Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me. Very simply, this is just a time for us to say that we appreciated these people. Some of them were heroes to their families, some were heroes to their country, and I have one gentleman in my district whose father was a victim in New York, and I wanted to say just a word about him. His name was William Wren. My constituent's name is Christopher Wren. William grew up in Brooklyn and served in the U.S. Army from 1958 to 1960. After the Army, he came back home and attended John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York and earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Fire Science. Following graduation, he worked for 1 year with the New York Fire Department before joining Ladder 166 in Coney Island. After 25 years of service, he retired in 1990. But 3 years later, William accepted the position of Resident Manager for Fire Safety at the World Trade Center. On the morning of September 11, 2001, he called his wife of 32 years, Patricia, after the first plane hit the north tower, and he said, ``I'm okay.'' After the second plane hit, he called again and he said, ``I'm okay, but very busy.'' He also asked Patricia to call their neighbor to tell her that her husband Richard was also okay. And when the south tower of the World Trade Center collapsed at 10:29, both Richard and William left us. Survivors say that William and some other men, among them fellow retired firefighters James Corrigan and Phil Hayes, both of whom also died, went to building 5 to rescue children from the day care center, then returned to tower 2, which was the first tower to collapse. William Wren is a real hero. He was saving others up until the very end without giving a second thought to his own safety or his own life. William's son Christopher has shared a lot about his father with me, and it has been a real honor to talk to him and learn more about him. William is going to be missed by his family; his wife Patricia, sons William and Christopher, daughters-in-law Kathleen and Kathryn, granddaughter, Shannon, age 3, and a new grandson, William III, who was born yesterday to carry on the Wren tradition.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Grucci).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt).

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I remind my colleagues again, this is an open rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 296 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, I am a little surprised to hear my Democratic colleagues sounding like this is a closed rule. This is an open rule and any Member can come down and make any amendment to the bill as long as it complies with the normal rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), who has worked very, very hard on securing the funds for New York in this bill.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for H.R. 3338, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2002. Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that the bill shall be considered for amendment by paragraph. The rule provides that the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill or prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill, except as specified in the rule. The rule waives points of order during consideration of the bill against amendments for failure to comply with clause 2(e) of rule XXI prohibiting non-emergency-designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency designation. The rule authorizes the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and open rule for a very important bill. We need to pass this rule and the underlying defense bill so that the citizens of New York and our Armed Forces get the support they need and they get it now. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, a vote against this rule is a vote to table this legislation. A vote against this rule is a vote to delay money for New York, and it is a vote to delay funds for homeland defense, and it is a vote to delay support for our men and women in Afghanistan. I would like to make three important points. First, this is an open rule. It cannot get any better than that. The rule allows any Member to offer any amendment to the bill, as long as their amendment complies with the normal rules of the House. Every Member who will come down here to complain is doing so because they are unable or unwilling to offer an amendment that complies with the rules. They are mad because the committee did not make a special exemption for them. Second, we are really talking about two separate bills here, the regular defense appropriations bill, and the $20 billion supplemental. This defense bill provides vital support to our military and to New York. The supplemental allows New York to get $11 billion in recovery funds. It provides an extra $1.5 billion above and beyond what we have already spent this year for our government's defenses against chemical and biological attack, and the regular Department of Defense appropriations bill provides an additional $11.7 billion in extra funds to prosecute Operation Enduring Freedom, including $1.7 billion to develop a rapid response capability after a terrorist attack. As we speak, our best and brightest young men and women are risking their lives over in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, we have let the budget for our Armed Forces expire. The fiscal year ended on September 30 and we still have not passed a defense bill. What kind of message does that send to the men and women in uniform? It is shameful. Now is not the time to further delay, to nitpick this bill for political reasons or political gain. Let us pass it and provide our military with $317 billion in much needed support, including a much needed 4.6 percent pay raise. Thirdly and last, Mr. Speaker, the funds in this bill, both for New York and our antiterrorism defenses, are above and beyond the $40 billion we provided immediately after the September 11 attacks. Only a few days after September 11, Congress came together and provided billions for our recovery and defense efforts. Indeed, we provided so much money that President Bush has not had enough time to spend it all yet. As Mayor Giuliani recently said, ``So far, the money we have asked for, we have gotten just as quickly as we asked for it. The reality is that we have gotten more help than we have asked for. The cooperation on the part of the Bush administration and the Federal Government has been absolutely 100 percent. Right now, we do not need $10 billion, and we would put it in T-bills if we got it. As we need the money, we get it.'' I point this out because some Members will come to the floor in a few minutes and will have conveniently forgotten about the $40 billion we allocated a few weeks ago. They will pretend New York has been left in the lurch. This rule and this bill will pass, Mr. Speaker, because it is an open rule and because it is a responsible, generous bill. But unfortunately, we will see that some lawmakers have abandoned the spirit of constructive bipartisanship that prevailed so beautifully in the wake of September 11. