Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House. (Mr. HASTERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I asked to address the House for the purpose of making an announcement. I rise to inform the House of the Committee on Rules' plans in regard to H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The Committee on Rules is planning to meet during the week of May 10 to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 1555, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule for H.R. 1555 which would require that amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. Mr. Speaker, if this type of rule is granted, amendments to be preprinted would need to be signed by the Member and submitted to the Speaker's table. Amendments would still need to be consistent with House rules and would be given no special protection by being printed. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain that their amendments comply with the rules of the House. It is not necessary to submit amendments to the Committee on Rules or to testify as long as the amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I missed 19 recorded votes while I was out due to illness. If I had been present, my vote would have been cast as follows. March 17, 1999 Rollcall vote 53, on agreeing to Mr. Upton's amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 54, on agreeing to Mr. LoBiondo's amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 55, on passage of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1999, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 56, on passage of the bill to provide for a Reduction in the Volume of Steel Imports, I would have voted ``yes.'' March 18, 1999 Rollcall vote 57, on agreeing to the Rule regarding the National Missile Defense System, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 58, on the motion to recommit with instructions, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote 59, on passage of the National Missile Defense System, I would have voted ``yes.'' March 23, 1999 Rollcall vote 66, on agreeing to the Committee Funding Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 65, on the motion to recommit the Committee Funding Resolution with instructions, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote 64, on the motion to instruct Conferees for the Education Flexibility Partnership Act, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote 63, to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 37 Concerning Anti-Semitic Statements Made by Members of the Duma of the Russian Federation, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 62, to suspend the rules and pass H. Con. Res. 56 Commemorating the 20th Anniversary of the Taiwan Relations Act, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 61, to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 70 the Arlington National Cemetery Burial Eligibility Act, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 60, to suspend the rules and pass H. Res 121 Affirming the Congress' Opposition to All Forms of Racism and Bigotry, I would have voted ``yes.'' March 24, 1999 Rollcall vote 67, on agreeing to Mr. Stenholm's amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote 68, on agreeing to Mr. Obey's amendment, I would have voted ``no.'' Rollcall vote 69, on agreeing to Mr. Tiahrt's amendment, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 70, on passing of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations of FY 1999, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 71, on agreeing to the Resolution Expressing support of the U.S. House of Representatives for the members of the U.S. Armed Forces engaged in military operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 104 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), 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, last Wednesday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule for H.R. 81, the Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. The rule provides that the bill shall be open for amendment at any point and 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 votes 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. 104 is an open rule for a good, noncontroversial bill. The Federal Maritime Commission Authorization Act allocates $15.7 million for the Federal Maritime Commission in 2000 and $16.3 million for the Commission in 2001, an increase of approximately $1 million. Because the Commission ably protects United States shippers and carriers, including Sea-Land Service of Charlotte, North Carolina, from the unfair trade practices of foreign governments and flag carriers, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reported a bill that makes no changes to the duties of the Commission. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule and to support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of this rule, because it provides a fair and open debate, as should be the case with such an important matter. But that said, I strongly oppose the commitment of U.S. troops to Kosovo unless we are going to go in and solve the problem. I do not believe the United States can be the parent or the policeman of the world, and the fighting there and in the rest of the Balkans is primarily a European matter and should remain a European matter, and they should be involved in taking the lead in this. I believe wholeheartedly in maintaining a strong national defense, and I will always support our men and women in uniform. In fact, it is because of my commitment to the troops and not despite of it that I oppose this deployment of the troops to Kosovo. To put it simply, our forces are stretched too thin around the globe to commit 4,000 or 5,000 troops in an effort whose end is nowhere in sight. When we committed troops to Bosnia, we were told they would be home that fall; then, that Christmas. That was in 1996. Three years later, our troops are still in Bosnia. I have tremendous confidence in America's Armed Forces, and have no doubt that given a properly defined mission with a clear objective and a sensible exit strategy, our forces would perform brilliantly. That, however, does not describe our presence in the former Yugoslavia. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this rule and opposing House Concurrent Resolution 42.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, just before the November 3 election my 5- year-old grandson, Jake, asked his mother if we were going to be electing a new President, and upon being told, no, we already have a President, Jake replied: No, we do not; he lied. As my colleagues know, such principle from the mouths of babes. As sad as this is for our Nation, this action is necessary so that all of us can continue to not only uphold but teach those basic truths and basic right and wrong in our houses and, most assuredly, in this House. Yes, to err is human, but to lie and deny and vilify; rather than that we need to confess and repair and repent. Just remember, the children are watching.