Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, a woman who becomes pregnant in less than ideal circumstances has a difficult road ahead no matter what action she takes. She faces serious questions about what will happen to her future: Will the father help? How will I afford the costs? What will my family think and will they support my decision? How am I going to get through this? It is an incredibly scary time and the ultimate question is whether her life will ever be the same. My biggest concern for a woman in this situation is that she may see abortion as the easiest solution--when there is no easy choice. Too often, I hear stories about women who are frantic for a solution and rush to an abortion clinic without learning about the long-term emotional and physical consequences. As a mother and a grandmother, I can tell you that pregnancy changes a woman's life forever--even if the pregnancy is not carried to term. The law states that women have the right to choose between carrying the baby and aborting it. Before she makes the decision, I pray that she is given the information and the support to truly be able to choose what is best for her and the tiny baby. This bill strengthens a woman's choices in two ways. First, it increases access to information about adoption in the health clinics where it is needed most. Women facing unplanned pregnancies deserve to hear about their options from a well-trained counselor who can provide accurate, up-to-date information and refer them to a reputable placement agency. This bill also authorizes a new grant program for research and additional services (such as mobile health clinics to provide comprehensive health services, including ultrasound screenings), to enhance access to health care for pregnant women and infants, including grants to increase access to prenatal care, ultrasound services, and prenatal surgery. Prenatal surgery is now a very realistic option. Look at this picture that was taken by Max Aguilera-Hellwag--this baby underwent prenatal surgery to correct spina bifida. Sarah Marie Switzer was born on August 22, 1999. Mr. Speaker, there are many exciting programs contained in this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4365.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 609 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); 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. Madam Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for H.R. 4828, the Steens Mountain Wilderness Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment the Walden amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, which shall be open for amendment at any point. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill, and to reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15- minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 609 is a fair and open rule for a noncontroversial bill. Last year, the Secretary of the Interior told folks in southeastern Oregon that the President might designate Steens Mountain as a national monument. Steens Mountain is deserving of protection, but the local residents who live and work in the area became worried their livelihoods were in danger; that the President would impose all sorts of restrictions on land use and put them out of business. In response to these concerns, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) decided to work out a compromise solution. He brought everyone to the table, including the governor of Oregon and the Secretary of the Interior, and they worked out a compromise which protects the environment and protects ranching and recreational activities. The entire Oregon delegation, both Democrats and Republicans, support this bill. Indeed, this is how legislation should be done, and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) deserves credit for working hard to write a bill that everyone can support before it even reaches the House floor. So I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, while Charlotte is proud of its professional basketball teams, the Hornets and the Sting, I would like to share with Members how the area first became known as the Hornet's Nest. On October 3 of 1780, hungry British soldiers, coming off victories in South Carolina, were driven away by our local farmers. In the commotion, the soldiers knocked over the beehives at McIntyre's farm, and the insects, along with the Charlotteans, swarmed all over the fleeing Redcoats. Four days later, frontiersmen from Georgia, Virginia, and both Carolinas destroyed the left wing of General Cornwallis's army in less than 1 hour of battle. News of the victory revived hopes, and soon patriots like Thomas Sumter, Elijah Clarke, and Francis ``the Swamp Fox'' Marion stepped up their harassment of the British troops. As they say, the rest is history. Cornwallis referred to Charlotte as a ``hornet's nest of rebellion,'' and his stay lasted there only 16 days. I encourage Members to join me and my fellow Carolinians in celebrating the 220th anniversary of both the Battle of the Bees and the Battle of Kings Mountain.