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues again that this is not a so-called open rule, it really is an open rule. I know some people are upset because they did not get the special exceptions that they wanted, but, quite frankly, it is an open rule, and we can debate this on the floor. It is very critical that this money come forward for our homeland defense, for our men and women in Afghanistan, and also for the City of New York. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this rule.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the other body to act immediately to ban human cloning. The news over the weekend that a firm in Massachusetts had successfully cloned a human embryo makes it vitally important that that happen now. Scientists are creating human life for the sole purpose of destroying it. And this is not the plot of a bad science fiction movie, this is very real. Cloning is very real and it is happening in America right now. We must put a stop to this horrific practice.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart), for yielding me the time. I hate to be standing up here today and doing this; but very honestly, I cannot support the Andean trade bill, and I understand completely the importance of this bill to our neighbors to the south and what it means relative to trying to get stable businesses started in those countries. I serve on the Speaker's drug task force so I am very much aware of all of that, but I disagree with the timing in particular of this being brought up before the trade promotion authority vote is on the floor. I am not a protectionist. I am a free trader. I totally support free trade. I voted for it before many times; but quite frankly, it also needs to be fair trade, and we need to be able to export our products into those same countries freely, as well as them bringing theirs into ours. Never in my 7 years on Capitol Hill have I seen a bigger slap in the face to the textile industry and the workers because in the last year, just the last year alone, we have lost 60,000 jobs, 20,000 of them in my State of North Carolina and most of them in my district. As the New York Times reported on Tuesday, our Nation's economic slowdown has impacted the South more than any other region of the country, and how does Congress respond? On the very day after Burlington Industries, which is one of the largest textile companies in the world, the day after they file for bankruptcy, we have this bill on the floor that gives away our textile jobs. It is just unbelievable to me. Make no mistake about it, H.R. 3009, as reported by the Committee on Ways and Means, allows other nations to avoid our duties and quotas by shipping their yarn and fabric through South America. The only bill that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has shown to me, and every other textile State lawmaker, would smooth the way for Andean apparel made with fabric and yarn from anywhere in the world. It would create a giant loophole in our textile trade laws, and for weeks now the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has said this loophole will be fixed, but I have never seen a fix and neither has anybody else. There is a larger issue at stake here, and this is an issue that is very important to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), my chairman of the Committee on Rules. He is on this floor practically every day speaking about it and that is trade promotion authority. The bill coming to the floor in just a few days is one that I would desperately like to support because I believe it is very important to give our President that authority to open foreign markets and to protect our jobs here at home. I am very afraid by having this bill on the floor at this time it is going to doom those efforts. I just think that the folks who scheduled this vote are making a very, very serious mistake. There are several textile State lawmakers who, like myself, want to support the President on TPA, and what are they asked to do? They are asked to vote on a bill today that is bad for textiles just a few days ahead of this other bill coming to the floor. Hard to understand. Some folks say this will not hurt the President's efforts on TPA because textile State lawmakers are not going to vote for this anyway. Well, that is a bunch of bull crap, excuse my French. Very simply, there are a lot of us who want to vote for it and have done everything we can to try and make that possible because we believe in it. We have been promised assistance for the textile industry, but no package has appeared yet. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has shown us language that would help crack down on transshipments, but the language has not reached the floor. I have heard plenty of talk and promises, but the promises have resulted in nothing; and quite frankly, until something is voted on on the floor it is just a promise. So while we wait, the leadership brings an antitextile bill to the floor. This could have been brought up later. It could have been an extension. There are many ways we could have dealt with this, to have the vote after the TPA vote; but that has not happened. So, Mr. Speaker, I am very afraid that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is making it easy for those who are on the fence to vote no.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to pass an airline security bill. The holiday season is going to begin next week, and millions of Americans will be flying to see their loved ones. It is ridiculous that Congress is dragging their feet. It should have been done weeks ago. We need to make sure that the skies are safe for all people so they feel secure. It is understandable that folks are still anxious about flying. That is why we must act. We must reach a compromise. We must restore confidence in the American public so they will fly on the planes, and we must send a message to the terrorists that they are not going to scare us into changing our way of life.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague and friend, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Watt) has just said, we hope to be able to tell you something about these people who lost their lives. September 11 will be forever etched in the psyche of the American people, and we cannot change that. But what we can change and tell you about is the good that came out of the event and all the new American heroes that we have, people who totally did things at that time that normally we do not do in our everyday lives. But when they were called upon, they did what was right. So we hope this does catch on, that other people will be willing to join us in sharing all the good that came from that, and let you know how tremendous these people were that lost their lives on September 11.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for his kind comments about Chairman Solomon. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss). (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the Seventh District of Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our deputy whip.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 277 ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)