Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 537 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 the 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1, and considers it as read. The rule waives clause 7 of rule XVI, prohibiting nongermane amendments, against the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a modified open rule for H.R. 4300, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) or his designee, and a Member opposed to the bill. The rule provides a 3-hour time limit on the amendment process. The rule permits the Chair to accord priority and recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and considers them as read. The rule allows the Chair to postpone recorded votes and reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed votes, provided voting time on the first series of questions shall not be less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, teenage drug use in this country is now a national crisis. Since 1993, drug use among teenagers has doubled in the United States. Among high school seniors, marijuana use is up 80 percent, cocaine use is up 80 percent, and heroin use is up 100 percent. It is time our country made this drug crisis a national priority. As the mayor of Charlotte, North Carolina, I attended far too many funerals for children who were killed by drug violence. I do not want to attend another one. This week, we will continue this Congress's serious campaign to win the war on drugs. We have committed to win this drug war in 4 years, like we won World War II in 4 years. This week, we will consider several pieces of legislation to both reduce the domestic demand for drugs and to stop the flow of drugs into the country. The Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act will beef up our drug interdiction efforts by providing for the purchase of additional planes and ships to stop drugs at the borders. In addition, the bill provides anti-drug assistance to the Governments of Colombia, Peru, Bolivia, and Mexico. If they have our help, they have been proven to do a good job in giving the support necessary to stop those drugs from leaving their country. H.R. 4300 is a good, noncontroversial bill. It will reduce the supply of drugs in America, it will drive up the price, making it harder for teenagers to buy. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation. This is an open rule with a generous time cap on amendments. Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter into the Record a statement of the gentleman from California (Mr. McCollum), who is also very active in this work. Mr. Speaker, this is the statement of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum): Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, he is speaking regarding a bill introduced by he and his colleagues on the Speaker's Task Force for a Drug-Free America. The purpose of H.R. 4300 is to supply a comprehensive supply eradication and crop substitution program in the narcotics source countries of Colombia, Peru and Bolivia, as well as to fund enhanced drug interdiction efforts in the transit countries in the Caribbean, Central and South America. H.R. 4300 was introduced on July 22 of 1998. It was referred to the Committee on International Relations; in addition, the bill was referred to the Committees on Ways and Means, Judiciary, National Security, and Transportation. The respective chairmen of all of these committees, as well as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, have sent waiver letters to the Speaker on H.R. 4300. Substantial efforts have been made in developing H.R. 4300 with the full and informed participation of committee staff from each of the six affected committees, as well as the Task Force for a Drug Free America led by Chairman Hastert. The Congressional Budget Office has conducted a preliminary assessment in coordination with the House Budget Committee and has determined that there are no pay-as-you-go issues contained within H.R. 4300. We expect a full written assessment from CBO on the costs associated with the bill by the end of the week. Some of the major provisions of H.R. 4300: It provides approximately $2.3 billion through the fiscal years of 1999, 2000 and 2001. It significantly expands U.S. aircraft, maritime and radar coverage and operations in drug source and transit zones. It substantially enhances the counternarcotics capabilities of the Customs Service, the Coast Guard and the DEA in terms of personnel, equipment and training. It funds increased drug eradication assistance to Colombia, Peru, Bolivia and Mexico. It funds increased drug interdiction assistance to Brazil, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, the Caribbean and Central America. It encourages the use of new technologies to detect narcotics in transit and to destroy coca and opium poppy in the source zones. It funds alternative crop development in Colombia, Peru and Bolivia. It supports the establishment of international law enforcement academies for Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia and Africa under the auspices of the Justice Department. It supports the establishment of an international maritime law enforcement training center under the auspices of the Coast Guard and the Customs Service. It advocates a new prioritization for the Defense Department to treat international drug interdiction to be as important as peacekeeping. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield so much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), who is the head of the Speaker's drug task force for a drug-free America.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, during the past 2 years, there have been numerous hearings on significant opponents of H.R. 4300 in each of the committees of referral: the Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on International Relations, Committee on National Security, Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. I would just like to mention that, in the full Committee on International Relations in February of 1998, there was a hearing on U.S. narcotics policy to Colombia. March 31 of 1998, there was also another hearing on U.S. narcotics policy to Colombia; June 24 on Colombia and heroin. March 26, 1998, there was a markup, and it was for providing three Black Hawk utility helicopters to the Colombian national police to fight the war on drugs. The GAO issued a report in February of 1998, drug control U.S. counternarcotics efforts in Colombia face continuing challenges. Then the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere on drug issues had two hearings, one in July of 1997 on antidrug efforts in the Americas and one August 6, 1998, which was a Colombia insurgency hearing. So there have been hearings in these various committees, and it has had that hearing process adequately applied. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the American Legion Post 100 baseball team from Cherryville, North Carolina, who last month finished second at the American Legion's World Series. These 18 young men remind us about what is right in America. Through hard work and discipline, they bested more than 5,000 teams from all over the country. Through it all, they conducted themselves as true gentleman from the Tar Heel State. In mid-August, they traveled to Tennessee for the Southeast Regional Title Game, and there their pitching was so tough that their opponents could not score a run until Cherryville was leading 9 to nothing. From Tennessee, they traveled to Las Vegas for the national finals. In an exciting final four game, they defeated a team from Danville, California. In the sixth inning, John Mackie broke a 3-3 tie with an inside-the-park home run. And then in the bottom of the eighth, Josh Cobb added an insurance run with an RBI single. Josh's hit proved to be important, because Danville scored a run in the ninth before Cherryville ace Ralph Roberts struck out a batter to end the game. The championship game against Edwardsville, Illinois did not have such a happy ending. Nevertheless, our boys from Cherryville have made the folks of Gaston and Lincoln Counties quite proud. It is really a feat to finish second out of more than 5,000 teams; and in my congressional office, we switched the TV to ESPN to watch the game. Mr. Speaker, I am submitting the names of Cherryville's coach and players for the Record. Cherryville, North Carolina American Legion Post 100 Baseball Team Bobby Dale Reynolds, Head Coach; A.J. Henley, Assistant Coach; Scotty Heauner, Assistant Coach; Bill Abernathy, Athletic Officer; and Jerry Porter, Post 100 Commander. Wesley Eugene Anthony, Brandon Chad Cash, Joshua Michael Cobb, Eric James Davis, Eddie Travis Farmer, Ryan Marcus Freeman, Wesley Keith Hudson, Bradley Keith Huffstetler, Christopher Paul Keener. Brad Michael Lane, John Kemp Mackie, Kenneth John Mosteller, Thomas Ray Pruett II, Ralph Ricardo Roberts, Jason Rush Sain, Justin William Sanford, Brian MacArthur Sigmon, Bryson Dennis Willis.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we feel this is a very fair and open rule and none of the amendments are self-enacting. I urge my colleagues to support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleague that this is a fair rule, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) does have additional amendments printed in the Congressional Record that will be debated, and there may be others as well that we do not know about, and I would like to remind my colleagues that we will have very fair and open debate on this rule. So I would urge again that they support the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 an open rule for H.R. 4380, the Fiscal Year 1999 District of Columbia 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 points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XXI, requiring relevant printed hearings and reports to be available for 3 days prior to the consideration of the general appropriations bill; section 306, prohibiting consideration of legislation within the jurisdiction Committee on the Budget, unless reported by the Committee on the Budget; and section 401a of the Congressional Budget Act, prohibiting consideration of legislation, as reported, providing new contract, borrowing or credit authority that is not limited to the amounts provided in appropriation acts. The rule 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; and clause 6 of rule XXI, prohibiting reappropriations in a general appropriations bill, except as specified by the rule. The rule provides that amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, may be offered only at the appropriate point in the reading of the bill, shall be considered as read, debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question in the House or the Committee of the Whole. The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report. The rule accords priority in recognition to those amendments that are preprinted in the Congressional Record. The rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone recorded votes and to reduce to 5 minutes the voting time on any postponed question, provided voting time on the first in any series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. By the way, Mr. Speaker, last night the GPO accidentally omitted the final page of the amendment of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) from the committee report, which was filed correctly. I believe that the mistake should have no effect on either the rule or the bill itself. I just thought I should, as a matter of courtesy, call it to the attention of the Members. This rule was crafted to avoid controversy. It is an open rule. And instead of self-executing legislative provisions, the rule allows for an open debate on four important amendments. Each of these four amendments is aimed at helping the youth of the District. They would grant scholarships to low-income students; forbid the publicly-funded distribution of drug needles; prohibit adoption by unmarried couples; and restrict the underage possession of tobacco. Yes, these amendments also produce spirited debate on the House floor. And it is fair that we have these debates. The Committee on Rules wisely avoided a rule that would self-execute controversial policy amendments. Meanwhile, H.R. 4380 is a good bill. My colleague, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) has crafted a D.C. Appropriations bill that avoids the legislative battles we have faced in the past. This year, both the Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and the full Committee on Appropriations reported the bill by voice vote. As we all know, in the mid-1990s the District of Columbia faced a serious financial crisis. Decades of waste and mismanagement had led to chronic budget deficits and a deterioration of city services. Since that time, under direction of both the D.C. Control Board and Congress, the District of Columbia has turned itself around and now runs a budget surplus. H.R. 4380 reflects these changed circumstances. The annual Federal payment to the District is declining. This year it is $47 million less than last year. At the same time, H.R. 4380 provides important support for D.C. school children. The bill provides $33 million for charter schools, which allows parents to decide where their children attend school, as well as $200,000 for a program to mentor at-risk youngsters. It provides $156 million for special education projects, which is nearly twice as much as last year. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. Both the rule and H.R. 4380 are compromise measures that deserve our support. 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 517 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule. 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

Mrs. MYRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion to override the President's veto. As a mother and a grandmother of 7, this is an especially heartbreaking issue. My colleagues have just seen the graphic details. Suffice it to say, partial-birth abortion is a horrific way to end the life of a tiny 9- month-old baby. It has no place in a civilized society. This should not be a divisive issue. We are talking about killing, killing healthy babies. These are babies that have long been able to survive outside their mother's womb. Madam Speaker, most Americans are really shocked when they learn that this procedure is legal. It is closer to infanticide than to abortion. For most of us, this is a no-brainer. Today when the vote is called, we will see many pro-choice Members of Congress vote against the President's veto. Madam Speaker, after all, accidental gun deaths are a really big problem in this country, yes, but every year, far more children are killed by partial birth abortions than are killed in accidental shootings. By overriding the President's veto, we are going to stand up for the thousands of newborn children, those children who do not have a say in our political process. If we fail to do so, I fear that the House will condone infanticide in the name of preserving abortion rights. The choice is easy. Let us override the President's veto.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, last night, I was unavoidably detained and as a result missed rollcall vote No. 289. Had I been present for this vote, I would have voted ``no'' on the amendment.

