Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier today that this was a sad and solemn occasion for us all. Obviously, it is. The discussions have led to that conclusion. Some knew these two brave men better than others. Let me suggest, however, all of us know their comrades in the defense of freedom and defense of our safety and the defense of civil order, without which democracy and freedom cannot flourish. I see my very close friend on the floor, Curt Weldon from the State of Pennsylvania. He and I are honored to cochair the effort we know as the Fire Service Caucus. It honors men and women who respond to emergency, at time of crisis, not just to fire but to flood and to earthquake and to the cat in the tree, all types of emergencies that confront us. As I sat here thinking of those who had spoken of these two brave officers, one who frankly was unable to make an immediate decision because the assailant did not give him that time, the other who had to make instantaneous decisions and responded in the best traditions, with the highest courage of men and women who serve in the police forces of our Nation. But as I thought further, each one of them made a decision that required courage and commitment to their fellow men and women in this country. That was a decision daily, as the minority leader has said, to get up, put on the uniform or their plainclothes gear and to put on a badge, a badge of honor, a badge of commitment, a badge indicating their courage in making that daily decision to defend civil order and democracy. J.J. Chestnut was not given the opportunity by this assailant to make a decision of exactly how to respond. But J.J. Chestnut had already made that decision. He was at that door, he was at the perimeter, he was at risk voluntarily, placing himself in harm's way. That decision was a brave and honorable and courageous decision. Detective John Gibson also had made a decision earlier that morning to be in harm's way. And when harm came, he was not found wanting. In fact, he was found to have the full measure of devotion and courage that he had pledged to give, not solely to Tom DeLay, not solely to the Congress of the United States, not solely to this building, this hallowed citadel of freedom and democracy, perceived by all the world to be the center of freedom and justice. He was there to defend that very idea, that torch of freedom. Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg indicated that we had all, as we have all come to honor those two men and their colleagues in the police forces of America, one of whom dies every other day in America, it is a real risk that they undertake, a knowledgeable risk that they undertake. Abraham Lincoln said it well, that we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate this field beyond that which those two brave men and their colleagues have done. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in honoring the memory of J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson and honoring their decision to show the kind of courage and commitment necessary to maintain our democracy, our freedom, our civil society.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, under my reservation, I sadly join the majority whip, whose comments are both personal but express as well the sentiments of his colleagues. Over 14,622 law enforcement officers have lost their lives in the history of our country. The first one lost his life in 1794. Since that time, we have asked some of our fellow citizens to take upon themselves the responsibility and the risk of defending freedom here at home. When I began the Pledge of Allegiance, I said that Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson died defending the principles for which it stands. That was literally and figuratively true. Every morning those whom we ask to bear the responsibility of maintaining order in a civil society, without which we would not have freedom and justice and the rule of law, they put on their uniform or their plain clothes and they put on a badge, and most of them attach a gun to their hip or to their shoulder. They and their families know that daily they risk their lives. In this instance, of course, because no previous Capitol police officer has lost his or her life in a confrontation, that risk seemed remote. Mr. Speaker, Friday, July 24 reminds us once again that the risk is always present for those we ask to defend this free society. The vagaries of life are such that there are those, either demented or angry or for whatever reasons, take onto themselves the opportunity to commit violence. In this instance, Officer Chestnut, Detective Gibson and, indeed, the hundreds of Capitol police officers who responded to this crisis, gave their lives that many others might be safe and, more importantly, to indicate that the Capitol of the United States, Freedom's House, if you will, will, in fact, be accessible, but it will also be protected. Our community on this Hill is a grief-stricken community, and it is a reflection of a country that shares that grief. I have had the opportunity of talking to family members of these officers. I and so many others on this floor know the personal grief that they are experiencing. They have lost a loved one. They have lost a friend. They have lost a dad or brother or an uncle or a friend and a neighbor. They have a very personal grief. But our country has a collective grief, and it is appropriate that we honor these men, both as individual American heroes, but as well, as the majority whip has indicated, as two members of a group of some 700,000 Americans who daily leave their homes and take to their duties to defend America's principles, to defend Americans, to defend an orderly society. These men and women of law enforcement, like those we ask to join the Armed Services and defend freedom abroad, are equally responsible for us being able to meet in this body in a society that honors the peaceful resolution of disputes. We are the land of the free because we are the home of the brave. This resolution honors two of those brave who ensure that this will be, in fact, the land of the free. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, obviously I will not object, but at this time I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, who lost a good and true friend, as all of us lost two good and true friends.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask all Members and guests to join me in pledging allegiance to the flag, which stands for the principles for which Detective Gibson and Officer Chestnut have so recently given their lives. Mr. HOYER led the Pledge of Allegiance as follows: I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce) said what the Democrats know. Let me tell my colleagues what the Democrats know. When people commit wrongs, they do not want to be held accountable, and the Republicans are making sure that is true. I rise today in opposition to H.R. 4250, the bill that my friends on the other side of the aisle claim reforms managed care. The previous speaker, the chairman of their conference, said what the Republican Congress had brought as it pertains to a balanced budget. We will argue that some other time. The fact is, this Congress has not brought hardly anything to the American public. It is the do-nothing Congress. This bill is on the floor today because a discharge petition was signed by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and about 190 others of us, and says, we want a health care reform bill on this floor. That is the reason it is here and the only reason we are here today. I rise in strong support of the substitute offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a Republican and a doctor, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the former Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, now Ranking Member, and the next Chairman of the Committee on Commerce. The Republicans have chosen to support H.R. 4250, the so-called ``Patient Protection Act.'' They bring this bill to the floor today with no hearings, no mark-ups, and no CBO estimate. In other words, they were so panicked by the discharge petition, that they brought it to the floor without the regular process. Mr. Speaker, the American public wants access to health care. The American public wants decisions made by their doctors and by themselves, not by, as all of us have said, insurance companies. They are right. But the American public will not be fooled as to which alternative gives them protection, as to which bill gives them access, and as to which bill allows them to hold accountable those who undercut their health care protection. My colleagues, I ask you to support the Democratic substitute, the Republican substitute, supported by Members on the other side of the aisle, the Ganske-Dingell substitute, supported by Members on the other side of the aisle, which does in fact do what everybody says they want to do.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and if the gentleman would stay in the well, I would ask my friend from Texas, I understand what he has said, and I agree with his proposition of the American public's view. I ask him this. He talks about a procedure. Is there a procedure that he believes is preferable?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise today, my colleagues, not so much to speak on the veto override, although the bill in question, I believe sincerely, will not in fact stop any abortion. This is about a procedure, not about abortion. The issue should not be about a procedure. I want to make it clear, I am opposed to late-term abortions by any procedure. I rise today to call Members' attention to legislation which has been referenced before that has as its intent stopping all late-term abortions by whatever procedure. I asked the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) was there an alternative procedure he thought preferable. He would not answer that question. Nor will anybody on this floor. Not one. Because there is no alternative procedure that proponents believe is a preferable procedure. The fact is I think most of us are against what the gentlewoman from Florida talked about, elective late-term abortions. I am absolutely opposed to that, unequivocally opposed to elective late-term abortions. Do I make exceptions in my bill? Yes. As the gentleman from Texas intoned, for the life of the mother. There is not a Member, I think, on this floor who would not vote for that exception. Not one. Then, yes, we go on to say for serious adverse health consequences to the mother, a wrenching, difficult decision for a doctor and a patient to make. But I am opposed and believe that any ethical doctor would oppose elective late-term abortions by whatever procedure. And if they do not, the medical association ought to take them to task and our bill would impose a very significant penalty on so doing. Whether this bill today passes or fails, I would ask the Committee on the Judiciary and ask the gentleman from Florida to report this bill to the floor. Let us debate. Let us go on record as 41 States in America have gone on record and say, we are opposed as public policy to late- term, elective abortions. Period. No ifs, ands or buts, no this procedure is not good but that procedure is okay. Not deal with procedures. Deal with substance. Deal with saying that we should not have these abortions late-term for elective reasons.

