come back and get into town, they will be able to express themselves when we will have another resolution honoring Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut. Mr. Speaker, this particular resolution establishes some very real principles. First of all, it authorizes the use of the Rotunda for a memorial service for Detective Gibson and Private First Class Chestnut. It also, for the first time that I know of, authorizes the placement of two plaques in honor of Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut in the general area where they lost their lives, commemorating those two spots in the Capitol. We also want to obviously pay for their funeral expenses. This resolution allows us to do that. We also want to make sure that their surviving widows are taken care of and make sure that they do not have any concerns about their future and the future of their children, and, therefore, we authorize one year's annual salary to be paid to the widow of Detective Gibson and to the widow of Officer Chestnut. We also establish a Capitol Police Memorial Fund that will be used for whatever the needs may be of the families of Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut. Later on today, as I said, we will consider a concurrent resolution that honors the memory of these two officers, of these two fine, fine gentlemen. Some, probably cynically, are already asking why we are using the Capitol Rotunda to honor these two brave men. After all, police officers are slain in the line of duty all over the country; why should these two particular men receive special treatment? Is it simply because they died defending Members of Congress and their staff? Besides their personal bravery, these men died defending the Capitol of the United States of America, the symbol of freedom across this world. They are the first Capitol Police officers to die in the line of duty since the Capitol Police Department was created 170 years ago. They died saving lives. They died doing their job. They died being professionals and representing a fine, fine law enforcement group of officers that protect this Capitol and everybody in it, whether they be tourists, Americans, people from other nations or Members of Congress and their staffs. I just feel that it is absolutely fitting, and I greatly appreciate the leaders of both the House and Senate in agreeing to use the Rotunda to pay tribute to these two officers. By paying tribute to their sacrifice, we all pay tribute to the sacrifices of law enforcement officers all across this country. What more fitting place to pay tribute to law enforcement officers than in the Rotunda of the building that is the symbol of freedom across the world? John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut were members of this Capitol Hill community. One of the most gratifying things that I know the families have received, as well as me and my staff, who have had a very difficult weekend, is all the calls from all across the country honoring these two wonderful men as heroes. They are leaving behind many grieving friends and associates here in this Capitol Hill community. I saw J.J. Chestnut every night when I left this building. He was always standing there by the document door. He was always grinning, and he was always giving me, in a very warm, openhearted way, a hearty, hearty, sincere, ``Good night, Congressman. You take care of yourself.'' And every night I would respond with, ``J.J., you be careful.'' He was careful, but, unfortunately, not enough, and this shooter comes in and shoots him. But my enduring vision of J.J. will be of a professional officer who loved his job, loved his post, fought to keep his post, and he was dedicated to his duty in protecting the Nation's Capitol and everyone that was in it. John Gibson was a member of my security detail, and, therefore, he was a member of my staff. But, as importantly, my wife and my daughter and I feel very strongly that he was a member of our family. John and I went everywhere together. We had many long talks about life, about family, about duty and about country. John loved his detective badge. In fact, he would get in trouble for wearing it, but he wore it because he was so proud about the fact that he was a detective in the Capitol Police Corps, that he had made detective, that he was a man that believed in duty, and that he knew that it would be possible some day that he would have to throw his body in front of me or someone like me and my staff. One never thinks that that is really going to happen, but it happened on Friday, and John did throw his body between my staff and a shooter, and he lost his life for it. The President said it so well, because it is in scripture, that ``No greater gift is there than the gift of laying down your life for another,'' and John gave the ultimate gift. He loved his country, John did. He loved sports. John Gibson was a solid man. He was a patriot. He exemplified everything that was good about America. Both John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut are also members of another community, and that is the Nation's community of police officers. As such, their sacrifice represents the sacrifices of thousands of police officers across the Nation who do their duty to serve and protect the public, sometimes under great abuse, sometimes under great disregard, and many times people take them for granted. It all comes together when an incident like this happens and we realize how much we owe to police officers all across this country. So I think by using the Rotunda to honor these fallen heroes we are honoring not only the specific acts of courage that have saved so many other Americans and we are not only honoring them because of the fact that this was their building and they were protecting it, we also honor them, all fallen law enforcement heroes who have died defending the American people from evil. So my heart goes out to the families of John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut, and particularly those young kids that have lost a father. We have lost two wonderful heroes who have saved so many from harm. We have lost two heroes who were dedicated husbands and wonderful fathers, and I urge all my colleagues and the American people in general to pray for these families as they try to cope with this great loss. Mr. Speaker, I will just add at the end, if people around this country want to donate to the memorial fund created by this resolution, they can send their contributions to the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund, United States Capitol, Washington, D.C., 20515. Let me also add, if the gentleman will further yield, something that really touched me just a while ago. One of the pages came up to me and handed me this, and I want to put it in the Record, from the pages that serve here in the United States House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, the Pages would like to say that ``We salute these two fallen heroes who gave their lives for ours. In the line of duty, these men stood strong and brave for their country. For that, we all owe a great debt of gratitude. ``We are all aware of their courageous sacrifice, and we hold these officers deep in our hearts. God bless their families, and God bless America.'' Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding, and I include for the Record the tribute by our Pages. From the Pages of the U.S. House of Representatives We salute these two fallen heroes who gave their lives for ours. In the line of duty, these men stood strong and brave for their country. For that, we all owe a great debt of gratitude. We are all aware of their courageous sacrifice, and we hold these officers deep in our hearts. God bless their families, and God bless America.