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 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pappas).

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification: The Committee on Rules did give more than the normal required 48 hours notice, and, yes, we were out of town, most of the Members for 2 weeks, but our staffs were here. And, as my colleagues know, usually that is what they do, is notify us that this is going to happen. Also, the reason the rule is closed is because Congress felt; I mean that we felt that Congress should not override the wishes of the voters in 20 States while allowing amendments that would weaken their parental notification laws. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 499 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. As my colleagues know, the other side does have a motion to recommit with instructions, and it is wide open for any amendments that they would like to include in that. So I just wanted to make that point for the record. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington State (Mrs. Linda Smith).

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. Yesterday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a closed rule for H.R. 3682, the Child Custody Protection Act. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 3682 in the House with 2 hours of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It also provides the Committee on the Judiciary amendment now printed in the bill will be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, the Child Custody Protection Act is important to any parent who has a teenage daughter. As we know, people in several States have recently decided that a parent should know before their child has an abortion. We all hope that our teenage daughters have the wisdom to avoid pregnancy, but if they make a mistake, a parent is best able to provide advice and counseling. Also more than anyone else, a parent knows their child's medical history. For these reasons, my home State of North Carolina requires a parent to know before their child checks into an abortion clinic, as does the State of Pennsylvania. Last month, though, the Senate Committee on the Judiciary heard chilling testimony about how law-breaking citizens risk children's lives by taking them from their parents for out-of-State abortions. Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Joyce Farley, a mother from Pennsylvania, told the tragic story of her 13-year-old daughter. Three years ago this summer, a stranger took Mrs. Farley's child out of school, provided her with alcohol, transported her out of State to have an abortion, falsified medical records at the abortion clinic and abandoned her in a town 30 miles away, frightened and bleeding. Why? Because this stranger's adult son had raped Joyce Farley's teenage daughter, and she was desperate to cover up her son's tracks. Even worse, this all may have been legal. It is perfectly legal to avoid parental abortion consent and notification laws by driving children to another State. This is wrong, and it has to be stopped. According to the Reproductive Law and Policy Center, a pro-abortion group in New York, thousands of adults across the country carry children over State lines to get abortions in States without parental notification laws. These clinics advertise in the yellow pages that no parental consent is needed. So-called men in their 20s and 30s coerce teenage girls to have abortions out of State and without their parents' knowledge. The Child Custody Protection Act will put a stop to this child abuse. If passed, the law would make it a crime to transport a minor across State lines to avoid laws that require parental consent or notification before an abortion. Right now a parent in Charlotte, North Carolina, must grant permission before the school nurse gives their child an aspirin, but a parent cannot prevent a stranger from taking their child out of school and up to New York City for an abortion. This is plain nonsense. It has to be stopped. Let us do something to help thousands of children in this country. Let us pass the Child Custody Protection Act and put an end to the absurd notion that there is some sort of constitutional right for an adult stranger to secretly take someone's teenage daughter into a different State for an abortion. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on House Resolution 499.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that State parental notification laws already have all medical exceptions and judicial bypass procedures to provide for a child's health in them. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my colleague that, yes, this is a closed rule. I will say that the majority of the rules on this House floor since we have been in the majority have been open. This is just a clean and simple bill that is designed to help States enforce their parental notification laws. We decided that Congress should not override the wishes of voters in 20 States by allowing amendments that would weaken parental notification laws, and that is the reason for the closed rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).