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I understand what the gentleman said. In the case of the life of the mother, which the gentleman indicates he believes is an exception, what procedure would he advocate? What procedure to terminate the pregnancy would the gentleman advocate?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, I know the gentleman wants to make this debate as gruesome as he can. I understand that. I ask the gentleman again: In the instance in which the gentleman says is acceptable, saving the life of the mother, what procedure would the gentleman think is preferable?

Mr. HOYER. I understand.

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman does not either have an answer to my question or does not want to answer it. My presumption is that because he has no alternative, is there a procedure which he would believe was appropriate to save the life of the mother and, if so, what is that procedure.

Mr. HOYER. All right. Does the gentleman believe there is any procedure acceptable to terminate a pregnancy at any time?

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. HOYER. I would ask the gentleman to not quibble with me. I would ask the gentleman not to quibble with me; I am not trying to quibble with him. I am trying really to get to the heart of what I think is a difficult issue for the American public and for everyone on the floor.

Mr. HOYER. The court clearly has said that in terms of the Constitution there is a right of a woman and her doctor to make that decision and to terminate the pregnancy. My question, and rather than yell at one another, rather than accuse one another of awful things, I want to find out what we are talking about. It is my premise that the gentleman does not believe there is any procedure, at any time, that is less than objectionable. Am I correct in that premise?

Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time.

Mr. HOYER. No, I understand that. Which procedure would the gentleman advocate?

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, everyone is talking about patients' rights. It is simple to talk about wanting patients to have rights and access to care. It is another thing, however, to provide for that in legislation. There are two contending bills. Let me go through them. Access to enforcement in State courts: The Democratic bill, yes; the Republican bill, no. Protection for women after mastectomy: Democratic bill, yes; Republican bill, no. Choice of doctors within the plan: Democratic bill, yes; Republican bill, no. Access to specialty care: Democratic bill, yes; Republican bill, no. Direct access to OB/GYNs: Democratic bill, yes; Republican bill, no. There are other provisions that I will not be able to cover in this 1 minute. But as we hear this debate and people talk about patients' rights, hold them to the criteria of not just talking about patients' rights, but ensuring patients' rights.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman clarify for me and for others, when he says to include ``a term for coverage,'' what does that phrase mean?

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

Mr. HOYER. Am I correct then that the amendment means, ``a term for coverage'' would mean the term that refers to the abortifacients?

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for his clarification.