Mrs. MYRICK

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

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I just wanted to make a couple of comments, not on education because the gentleman from Michigan is covering that quite thoroughly and I am sure the gentleman from Wisconsin is covering budget surplus information. But I wanted to just mention a couple of things relative to Vice President Gore's budget that he has presented, because I think there are some things that we could point out that maybe do show a difference in the way that we philosophically go about spending our government's money and the people's money at home. I know that the Vice President made the comment at the Democratic National Convention that in the next 4 years he wanted to pay off all the national debt we have accumulated over 200 years, and this would be the plan that would put us on track for completely paying off debt by 2012. Then I remember back last year how President Clinton's administration only wanted to save 63 percent of the surplus and if it had not been for us really forcing the issue and saying that we are going to lock away 100 percent of the surplus, we might not be in the position today where those statements could even be made that we are going to be able to save and pay off the debt. I think we need to look at that. Plus the fact that the National Taxpayers Union estimates that the Vice President's spending proposals would actually increase government spending by $2.7 trillion. We do not hear about the increase in spending that is being talked about. That is more than the budget surplus for the next year. And that would send us right back into the days of deficit spending where we do not want to be. Then it also comes out to say that for every dollar that the Vice President's budget would cut taxes, he would raise government spending by $6.75. I am not a brilliant mathematician but that kind of tells me that this is not going to work. You cannot on one hand cut taxes by a dollar and then raise spending and expect that you are going to be in a good financial position. When we look at this proposal that has been put on the table, it does closely mirror what the administration is also proposing. I think back to 1995 because if my colleagues remember if we had adopted that proposed budget, we would still have $200 billion in deficits today. It was a lot of my colleagues here who forced this issue that we would sign a balanced budget agreement. Remember that, back in 1995? I think there were five budgets presented by the President before we finally got to one that was agreeable that we could sign when we stood our ground and said we are going to balance this budget. Look at the results. The American people are definitely reaping the results. We have worked hard to make this happen. We have turned the tide. We really have turned the tide by all the policies, the things that the gentleman from Michigan has been working on with all the oversight that he has been doing, that has been going into it and what we are talking about now with these generous surpluses that are really the people's money that we want to give back to them, that we do not want to keep here in Washington. I think it is important that the American people do understand and know that this would not have happened if we had not stuck to our guns and really kept these policies in place. That is something that we need to be doing for the future for our children and our grandchildren. I appreciate all of my colleagues being here today to really share this information with the American people, because otherwise they do not hear. We do not say, they do not hear.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to weather delays, I was unable to participate in the following vote. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: September 25, 2000, rollcall vote 478, on recognizing the 25th anniversary of the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, babies born alive, babies no longer in the mother's womb, babies that show obvious signs of life should be recognized as living babies. The testimony from Allison Baker, a registered nurse who worked in a high-risk labor and delivery unit, tells the fate of a baby whose parents requested an abortion at 20 weeks because the baby had spina bifida. ``My shift started at 11 o'clock,'' she said, ``and the patient delivered her fetus about 10 minutes before I took her as a patient. During the time the fetus was alive, the patient kept asking me when the fetus would die. For an hour and 45 minutes, the fetus maintained a heartbeat. The parents were frustrated and obviously not prepared for this long period of time. Since I was the nurse of both the mother and fetus, I held the fetus in my arms until it finally expired.'' Can my colleagues imagine being that nurse or those parents and the pain they felt just waiting for that baby to die? How often does an abortion fail and a living baby struggle to stay alive? No one knows. No one has that information. Mr. Speaker, it does seem that abortions fail much more frequently than anyone cares to know. If an abortion is successful, a dead baby is delivered. But when an abortion fails, that means that there is a live baby, a baby is delivered alive. Mr. Speaker, does a woman still have a right to a dead baby even if the abortion fails? These innocent babies have the same God-given rights as my colleagues and I do. I urge my colleagues to please vote yes in support of this important bill. General Leave

