Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) if he has any further speakers?

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), my colleague. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and also the tax relief bill because I am excited about the fact that we are doing something responsible to help the American people. This bill is something that people have been waiting for for a long time, to be able to keep more of their money in their own pockets. And it really is possible to do that today through the surpluses that we are going to be looking at. Over the next 10 years, it is projected there will be $3.3 trillion in surpluses. Now, we are not going out on a limb and saying we are going to spend all of that this year. This is a very responsible bill. It is going to be phased in over a period of time. As the money becomes available, then it will be given back to the people. But the most important thing we need to remember is 75 cents out of every dollar in this surplus that we are going to be using, this $3.3 trillion, is going to be going back into saving Social Security and preserving Medicare and improving education and our national defense. Only 25 cents of every dollar is going to be given back to the American people. Now, this 25 cents is income tax surplus they are going to be paying, money that is more than we need to run the government. So why should it stay here in Washington and be spent? Why should it not go back to the people? They deserve to have that money to use. This tax bill is going to provide some marriage penalty relief in the form of people who are married to be able to deduct twice as much money as the individual is so they can be treated fairly and we do not penalize marriage anymore. We are going to be putting money into extending the research and development tax credits. That also spurs the economy. It develops new technologies. It provides capital for our businesses in this country. That also helps to provide new jobs for people, which, of course, we are always interested in doing. The death tax repeal is something that is crucial. I hear all the time in my district, I am really concerned about how I can leave the farm or how I can leave my small business to my kids because everything is going to be eaten up in taxes. It is like we penalize people. The American way is to do well for ourselves, save, try to put a little away for our kids, for the future. And then we come along and say, Oh, no, they have got to pay it to Uncle Sam so they can die. The same with capital gains relief. We are going to provide capital gains relief again for the second time. This also spurs the economy and it helps middle-class Americans. It is not the rich that it helps. It helps all of us when we sell our homes and to be able to save some of that money. The same with education savings accounts. It helps us send our kids to school and college and put that money away tax free. So these are good things that the people at home have been asking for. I am proud to stand here today and support the bill.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Addie Pressley Thomason was born in York County, South Carolina to the late John and Katie Wilson Pressley on October 9, 1896. She was called to her reward on Monday, July 12, 1999 at Gaston Memorial Hospital, Gastonia, North Carolina. A lifelong resident of the Gastonia metropolitan area, Addie Thomason was the daughter and wife of farmers. She was a witness to more than a century of change and progress in the area; from mule-drawn transportation to space flight, and from rigid segregation to a society more representative of the needs and aspirations of all its citizens. Through it all, ``Mother Addie'' was a source of support, stability, courage, and comfort to her family, friends, and community at large. She was passionately committed to education and, despite being denied access to a formal education during her formative years, she persevered in pursuing her own goal of learning to read and write by attending school at the age of 85--an achievement recognized by the then Governor of the State of North Carolina. During her life, ``Mother Addie'' was an avid gardener and active member of several area church congregations; including New Home AME Zion in York, South Carolina, Ebeneezer Baptist Church in Kings Mountain, North Carolina, and St. John Missionary Baptist Church of Gastonia, North Carolina. She often credited her faith in God as the source of her strength, determination, and longevity. Addie Thomason was preceded in death by her husband, Fred Thomason and son Fred, Jr. She leaves six loving children: Rev. John Thomason of Bloomfield, New Jersey; Leroy Thomason of Stanley, North Carolina; and Rev. Mason Thomason, Alice Ross, Lillian Thomason, and Cora Lee Hart, all of Gastonia, North Carolina. She is also survived by two loving daughters-in-law, sixteen grandchildren, twenty-three great-grandchildren, and sixteen great- great grandchildren, as well as a host of family and friends.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), my good friend, 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, on Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule for the conference report for H.R. 2465, the Fiscal Year 2000 Military Construction 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, the United States military is clearly the best in the world. The young men and women in the Navy, Army, Air Force, and Marines are thoroughly dedicated and patriotic professionals, the best our Nation has to offer. So how do we reward them? We pay them with wages that are so low that many military families are forced to eat with food stamps, and we lodge them in substandard, World War II housing. These, among other reasons, are why we are losing good men and women who stop serving their country because the hardships on their families are too great. This is inexcusable, and Congress has been working hard to do something about it. This year we passed a 4.8 percent military pay raise, and with this bill, we will improve military housing. H.R. 2465 provides $747 million for new housing construction, and $2.8 billion for the operation and improvement of existing housing. The bill also provides $964 million for barracks and medical facilities for troops and their families. Finally, because of an increase in two- income and single-parent families, the bill provides $21 million for child development centers. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 262 is a normal conference report rule for a good, noncontroversial bill. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 262 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment that would protect foreign countris from U.S. taxpayer dollars being used to undermine their laws on abortion. Congress has repeatedly banned the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions within our own borders, except when the life of the mother is endangered or in cases of rape or incest. This amendment continues to guarantee that American taxpayer dollars are subject to the same test when the money is used to assist foreign countries. Money is fungible. Any organization that is involved in international family planning efforts and performs abortions and lobbies to weaken abortion laws should not receive taxpayer dollars. The international population control groups are active and powerful. Some of the groups are actively trying to lift restrictions on abortions in over 100 countries, including Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, and Sri Lanka. We should not be funding their lobbying efforts. But if we continue to subsidize their other programs, we will be doing exactly that. This amendment will not decrease the amount of money available for international family planning. It does not limit funding for organizations that perform abortions only in cases where the mother's life is endangered or in cases of forcible rape or incest. The Smith amendment does not limit the ability of the staff of international population control groups from lobbying on their own time as individual citizens, but they would be limited from doing so as a representative of an organization that receives U.S. funds because these organizations are seen as our representatives. Mr. Chairman, we need to protect our taxpayers' dollars. I urge a vote for the Smith amendment and against the Greenwood amendment.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham). (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I also urge adoption of this rule and support for the bill. 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 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen). (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Hayes). (Mr. HAYES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 the purpose of debate only. Yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for H.R. 2561, the Fiscal Year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized or legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill. The rule allows the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole 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. Mr. Speaker, H.Res. 257 is an open rule for a strong, bipartisan bill. It is a bill that will allow us to rest a little easier at night, knowing that our national defense is stronger and that we are taking good care of our troops. 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. We are helping to take some of our enlisted men off food stamps by giving them a 4.8 percent pay raise. And we have added $258 million for a variety of health care efforts. We are boosting the basic allowance for housing, increasing retention pay for pilots and prompting the GAO to study how we can do better. But along with personnel, we have got to take care of our military readiness. We live in a dangerous world, and Congress is working to protect our friends and family back home from our enemies abroad. We are providing for a national missile defense system so that we can stop a warhead from places like China or North Korea if that day ever comes. We are boosting the military's budget for weapons and ammunition, something they sorely need, and we are providing $37 billion for research and development so our forces will have top-of-the-line equipment to do their jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying bill. 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, thousands of boys in North Carolina's 9th Congressional District grow up dreaming about playing baseball in the big leagues. I rise today in honor of one of these boys, a young man who has made it to the top. Kevin Millwood, a 1993 graduate of Bessemer City High School, had a break-out season for the Richmond Braves in 1997, and he was called down to Atlanta. He has been on a tear ever since. This year he led the Braves' pitching staff with an 11 and 5 record and was elected to the National League team for last year's All Star game. Up in Boston, he continued his dominance, pitching a scoreless inning in which he allowed one hit and then retired the side. So congratulations, Kevin. You are a positive example for young people to follow, and we sure are proud of you.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Barcia), and I have great concerns about the policies and practices used by the United Nations Population Fund. The United States cannot give taxpayer money to an organization that is intricately involved with human rights abuses that are taking place in China and other places around the world. I wish to read the words of a woman who worked to enforce China's population program. Mrs. Gao was the administrator at the Fujian Province Planned Birth Office from 1984 to 1988. These are her own words before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights of the Committee on International Relations. My work at the planned birth office included establishing a computer data bank of all the women of childbearing age in the town. I also issued birth-allowed certificates to women who meet the policy and regulations of the Central and Provincial Planned Birth Committees and are, therefore, allowed to give birth to children. Should a woman be found pregnant without a certificate, an abortion is performed immediately, regardless of how many months pregnant she is. This case about a Miss Chen Li-Ren who was a female resident of a village outside of Yonghe Town. In 1996, she became pregnant in spite of the fact she was not married and did not have a certificate. It's a violation of the planned birth policy to become pregnant without a birth-allowed certificate. To avoid heavy monetary penalties and abortion, she in order to save the child's life, when she was 3 months pregnant, left the town. But when she was 9 months pregnant, somebody informed on her. The planned birth enforcement team of Yonghe Town began searching for her. They were unable to find her, so they tore down her husband's family's house and also threatened to also tear down the house of her parents. One day, when she was at her parents house, the enforcement officials forced their way into the house. They found her and immediately stuffed her into a car and escorted her to the Municipality Planned Birth Induced Delivery Center where the abortion was performed. This is the document that we issue to people who have already given birth to a son. It's the birth-not-allowed notices. Such notices are sent to the couple when the data concludes they do not meet the requirement of the policy and are not allowed to have any further children. Any couple who has already given birth to a son will receive this notice and such notices are made public. The purpose of this is to make it known to everyone that the couple, if they are having a second child, is in violation of the policy, therefore, facilitating supervision of the couple. We also issue control device inspection and pregnancy test notices. According to the specific data on each woman, every woman of childbearing age is notified that she has to have a contraceptive device, reliability, and pregnancy examinations when necessary. Should she fail to present