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate those words. I really want to thank the Speaker and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip; the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader; and the majority leader in the Senate, Senator Lott; and the minority leader of the Senate, Senator Daschle; for quickly understanding the import of what happened on Friday around 3:40 p.m. and how important it is to the Nation, as well as to the Capitol community, to honor these two heroes. They understood the importance, understood how we needed to come together and figure out some way to honor them, and that is why they will lie in honor tomorrow in the Rotunda. That is why I greatly appreciate the President understanding how important this is to the Capitol community; and he just announced that, even though Detective Gibson is not a veteran, he will be allowed to be buried in Arlington Cemetery. I greatly appreciate that, and the families of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson greatly appreciate that. A little housekeeping, I understand that even if we run out of time this evening, those Members that wish to speak, who could not speak tonight, will be able to speak in honor of these gentlemen tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, we dedicate this resolution to honor the memory of Detective John Michael Gibson and Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut. And tomorrow, as I have said, we must live our lives knowing that this country was a better place because of the dedication and the courage of these two men. It is, after all, the lives of these two men that we celebrate today. Both were family men who loved their jobs and loved their country. Both gave their lives defending the United States, the Capitol, and the people who either worked here or visited here. John Gibson was especially close to my staff and to me and my family, as everyone knows. And as I have said before, John was part of my family and in many ways he was and is our guardian angel. There are so many stories to talk about John. I have said already probably anything and everything I could say, so I decided to take this time not for me to speak about John, but to allow my staff to speak about John. This is the day I asked my staff, anyone who wanted to say something about John, to put it in words; and if I may, I will take a little time so that people understand how important John Gibson and J.J. Chestnut were to our family. Tony Rudy said that, ``My fondest memory of John is when we used to rush to get the 4 o'clock mail and try to get the Boston Herald and the Boston Globe. We would talk UMass hoops and about the Bruins. He worked very hard to get Tom to understand and enjoy hockey.'' John Russell said, ``Officer Chestnut would scold me whenever I walked past him entering the building after I had a cigarette outside, and said it was his mission to get me to quit and be as healthy as he was.'' Frank Maguire, ``With both John and I being Irish Catholic with a Massachusetts heritage, we exchanged family stories about growing up and found many similarities that we could laugh about. I had described John to my wife as my vision of what a Catholic priest would be like who was allowed to marry and raise a family. I will never forget that mental image of John Gibson. ``He was from a bygone era, one where people actually stopped and took time to learn about you as a person and your family, before focusing on what function you were to perform in the office.'' John Feehery said, ``I remember feeling a real sense of security every time I saw Officer Chestnut. You could tell he took real pride in his work and who he was as a police officer.'' Mary Ellen Wright, the dear girl that saw John shot, says, ``When you remember John, remember that grin. His grin that could melt your heart or tell you that you had done wrong with just one look. ``When you remember John, remember that twinkle in his eye. It was often a twinkle of mystery and sometimes a mischievous twinkle, but always a twinkle of compassion, a twinkle of love. ``When you remember John, remember his honesty, his willingness to express his opinions, whether you agreed with him or not. Yes, that was John. He always spoke from his heart. ``When you remember John, remember his outstanding character, his commitment to his family, his commitment to his friends, to his work, and his overall commitment to excellence in all of his pursuits. ``When you remember John, consider yourself lucky to have crossed paths with such a fine man. Remember John with a smile. Cherish the precious moments, the precious memories, of which there are many. Everyone knows what a hero is, the many qualities that define such a unique person. John Gibson is not only a hero, but an angel. He was our angel on earth and is now our angel in heaven.'' Lindsey Darrah, who was just 10 feet from John, her desk 10 feet from John, says, ``Officer Chestnut, the watchdog. He was the officer that recognized us as staff, but regardless, made us show our IDs. He was the officer that was never quite convinced the silver tins were in fact filled with Popeye's Fried Chicken. Oftentimes, we would bring in five or six loads from the car. Yes, he not only made us open every single tin to see what was inside, but then he would make us put the chicken on the conveyor belt just to make sure it was really and truly that chicken from Popeye's. You can imagine that we were always highly annoyed with sweet Officer Chestnut, and I am sure he knew it. But he was just doing his job, and he would say so and we would all laugh every time.'' Joe Connolly, who is the young man who sat just across the desk from John and who John, on hearing the shots being fired, knew that it was coming our way and told Joe to get under his desk. The shooter fell right beside Joe as John took him down. Joe says, ``I just want people to realize how close everyone in our office really is. Most people may think, oh, he was just a cop. But it was definitely more than that, especially to me. He saved my immediate life, and I will never have a chance to personally thank him.'' Autumn Hanna says, ``I remember about a month after I started working here, I had to staff a large televised event with Mr. DeLay. I was incredibly nervous and John could tell. He walked into the hotel ballroom with me right behind Mr. DeLay, put his arm around me and whispered in my ear, 'Don't worry, I'll stay with you.' ``He stood right next to me throughout the evening and drove me home afterwards. His action that night reveals the dynamic of the relationship John had with all the Whip staff. He was our protector, a reassuring presence in the midst of the chaos and the confusion we encountered in our work days and nights here at the Capitol. ``He was that in his last moment. He gave his life in the midst of chaos and confusion. He gave his life protecting us, and I am still reassured by his presence. Our guardian is now in heaven instead of at the back door, but he will always be with us.'' Deana Funderburk said, ``Last year when I was working in the scheduling department of the Whip office, Mother Theresa visited the Capitol. Congressman DeLay, accompanied by John Gibson, went to the Joint Session in the Rotunda to welcome her. Before Congressman DeLay and John left the office, John asked me if I was going to be able to go. I unfortunately was not able to attend. ``The ceremony commenced and in remembrance of that momentous event, each person in attendance was given a pendant with an engraving of the Virgin Mary on it. After the welcoming ceremony was finished, John came up to my desk and held out his hand in a fist. He said that since I was not able to attend, he wanted me to have his special pendant. ``I cannot express how much that gesture meant to me, and how generous and kind a man he was. I still have that pendant which I will always treasure.'' Pamela Mattox says, ``In church yesterday, I looked at the crucifix and for the first time truly understood the sacrifice of giving up one's own life for others. That is what John Gibson did for all of us in the Whip office. We lived because he cared enough to protect us. ``But in reflection, every day he did more than that. His way of life exemplified the best of the Golden Rule, at worship, at home, at play, and at work. ``John Gibson was, in a most unassuming way, simply the best. We have lost someone precious and John is now with the Lord. He was very much needed by all of us and greatly loved. We thank you for allowing him to enlighten our lives and will forever miss him. ``John, thank you for making the world a far better place and leaving us with so many special memories.'' Mr. Speaker, there are others on my staff who would like to say things, but maybe tomorrow we can put that in the Record. These are some of the things that my staff wanted to express about Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson. So, Mr. Speaker, this gives a sense of the kind of men they were and how tragic it is that they have been taken away from us. The entire Whip staff wants to send its condolences and prayers to the Gibson and Chestnut families and to the community, the Capitol community here. We all feel a great, great loss. We will always be grateful for their sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, at a later date, hopefully we can come back and honor those Capitol Police that also were heroes and lived, those that were involved in the incident and did some very heroic things. They also deserve to be honored.