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Charlotte, North Carolina's ``Unity Against Hunger and Poverty.'' For years, this coalition of Charlotte area anti-hunger and homelessness programs has worked hard to care for the needy of Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Recently, the members of ``Unity Against Hunger and Poverty'' sent a letter to my colleague, Representative Tony Hall of Ohio, praising Mr. Hall for his tireless efforts to secure full federal funding for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). I am submitting the text of the group's letter for the Congressional Record because it serves as a suitable tribute to both the work of my friend, Mr. Hall, as well as to the dedication and efforts of ``Unity Against Hunger and Poverty.'' I will always support full funding for the TEFAP program. TEFAP provides vital assistance to our nation's local anti-hunger programs, providing food banks with 20% of the food they need every year. At the same time, TEFAP is a model of government efficiency. While the food stamp program returns only four cents of every dollar to agricultural producers, the TEFAP program returns eighty-five cents of every dollar back to America's farmers. It simply makes sense for the government to purchase excess agricultural commodities to distribute to food banks. By doing so, we can help families get through hard times and can help farmers deal with low commodity prices. August 13, 1998. Hon. Tony P. Hall, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative Hall: For over twenty years, you have led the fight against domestic and international hunger in the halls of Congress. So often you must have felt alone and discouraged, but still you persevered. People you will never know have benefited from your work and the battles you have fought. Today we, the members of Unity Against Hunger and Poverty in Charlotte, send this letter to express our heartfelt gratitude. Your beacon has led us, pointing the way as we battled the darkness of hunger and poverty in our daily work. Your leadership transcends Ohio's Third Congressional District. Indeed, your spirit has touched us here in North Carolina. We are better as professionals and as human beings because you inspired us with your example of hope laced with action. Thank you for bearing the standard when so many others have fallen aside. We pray that you will be given the strength to continue. Sincerely, the undersigned members, Unity Against Hunger and Poverty: Lyn Morton, Loaves & Fishes. Ken M. Montaput, Charlotle Emergency Housing. Betsy Van Wier, Second Harvest Food Bank of Metrolina. Frances Daniel, Church World Service/CROP. Mary Ann Pilce, Urban Ministry Soup Kitchen. Bonnie Whit, Community Food Rescue. Marilyn Maas, Society of St. Andreu/Gleaning Network. E.J. Underwood, Charlotte Rescue Mission. Frank Manfield, Uptown Shelter for Homeless Men. Lucy Bush, Friendship Trays. Marcia Morton, Presbytery of Charlotte. Bef Howard, Loaves & Fishes.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 191. This is Senator Jesse Helms' companion to my H.R. 424, which passed the House on February 24 by an overwhelming vote of 350-to-589. As written, the Federal Criminal Code imposes a 5-year mandatory sentence when a felon uses or carries a firearm during the Commission of a violent crime or a drug trafficking offense. In the 1995 case of Bailey v. United States, though, the Supreme Court interpreted the word ``carry'' in the Federal criminal code to mean that a felon must fire or brandish his weapon. This is clearly contrary to Congress's intent, and it has resulted in the early release of hundreds of dangerous criminals. To put a stop to this mess, S. 191 clarifies that a criminal who possesses a gun while committing a violent crime or a drug crime will face a mandatory sentence. And at the same time, the bill increases the mandatory sentence for such crimes. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong defender of the second amendment, but no American has a right to go out and use a gun to commit a crime. Indeed, the National Rifle Association has endorsed S. 191 because they recognize the best way to protect our second amendment rights is to punish those who use their guns to rape or murder or traffic in drugs. The bill also has been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police and the Southern States Police Benevolent Association. The message is clear: Commit a crime while possessing or brandishing a firearm, and you will go to prison for a very long time. We cannot send that message too strongly or too often.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, the Istook amendment does protect our children, and it does provide counseling for children during the time that they are going through emotional problems in their lives. But it does protect a parent's right to know. It simply requires that a parent be notified before their child is given contraception. As parents, we do want to know that. We want to know if they smoke, drink, or do drugs. I do not really see why this is any different. One thing we have not talked about is that all birth control is not safe, because it has been documented that birth control can be very damaging to young girls going through puberty. It can cause blood clotting, bone deterioration, blindness, among a long list of possible side effects, and even death in girls with heart conditions. It has been a cause of brainstem stroke in teenagers. So I urge Members to support the Istook amendment.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in honor of our chairman, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), and to say that our committee is a small one, but it is definitely dominated by the humor and the kindness and actually the temper of our chairman. There is no better place than today in VA-HUD to honor him, too, because no one has worked harder for the veterans of this country than Jerry has. I know New York State is going to name a veterans' cemetery after him. He is a true hero in the likes of Ronald Reagan whom I know very much that Jerry totally supported and is very pleased to be cut out of that same mold. My first impression of the chairman was actually when I was here my first year and in the leadership, and Mr. Solomon challenged somebody to step outside. I thought, gee, that is really different. Fortunately, I was never challenged myself personally to step outside, thank goodness. But his humor is interjected in everything we do, and we very much appreciate that. Sometimes in serious moments in committee meetings or leadership or other places, why, Jerry will come up with something that just totally breaks the ice and makes everybody laugh. One of those times was, very recently, we were discussing the very serious problem of the year 2000 and what is going to happen to all of our computers. Jerry sat down and was talking about it, and he said, you know, that TY2 thing. Everybody just broke up, which I thought was really great. Anyway, we are going to truly miss him, and I want to say that he is very much a great patriot of our country.