herself in a timely manner for these examinations, she will not only be forced to pay a fine, but our supervision team will apprehend her and force her to have such an examination. This is the document that we issue to women who must undergo sterilization or other birth control methods. We also imposed monetary penalties on those who violated central and provincial regulations. If they refused to pay the penalties, our supervision team members would apprehend and detain them until they paid such fines. We also analyze informant materials submitted in accordance with the informing system and then put these cases on file for investigation. Most planned birth offices in Fujian Province's rural areas have their own detention facilities. In our town, the facility is right next door to my office. It has one room for males and one room for females, each with the capacity of about 25 to 30 people. To catch violators, our planned birth office does not need consent by the courts or judicial departments, or the public security departments. Our actions are completely independent of them. There are no paperwork formalities and there are no time limits associated with the detention. Detainees pay 8 RMB per day for food. They are not allowed to make phone calls or mail letters. The majority of the detainees are, of course, either women who are pregnant without birth-allowed certificates or women who are to be sterilized or women who have been fined. As I explained previously, if we do not apprehend the women themselves, we detain their family members, such as a father, a mother, a sister, brothers, or their husband. And we detain them until the women themselves come forward to be sterilized or to have an abortion. I led my subordinates to Yinglin Town Hospital to check on births. I found two women in Zhoukeng Town had extra-plan births. I led a planned birth supervision team composed of a dozen cadres and public security agents. With sledge hammers and heavy crowbars in hand, we went to dismantle their houses. We were unable to apprehend the women in the case so we took their mothers in lieu of them and detained them in the planned birth office's detention facility. It wasn't until about half a month later that the women surrendered themselves to the planned birth office. They were sterilized, fined heavily, and their mothers were finally released. I myself did so many brutal things, but I thought that I was conscientiously implementing the policy of our party and that I was an exemplary citizen and a good cadre. Once I found a woman who was 9 months pregnant, but did not have a birth-allowed certificate. According to the policy, she was forced to undergo an induced abortion. In the operating room, I saw the child's lips were moving and how its arms and legs were also moving. The doctor injected poison into its skull and the child died and it was thrown into the trash can. Afterwards the husband was holding his wife and crying loudly and saying, what kind of man am I? What kind of husband am I? I can't even protect my wife and child. Do you have any sort of humanity? All of those 14 years, I was a monster in the daytime, injuring others by the Chinese Communist authorities' barbaric planned birth policy. But in the evening I was like all other women and mothers, enjoying my life with my children. I couldn't go on living with such a dual life any more. It is also my sincere hope that what I describe here today can lead you to give your attention to this issue so that you can extend your arms to save China's women and children.

Mrs. MYRICK. So, if Members of the House agree with the UNFPA that what Mrs. Gao described is voluntary and suits China's current conditions, then by all means support the Campbell-Gilman substitute to give them at least $20 million. I, for one, will never give my vote to an organization that could look the other way when such atrocities are being committed against women and children. I will vote for the Smith amendment and no on the Campbell-Gilman amendment, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 245 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear all of the speakers today say they are in support of the rule. This is a fair rule, and I urge all of my colleagues to do the same. 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 such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), the subcommittee chairman.

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. 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. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted the structured rule for H.R. 1691, the Religious Liberty Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate to be equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute if printed in the Congressional Record and if offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) or his designee, debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between the proponent and an opponent. 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, the Committee on the Judiciary considered one amendment during its markup of H.R. 1691, and that amendment is made in order under this rule. Prior to 1990, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court vigorously protected our first amendment freedoms. A State or local government could not impede religious expression unless its laws were narrowly tailored to protect a compelling government interest. In 1990, this all changed. In the case of Employment Division v. Smith, the Supreme Court ruled that churches are subject to all generally applicable and civil laws as long as the laws were not enacted in a blatant attempt to suppress religious expression. The potential impact of the Smith case is frightening. Now police can arrest a Catholic priest for serving communion to minors in violation of a State's drinking laws. Local officials can force an elderly lady to rent her apartment to an unwed or homosexual couple in violation of her Christian beliefs. Our law enforcement officials can conduct an autopsy on an Orthodox Jewish victim in violation of the family's religious beliefs. Mr. Speaker, this is wrong, and it has to be changed. The Religious Liberty Protection Act would essentially overturn the Smith decision and return religious expression to its rightful place. Under H.R. 1691, State and local officials must narrowly draft their commerce regulations so they do not penalize religion. In addition, under the bill anyone who receives Federal grant moneys cannot then turn around and discriminate against religion, and State and local governments cannot adopt land use laws that treat religious organizations differently than secular organizations. There are legitimate health and safety reasons for local governments to make zoning decisions, but religious discrimination is not one of them. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. Again I repeat: The Committee on the Judiciary considered only one amendment during its markup of H.R. 1691, and that amendment is made in order under this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.