Mr. DeLAY

Mr. DeLAY. Well, ask the question. If the gentleman would ask the question in a manner someone can understand it, I will be glad to answer it.

Mr. DeLAY. What time? The gentleman ought to answer that.

Mr. DeLAY. At what time is it appropriate to kill a baby?

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, there is no procedure that is preferable in killing a baby that is about to be born naturally, no. I do not believe in a procedure that will kill a baby. I ask the gentleman back----

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DeLAY. Madam Speaker, this is amazing to me. This is a vote about common decency. This is a procedure that is gruesome, it is inhuman, and it is unnecessary. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, I just answer him when he says it is rarely used, that even Everett Koop said, and I quote, ``In no way can I twist my mind to see that partial birth and then destruction of the unborn child before the head is born is a medical necessity for the mother.'' The President has turned his back on millions of Americans who are sickened by this procedure. To the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who said that this is a rare procedure, and then tried to cover things up with statistics, I would say that, in fact, in New Jersey alone 1,500 babies were killed with this procedure and are killed every year. Now, we do not like to hear the details about this procedure. We do not like to talk about such things in public or in private. But, Madam Speaker, we must talk about them. The implications that we face if we do not are too far-reaching. The media rarely describes partial-birth abortion. They and some of my colleagues here today will politely call it a certain late-term procedure. Well, I submit to my colleagues that there is nothing polite about this procedure. Certainly the aborted baby, whose life is snuffed out in such a violent way, does not think that this is a polite procedure. Madam Speaker, human life is precious. When we allow human life to be so coldly and violently taken in the manner of the partial-birth abortion, we are all diminished as a society. So I urge my colleagues to think before they vote. This is a conscience vote. Is this the kind of procedure that my colleagues would be proud to tell their children that they supported? Is this the kind of violence that they would be comfortable in defending when it comes time to meet their maker? This is a real gut-wrenching conscience vote. Vote to override the President's veto.

Mr. DeLAY. I think the gentleman's question is grammatically in error.

Mr. DeLAY. No, I do not.

Mr. DeLAY. I am once again answering the gentleman that many doctors have already said and written extensively that this particular procedure does not have to be used.

Mr. DeLAY. And if the gentleman will yield, I will tell the gentleman that this is a gruesome procedure for the baby that it is being performed on.