Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it The Clerk announced the following pairs: On this vote: Mr. Wolf for, with Mr. Hall of Ohio against. Mr. Lewis of California for, with Mr. Baldacci against. Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, and Mr. FAWELL changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.'' Mr. PAUL changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``present.'' So the bill was passed. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. personal explanation

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Those watching this debate on this floor or otherwise must think that Lewis Carroll must have written most of the speeches, because they are Alice in Wonderland types. I do not come to speak about the voucher system. The gentleman from California [Mr. Riggs] was on the floor and talked about that system. Let him report a bill and we will debate the bill, and we will send it to the other body and they can send it to the President. And if the President decides to veto it, we will have an issue for the 1998 election. This bill is deader than a doornail and every one of my colleagues know it. The Moran amendment that the gentlewoman from Washington [Ms. Dunn] referred to as the Democratic alternative, my friends, the Moran amendment is the Republican bill passed by the U.S. Senate. That is what it is. This is a game. This is a game to appeal to some very good spirited people who want to have greater opportunity for their children. God bless them. Every one of us does as well. But this is the D.C. appropriation bill, not the authorizing bill, and this is a contentious issue. Not only that, my colleagues, the House, without any debate, any discussion, and against the advice and counsel of the Secret Service and Lew Merletti, the head of the Secret Service, and the Treasury Secretary, and General Jones, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Bill Webster, the former Chairman of the CIA and FBI, has said open Pennsylvania Avenue. That in the face of the Murrah Building, I tell my good friend from Oklahoma, that saw a car bomb parked close to the Murrah Building and 168 Americans lost their lives. That is why Pennsylvania Avenue was closed. But without hearings, without discussion, without any thoughtful consideration, we say expose the White House to that threat. My colleagues, remember in Saudi Arabia our troops housed there, but with a not big enough perimeter, had a car bomb explode and kill over 100 American troops. Who on this floor wants to expose the President of the United States, his family, the staff and the visitors to the White House to that risk? If we do not vote for the Moran amendment, that is what we do. Again, the Moran amendment is the Republican alternative passed to us by the other body. It will be signed by the President. That is the difference between that and the committee's recommendation. Vote for Moran.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. That is serious. But on a transportation note, as the chairman and I have been discussing, it is vital that we complete this project. We are now $18\1/2\ million short of completion of rehabilitation and restoration of the federally owned road. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the chairman, he knows my concern, the concern I have had that we have not been able to fund this over the last 3 years. We are now coming to the end of the funding stream. If we do not get the balance, this project will be in abeyance. I would like to ask, if the chairman could, to give me his comments on that, so we could determine where we are.

Mr. HOYER. I know the gentleman did not. I want to repeat it, because this is the major artery to get to Camden Yards, the home of the Baltimore Orioles. I know the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Tom Davis, is a big fan of the Orioles, and I hope the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wolf, is as well.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member on the subcommittee, for yielding time to me. I rise to say, Mr. Speaker, that I will support this conference report. I know the work of both sides has been very hard. Obviously, compromises have been made. But I rise to talk about something that is not in the conference report that greatly concerns me. Over the last 6 or 7 years, the Congress, prior to 1995, was about the business of fixing up one of the roads it owns. It was the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. The first 19 miles of that road are Federal property. We have appropriated substantial sums to rehabilitate that road, which was some 40 years of age and needed to be fixed or it was not going to be usable. It is a major artery along the Atlantic Coast and a major artery between two of America's great cities, Washington and Baltimore. It is, I might add, the direct route to Camden Yards, the home of the Baltimore Orioles, which ought to give it added impetus. I would ask the attention of the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], who did not hear my comments.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I came late to the floor. I understand that my colleagues are for this rule because the Moran amendment is made in order. I understand that rationale and I am for the Moran amendment. I do not believe the majority has the intent of supporting the Moran amendment. I do not know that. Some will vote for it, I hope, on the other side. If not, this process is a sham, it is an ideological quest that will ultimately clearly and unequivocally fail. It will be the closing down of Government of November 1995. Everybody knows if the Moran amendment is not adopted, this bill is deader than a doornail. They are wasting our time and America's time with this ideological quest they are about. Why do we waste time pretending that we are going to make policy when everybody knows, America knows and we all know, that this bill will be deader than a doornail if the Moran amendment is not adopted? I rise, in addition to that, to say that I lament the failure of the Committee on Rules to be responsible on this legislation, and precluded me from making an amendment to strike a provision which puts at risk the President of the United States, his family's safety, the staff of the White House's safety, and the visitors to the White House's safety. After a bipartisan group, of which Bill Webster, the former head of the FBI and the CIA, was a member, former General Jones, chairman of the Joint Chiefs was a member, unanimously recommended the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue, and I know that is controversial, but to change that policy in the twinkling of an eye denies the reality of the bombing in New York, denies the reality of the deaths of 168 people in Oklahoma City, denies the reality of the deaths of over 100 military personnel in Saudi Arabia. It is irresponsible, I say to my colleagues, to not give this House the opportunity to strike the provision which puts at risk the symbol of executive leadership, not just of America but of the world, knowing full well that we have terrorists throughout this country who would use that as a symbol for some demented objective. I urge the rejection of this rule.