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this bill because it is another step toward just plain old common sense in our Federal Government. Thirty-eight States, as has been mentioned, including my own State of North Carolina, have successfully implemented this copayment program to help cover the cost of prisoners health care. And there is good reason for that. In North Carolina, the average total cost per inmate per day is $63. Of that, food costs about $5, but health care costs over $8.50. With those numbers in mind, 3 years ago my State decided to implement a $3 copayment for medical services. This bill would bring that same common sense idea to our Federal prisons. If private citizens must pay every time they go to a doctor, then certainly those who have broken the law should have to pay when they choose to go to a doctor. Yes, this bill will save Federal taxpayers money. CBO says about $5 million a year. However, it is the crime victims who will reap the most benefit from H.R. 1349. Seventy-five percent of the copayments will be directed to the Federal crime victims fund. And these copayments mean that with each elective visit to the infirmary, prisoners will take another small step to paying for their crimes. It cannot be stated enough that under no circumstances will emergency services, prenatal care, treatment for infectious diseases, mental health care or substance abuse treatment be prevented under this bill. That will not happen. All of those services will be provided regardless of the prisoner's ability to pay. But by requiring nominal copayments of our prisoners for elective medical treatments, this Congress will enact another common sense reform and, at the same time, give some help to the victims of these criminals.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I support this motion. As a mother and a grandmother, I would be furious, literally furious, if my child were given this pill because I as a mother have to be notified if my child is given an aspirin. So it really upsets me that this decision is made by other people and not by the parents. There is very little risk involved in taking a simple aspirin, but the morning-after pill does have several possible side effects. While I do not support this as a means of emergency contraception, it is a legal choice, and those who choose to do it should do it under the supervision of a doctor. Currently, any school that does receive Federal funds for family planning is authorized to distribute the morning-after pill, and right now 180 school clinics offer it. The most disturbing fact is that the Federal laws and regulations overrule State parental consent and notification laws so school nurses can distribute this pill without the parents ever being involved. I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion and vote to make sure that parents have more rights over their children than the Federal Government.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to other commitments, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: On July 27, 2000, Rollcall vote No. 450, on the Social Security Benefits Tax Relief, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote No. 449, on Agreeing to the Pomeroy Amendment, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mrs. MYRICK

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 554 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 a normal conference report rule for H.R. 4576, the Fiscal Year 2001 Department of Defense 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, H. Res. 554 is a noncontroversial rule for a strong bipartisan bill. In fact, the Committee on Appropriations approved this bill in late May by voice vote and without an amendment. I have always admired the patriotism and dedication of our military personnel, especially given the poor quality of military life for our enlisted men and women. But today, we are doing something to improve military pay, housing and benefits. Mr. Speaker, we are helping to take some of our enlisted men off food stamps by giving them a 3.7 percent pay raise and we are boosting their enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses. To follow through on our health care promises to our servicemen and women, we are increasing funding for the Department of Defense Health Program by $963 million this year. A good portion of these funds will go to improving care for our military retirees who have never been given the treatment that they deserve. At the same time, we are increasing the basic allowance for housing so that our military families do not have to pay as much out of their own pockets. Along with personnel, we have to take care of our military readiness. We live in a dangerous world and Congress is working to protect our friends and families back home from our enemies abroad. We are providing for our national missile defense system so that we can stop a warhead from places like China or North Korea, if that day ever comes; and we are boosting the military's budget for weapons and ammunition. We are providing $41 billion for research and development so that our forces will have top of the line equipment to do their job. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying bill because now, more than ever, we must improve our national security. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I know that people in this country will join myself and I know a lot of others in sending up prayers for your brother. Like I said, miracles do happen.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, they are doing that with the heart also.