Mrs. MYRICK

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and reported H. Res. 575 providing for expedited procedures in the House. The resolution waives clause 4(b) of Rule XI, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules. The resolution applies the waiver to any special rule reported before October 11, 1998, providing for a consideration or disposition of a bill or joint resolution, making general appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, and any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon. The resolution also applies a waiver to any special rule reported before October 11, 1998, providing for consideration or disposition of a bill or joint resolution, making continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, and any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon. Finally, the resolution allows at any time before October 11, 1998, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules, provided that the object of any such motion is announced from the floor at least 2 hours before the motion is offered, and that in the scheduling of legislation under this authority, the Speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or his designee. Mr. Speaker, as we all know, we are in the last days of the legislative session. House Resolution 575, short and simple, allows the House to complete its work for the year in a timely manner. House rule 27 normally limits House consideration of suspension bills to Mondays and Tuesdays. But now, in the final weeks of the session, there is no reason to put off noncontroversial legislation until next year. In addition, H. Res. 575 allows for the same-day consideration of urgent appropriations bills. Without congressional action, the funding for many Federal agencies will expire on October 9. While the House and Senate continue to negotiate spending priorities, it is important that the House be able to act immediately to pass any measure that keeps the government working for the taxpayers. H. Res. 575 is a reasonable measure that will allow us to finish our work for the year on time. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to tell the gentleman that I share his concerns and very much hope that we can deal with those issues in a way that is satisfactory to all of us. 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 575 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4274, the fiscal year 1999 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services under an open rule. There will be 90 minutes of general debate, divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives clause 2 and clause 6 of rule XXI against provisions in the bill except as otherwise specified by the rule. The provisions in the bill which are subject to points of order, and they have been authored by both Republicans and Democrats, violate the protocol that legislative provisions included in appropriations bills be sanctioned by the appropriate authorizing committee chairmen. Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order and waives points of order against the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record, allows for the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce votes to 5 minutes on the postponed question if the vote follows a 5-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the Labor, Health and Human Services appropriations bill is the single largest appropriations bill that comes before Congress each year, exceeding even the level of spending in the defense bill. It includes most of the health care, medical research, education and job training programs that touch so many people's lives and, therefore, generate tremendous support in communities around the country. At the same time, many of those same programs, because they touch on areas of daily life which were outside the purview of government, especially the Federal Government in Washington, for so long in this country, raise deep and often emotional questions about values. Between the highly charged social issues that this bill cannot help but be immersed in, and the funding difficulties that are inherent in any effort to set priorities within a balanced budget framework, this is always an extraordinarily difficult bill to craft and enact into law. The chairman of the subcommittee, my friend from Wilmette, Illinois, has tackled this incredible challenge in as commendable a fashion as possible. His bill deserves a fair hearing on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to detail how the Labor-HHS appropriations bill allocates nearly $82 billion in discretionary funds. However, I must note that the bill is based on the principle that issues like health care, education, substance abuse and job training are best addressed by solutions crafted at the local level, not imposed top down by Washington bureaucrats. The Federal Government will help local communities meet these needs by providing vital resources, but we will give those communities flexibility to meet local needs. That is why the bill increases funding for key block grant programs by $879 million over the President's request. That is a trend that should continue in coming years. The rule provides for a vigorous debate on Title X, family planning regulations. In addition, as an open rule, Members can attempt to change the spending priorities in the bill. However, at the end of this process, it is critical to remember that a bill which attempts to scale such lofty heights, but which can never enjoy unlimited resources, will leave some people unhappy. I believe this rule will permit the House to engage in a spirited debate worth having. I urge Members on both sides of the aisle to recognize that fact and support this rule. 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 564 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Fairport, New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. MYRICK asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and to include extraneous material.)