Mr. HOYER

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn], in that testimony, was the testimony as to at what stage that was done?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, I would ask the doctor, I am correct then that eliminating this prior would not necessarily eliminate the abortion?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would again yield, and the fetus or the child would not have survived?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, I did not get the term. What would have been the result?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman to accept that as a premise.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, in the instance if one accepts the premise that the condition existed, I would ask the gentleman what alternative would he have recommended.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's thoughtful statement, and I am well aware of his strong feelings on this. But I want to pursue, if I might, just a couple of questions, because of the difficulty of this.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I understand what the gentleman is saying. His representation is that the doctor did not tell the patient the truth.

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This rule precludes the one opportunity that Members will have to vote against late-term abortions, elective or otherwise. Hear me now, Mr. Speaker. Voting against this rule will be the only opportunity they have to vote against late-term abortions. Why do I say that? The American press has done a disservice to the American people in characterizing the bill before us as a late-term abortion bill. It is not. It does not mention late term. It is not about late term. It is about a procedure. The gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] was accurate on that matter. I want to refer to some of the things that the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] said, because the Republicans rightfully point to a man who has experience and, therefore, can speak with more experience than the rest of us. First of all, he said that this bill that is pending before us does not preclude a single abortion, not one. It does not preclude one abortion, if we vote and pass this bill and the President signs it. It does prohibit a procedure. I further asked the gentleman from Oklahoma how many of these abortions, as a matter of fact, he said, that were done through this procedure were elective. He said approximately 80 percent, that has been repeated a number of times, were elective. I say to my colleagues, if they vote against the rule and allow the Hoyer amendment to be offered, they will have an opportunity to preclude every one of those 80 percent abortions that, as the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] said, most were done postviability. Let me make my statement absolutely accurate. Every postviability elective abortion, not just done with this procedure but any procedure, will be outlawed. I want my colleagues to understand, voting against this rule and voting for the Hoyer amendment, which is the Daschle- Snowe, Democratic minority leader and Republican Senator from Maine, the Daschle amendment, is the only opportunity we will have to vote against late-term abortions and have the Federal law essentially like 43 other States. This is not an isolated judgment nor an independent act or amendment. This is an amendment that 43 legislatures have essentially said ought to be the law. What does it say? It says that it permits a postviability abortion only if the life of the woman is endangered, to that extent it tracks the Hyde language, or if carrying the fetus to term would present the, and I quote, risk of grievous injury to her physical health. It therefore precludes any claim that this is a Mack truck exception for mental health. It specifically requires grievous physical risk. The amendment defines grievous injury as meaning that the continuation of the pregnancy would directly result in, and again I quote from the Hoyer- Daschle amendment, a severely debilitating disease or impairment, or prevents a physician from providing necessary treatment for a life- threatening condition; for example, a fast spreading cancer, the treatment of which, aggressive chemotherapy, would be incompatible with carrying a healthy fetus to term. My colleagues, this imposes a $250,000 fine and possible revocation of license on the doctor who violates this. I want to make it very clear to everybody in this House I am opposed to late term elective abortions. They should not happen in America. If, on the other hand, we have at risk the life of the mother, that is a wrenching judgment that the mother and her physician will have to make, and I will not interpose my judgment in that critical situation. So I ask the Members of this House to give us an opportunity to state clearly the policy of the United States of America that late-term abortions are against public policy. The only way we can do that is to vote against this rule so that this amendment can be offered to this bill.