Mrs. MYRICK. Maybe somebody does know of something that can help him, because there is a lot happening in this field. It is really scary, because one in four of us in this country today is getting cancer. If it were anything else, it would be an epidemic. Think about it: one in four Americans today gets cancer. It is very scary, and it is at a point where I believe we in Congress need to give it a high priority. We are doing well with treatment options and finding treatment options, but we really have not done as much as I think we should when it comes to prevention and causes. Why are one in four of us coming down with this dreaded disease? I just recently finished treatment successfully, I am thankful to say, for breast cancer. And my cancer was known. I was feeling perfectly fine, had my normal mammograms every year. Started having a pain in my right breast and I went to the doctor here, he sent me out to Bethesda. They did another mammogram, showed nothing. I went to literally five different doctors who could feel nothing. Everybody said, nothing there, it is all okay. But I knew something was wrong, so I finally got a doctor in my hometown of Charlotte to do an ultrasound. Big as life, there the tumor showed up. Immediately, they did a biopsy; and it was cancerous, and I immediately had surgery as soon as the biopsy healed. As I say, I went through chemotherapy. As the gentleman knows from his brother, you do not wish it on anyone. I also did radiation and now I am finished with all of that. So I am very blessed. But the scary part to me is the number of women, because I went public with my story to see if it could help other women, the number of women who have said to me that they do not either get mammograms or they are afraid to find out what they might find out if they go do it. We wonder in America today why, with all of the so-called knowledge we have. There are a lot of people who are out there who are fearful, I mean really fearful, to even talk about cancer. So I hope that by some of the things we are able to do here in Congress and by some of us who have been through this, being willing to share our stories, that we will take some of the fear out of this whole subject of what can happen to us and give people hope. The other thing that is so important, I say to the gentleman, and I know that the gentleman will also relay it to his brother, is a positive attitude, because having a positive attitude and being determined to beat this is one of the best things that one can do personally. I know friends of mine who have been through this who have maintained a positive attitude that I am going to beat it are fine, and the ones that have just given in to it are having trouble after trouble after trouble and it does not go away, so there has to be something to do as well, and the spiritual aspect as well too.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say I am extremely disturbed to hear about the gentleman's brother. These are things that none of us hope we will have to face. I assume the gentleman has checked with the National Cancer Institute as to their recommendations.

Mrs. MYRICK. Well, and faith. The Lord has been very good to me and the Lord has been good to a lot of people, and a lot of people are healed when the doctors tell them they cannot be healed. Has anybody considered a liver transplant?

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, that is a real blessing.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment that would allow up to $1.3 billion to subsidize international abortion clinics, and it would also undermine foreign countries' laws on abortion. Congress has repeatedly banned the use of funds, taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions within our own borders, except when the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape and incest. Money is fungible. Any organization that is involved in international family planning efforts and performs abortions and lobbies to increase legal access to abortion on demand should not receive taxpayer dollars. To these organizations, abortion is a form of birth control. Mr. Chairman, abortion is not a method of birth control. Once a baby is conceived, instead of asking taxpayers to fund an abortion, we should focus our efforts on making sure that the child survives. At the Beijing +5 conference held last month, the international community made a clear statement that abortion on demand is not a universal goal. The United States should not be funding efforts to change the abortion laws in other countries. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained during the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote 373, on the Coburn amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 374, on the Royce amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 375, on the Crowley amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 376, on the Royce amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 377, on the Coburn amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted ``yea.'' Rollcall vote 378, on the Sanford amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for bringing this bill forward and yielding me this time today. I strongly support Aimee's Law. It just is something that makes common sense to provide incentives to States so that they will make sure that violent criminals serve at least 85 percent of their original sentence. If criminals do get out early from prison and if they do go to another State to terrorize yet another community, then some of the funding from the first State should go and will be sent to the second State to cover the costs of locking up that criminal. It seems fair to me. More than 14,000 murder, rapes, and sexual assaults are committed each year by previously-committed murderers and sex offenders. In my community, that is one of the biggest concerns and complaints of the police is that they are constantly seeing the revolving door of locking up the same people over and over. One of eight of these 14,000 murders, rapes, and sexual assaults are committed in a second State. Each year 80 children are murdered, 1,300 are raped and 7,500 are sexually assaulted by these murderers, rapists, and child molesters. Mr. Speaker, we need to lock up these violent criminals who play the system. That is exactly what they do, they play the system because they know they can get away with it. They destroy our children's lives. I urge my colleagues to support Aimee's Law.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to the weather, I was unavoidably detained during the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote 373, on the Coburn amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted yea. Rollcall vote 374, on the Royce amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted yea. Rollcall vote 375, on the Crowley amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted yea. Rollcall vote 376, on the Royce amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted yea. Rollcall vote 377, on the Coburn amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted yea. Rollcall vote 378, on the Sanford amendment to H.R. 4461, I would have voted yea.