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Captain Anthony Stancil of the Mecklenburg County, North Carolina Sheriff's Office. Last Tuesday, shortly after 1 a.m., Captain Stancil was murdered in cold blood by a shoplifter at the Mallard Creek Harris Theater. He leaves behind two children and a wife with a baby on the way. He was one of our Nation's best, risking his life day in and day out to preserve the peace and freedom that we so often take for granted. Our prayers go out to his wife and children. They lost a strong husband and a father. In the last few days the citizens of Charlotte- Mecklenburg have come together to reach out to the family and take care of them in their time of greatest need, but they are going to need our help for longer than just a few weeks. We all need to reach out to Anthony Stancil's fellow law enforcement officers because it has been a tough week for all of them. I hope we come away from this tragedy with a renewed sense of the debt we owe our local police and with a renewed intolerance for the cruelty of someone who would end the life of one of Charlotte's best citizens.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, this past July, the United States Congress and our entire nation were gripped by a terrible tragedy, the deaths of the Capitol Police Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. Officers Chestnut and Gibson gave their lives defending the United States Capitol, all of us who work in this complex and the American people who visit it to see their democracy in action. They died heroically while defending our democracy. The outpouring of affection and gratitude for these two men was as deep and genuine as any I have witnessed, and I am certain that the many tributes to them served as a comfort to their families. Of course, no words or tributes can replace their loss. In the aftermath of this tragedy and the heartfelt sympathy of the American people, we in this body were briefly changed. We came together as one family to pay our respects, to reflect on the almost surreal tragedy of that July afternoon and, for a time, respect, civility and comity ruled the day. In fact Pastor Marcom, in delivering Officer Chestnut's eulogy, remarked on the change that tragedy had on our relations with one another, and he speculated that probably the next week it would be business as usual. In the weeks and months since this time, I have thought long and hard about what we all experienced. I am convinced that what we admired about Officer Gibson and Officer Chestnut and what made them heroes is not the way they died but the way in which they lived. Officers Chestnut and Gibson were honest, genuine, hard-working family men who loved their jobs and loved their country. In an age where too many people seem consumed by life's most superficial pleasures, they showed us that America is populated by common men of the most substantial and admirable character. Of course, the great tragedy is that it took their deaths for us to recognize what heroes they had been all along. Mr. Speaker, there is a lesson here. We would do well to learn it. While we too often argue, bicker and consume ourselves with political maneuvering and intrigue, the Nation cries out for real leadership, not in words but in deeds. These complicated times demand a Congress dedicated to integrity, good works and behavior that reflects admirably, not just on ourselves but on our sacred rights and responsibilities as constitutional officers. But that is too rarely the case. Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we are too much like a caricature of ourselves and too little like Officers Jacob Chestnut and John Gibson. We are too much like adversaries and too little like we were in the days after the gun fire erupted in the Capitol. This resolution asks that we honor those officers by living our lives and performing our duties with the same dignity, love and respect with which these men lived their lives and performed their duties. This resolution asks us to honor them by honoring the people they protected and the people we represent, by living up to a standard of service and behavior that we can be proud of, as much as we were proud of the service of these two men. This resolution asks us to exemplify what is best in America, to lead rather than follow. If one thinks about it, it is really not much to ask, and it is long, long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), my friend, for his assistance with this resolution, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the honorable majority whip, for his continued courage in the aftermath of a tragedy that struck him so close to home. Mr. Speaker, in drafting this resolution, we consulted the United States Capitol Police and the Chestnut and Gibson families, who believe it to be appropriate and fitting. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in my district and as a result missed rollcall votes Nos. 447, 448, and 449. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 447, ``no'' on rollcall vote No. 448, and ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 449.