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

Mr. HOYER. How does the Hyde statute, sir?

Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will continue to yield, nor do I.

Mr. HOYER. I do.

Mr. HOYER. It enunciates the policy of 43 States, I tell my friend from Illinois, and I think we should enunciate it as a Federal Congress as being the appropriate and right policy to preclude late-term abortions.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, we are learning new information each day about just how critical the first 3 years of life are for a child's brain development, intellectual growth, and emotional, social, and moral development. These factors will help determine the health and productivity of a child in later life. In 1993, the National Education Goals Panel reported that nearly half of infants in the United States do not have what they need to grow and thrive. High quality care from a parent or other adult is necessary to facilitate growth and development. Five million children under age 3 are in the care of other adults while their parents work outside the home. Parents of very young children have few child care service options. Many cannot afford to stay home with their children or to pay for safe, high quality developmental child care services. The Federal Government's involvement in the development of our children and grandchildren has become even more critical. Child care providers are a valuable asset to their communities. Their contributions to providing quality child care is the backbone to economic stability throughout this country. For example, over 85 percent of the children in child care in southern Maryland participate because their parents work. Without quality child care options, parents will not be able to provide their children with the early childhood development they need to get a quality start to their future. Child care needs in Calvert, Charles, and St. Mary's Counties in southern Maryland are a prime example of the national need for quality child care. In 1990, the number of children under age 3 in these three counties ranged between 2,500 and 5,000. Child care providers in southern Maryland, and throughout the country, are doing a good job at meeting child care needs, but there is the possibility that resources will become strained in the future. Child care providers cannot provide quality services without the Federal Government's support. I have been committed to ensuring that the Federal Government provide sufficient resources to increase the quality of child care throughout the country. One of the programs that I have focused on is the Child Care and Development Block Grant. This program makes funds available for child care services and activities to improve the availability, accessibility, and affordability of child care. A portion of the funding is set aside to improve the quality and availability of healthy and safe child care for all families, including quality activities such as training. The Child Care and Development Block Grant was reauthorized last year as part of the welfare reform bill. A portion of this legislation permitted a slight increase in funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant. But, in order for child care providers to be able to provide the type of quality care we all want for our children and grandchildren, they need to have access to sufficient resources. This is why Congresswoman DeLauro, Congressman McGovern, and I are working toward getting child care providers the resources they need by further increasing the amount of funding that goes toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant. The Early Learning and Opportunity Act, which we introduced, does just that. The bill creates flexible, competitive State grants to improve the quality of care for children under age 3. In addition, it increases funding for Head Start and more than doubles funding for Early Head Start, a crucial component to quality child care. The White House is hosting a conference in October on child care. The national attention to be focused on quality child care during this conference will be critical. I am confident that it will lead to local and national quality child care improvements. I look forward to participating in this conference and working with other Members of Congress to ensure that early childhood education and child care funding this country so desperately needs becomes available.

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise more in disappointment than in anger. I am the Democratic member of the task force on the contested election in the 46th District, the district of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. I have not taken to the well of the House or to the podium upstairs in the press gallery to talk about the disturbing pattern that has developed in this investigation. Several days ago, the House Oversight Committee adopted a resolution providing for the issuance of interrogatories. The resolution clearly stated that there would be consultation with the ranking minority member. There was none. There was no discussion regarding the process or the substance of these interrogatories, directly contrary to the resolution of the committee. What happened last week, unfortunately, is consistent with the pattern that has been established in this case. It has not been, I repeat, it has not been, a fair one. It has not been a process which has reflected a desire to proceed in a cooperative way to effect the ends of a fair investigation.