Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a structured rule for H.R. 2505, the Human Cloning Prohibition Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against the bill. The rule provides that the amendments recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The rule makes in order the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the rule if offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) or a designee which shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule makes in order after disposition of the Scott amendment the further amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the rule if offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) or a designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the report. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair rule which will permit a thorough discussion of all the relevant issues. In fact, Members came before the Committee on Rules yesterday and testified on two amendments. This rule allows for both of those amendments to be heard. The first of these amendments is the Greenwood substitute which allows human cloning for medical purposes. I oppose the Greenwood amendment because it is wrong to create human embryo farms, even for scientific research. The Committee on Rules, though, recognizes that the gentleman from Pennsylvania's proposal is the leading alternative to a ban on human cloning. Because we are aiming for a fair and thorough debate, we should make it in order on the House floor. The second amendment is a proposal by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) to fund a study on human cloning. Again because the Committee on Rules recognizes the importance of this issue and wants a fair and open debate, we have decided that the gentleman from Virginia's study deserves House consideration. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) said in our Rules Committee meeting yesterday, this is an extremely important and a very complex issue. Science is on the verge of cloning human embryos for both medical and reproductive purposes. Congress cannot face a weightier issue than the ethics of human cloning, and Congress should not run away from this problem. It is our job to address such pressing moral dilemmas, and it is our job to do so in a deliberative way. We do so today. This bill and this rule represent the best of Congress. The Committee on the Judiciary held days of hearings on the Human Cloning Prohibition Act, with the Nation's leading scientists and ethicists. Today, this rule allows for floor consideration of the two most important challenges to the human cloning bill of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon.) If we wait to act, human cloning will go forward unregulated, with frightening and ghoulish consequences. I have spent a lot of time considering this issue, because it is so complex; and I have decided to vote to ban human cloning. It is simply wrong to clone human beings. It is wrong to create fully grown tailor- made cloned babies, and it is wrong to clone human embryos to experiment on and destroy them. Anything other than a ban on human cloning would license the most ghoulish and dangerous enterprise in human history. Some of us can still remember how the world was repulsed during and after World War II by the experiments conducted by the Nazis in the war. How is this different? I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I urge my colleagues to support the underlying measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 214 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleagues that everybody who came before the Committee on Rules with any kind of an amendment got their amendment, so I urge them not to defeat the rule. Yes, this is a complex issue; but we need to have a substantive debate on it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this rule so we can go ahead and have this debate, and discuss this complex and substantive issue. 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 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a remark based on what the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) said. I said that the amendments of everybody who came before the Committee on Rules, who came to testify, were accepted. The other amendments were rejected in the Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

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

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ron Underwood will conclude 23 years of distinguished service to the Federal judiciary as a U.S. Probation Officer on August 31 of this year. He grew up in Charlotte, North Carolina and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from UNCC and a Master's from North Carolina State. He put his education on hold while he went to serve his country in the U.S. Air Force from 1967 until 1971. He began his career as a U.S. Probation Officer on November 6 of 1978. As an officer, he showed great concern for his community and also compassion for the criminal offenders with which he dealt. Throughout his military service, employment as a U.S. Probation Officer, family and civic responsibilities, Ron has been a model of integrity, hard work and professionalism. His service to his country has been outstanding and deserving of thanks by all of us in Congress.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 204 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. 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, 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 the resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a normal conference report rule for H.R. 2216, the fiscal year 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is the type of rule that we grant for almost every conference report. Meanwhile, the underlying bill provides vital relief to our Nation's Armed Forces, and aid to areas that have been devastated by natural disasters. It does all this without busting the budget caps by designating pet projects as emergency spending. I cannot remember the last time we passed an emergency supplemental bill through this House without resorting to the ``emergency spending'' gimmick that we use, and the administration deserves credit for holding the line on this one. Our military needs our help. Without this bill and without the help from Congress, our Nation may fall short on its promise to provide adequate health care for our men and women in uniform. So today we provide more than $1 billion for the defense health program. At the same time, we are providing more than $6 billion, largely to help our military maintain its facilities and its topnotch training and equipment, and we are helping the military deal with the energy crisis, they have a problem with that like the rest of us do, by providing $735 million just to deal with rising energy costs in the daily routine they have. We are not only taking care of the emergency needs of our military, though. Several communities in the Midwest have recently been devastated by floods and tornadoes, so we are giving the Army Corps of Engineers money to mitigate the damages from these natural disasters. We are also helping low-income families deal with high heating costs by adding money to the LIHEAP program. That is the program that helps them with their energy bills. And we are giving the IRS additional resources so they can mail out the tax rebate checks this summer. I know everybody is going to be glad to hear that. I urge my colleagues to support this normal conference report rule, and to support the underlying bill. This legislation is a strong step forward as we work to care for our military personnel and to take care of all of those who are hurting at home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, since I was unexpectedly called away from the Capitol, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: July 17, 2001: Rollcall vote 233, on H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 2500, increasing funding by $11.7 million for the methamphetamine lab seizures program by the DEA, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote 234, on H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 2500, increasing funding for the Economic Development Administration by $73 million, I would have voted ``nay.'' Rollcall vote 235, on H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 2500, striking Section 103 from the bill which prohibits the use of funds to pay for abortions services in federal prisons, I would have ``nay.'' July 18, 2001: Rollcall vote 236, on approving the Journal, I would have vote ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 237, on the motion to disagree to the Senate amendment and agree to a conference on H.R. 1, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 238, on the motion to table the motion to instruct conferees to H.R. 1, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, during this current energy situation, there has been a lot of pointing of fingers of blame in this Chamber. That may win political points at home, but it sure does not solve the problem. President Bush has put forth a very responsible plan to solve our energy problem. He has taken the lead. It is a balanced plan that stresses conservation as well as increased supply. We, of course, want to protect the environment and be responsible with the plan. There is no question in that. We also need to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of supply. It is time that America is in charge of our supply of energy, not Saddam Hussein.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Commerce said, that this is not about policy. We have done some good things, along with the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), and we do appreciate very much their hard work.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), our chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleagues that there is an amendment being offered to replace the FEMA money in this bill.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 171, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose 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 the purpose of debate only. Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for H.R. 2216. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides for one hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides that an amendment printed in Part A of the Committee on Rules report accompanying the rule 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 appropriations or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill. The rule provides that the bill will be considered for amendment by paragraph. The rule makes in order the amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report, which may be offered only by a Member designated in the report and only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report. 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 nonemergency designated amendments to be offered to an appropriations bill containing an emergency designation. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. And finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, this should not be a controversial rule. It is totally open. Members can offer all of the amendments that they want, as long as the amendments comply with the regular rules of this House. Meanwhile, the underlying bill provides vital relief to our Nation's Armed Forces and aid to areas that have been devastated by natural disasters; and, unfortunately, we had a lot of that last year. My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), who is managing this rule for the minority, has always been a strong advocate for the military; and I am sure that he appreciates the defense items in this bill. Without help from Congress, our Nation may fall short on its promise to provide adequate health care for our men and women in uniform. So today, we will provide an additional $1.4 billion for Department of Defense health programs. At the same time, we are providing an additional $6.3 billion largely to help our military maintain its facilities and its top-notch training and equipment. We know we have had a problem with that in the last few years. Interestingly, we will also allocate a small amount of funds to make the U.S.S. Cole, which was bombed by terrorists in Yemen, seaworthy again. We are not only taking care of the emergency needs of our military, though. Several communities in the Midwest have been devastated by floods and tornadoes, so we are giving the Army Corps of Engineers $116 million to mitigate the damages from these natural disasters. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and to support the underlying bill. This legislation is a strong step forward, as we work to take care of our military personnel and take care of those who are hurting here at home. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do want to remind my colleagues that this is an open rule. It is the first I have heard an open rule called bizarre and mean-spirited. It does quite honestly provide $5.5 billion for urgent defense needs. But I want to remind my colleagues, we are waiting on the Rumsfeld report before we do the defense budget; and then we will be dealing with the other needs of the military, as well as we are going to be doing an energy bill, and that is the appropriate time to deal with the energy question that we are facing now. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).