Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht).

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with on Wednesday, July 15, 1998.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding any adjournment of the House until Tuesday, July 14, 1998, the Speaker, majority leader and minority leader be authorized to accept resignations and to make appointments authorized by law or by the House.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Child Custody Protection Act. This bill is very important to any parent who has a teenage daughter, and I look forward to a vote on the bill shortly after the July 4 recess. Members may already know that people of 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 pregnancies, 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. Earlier, though, this month 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 Ms. Farley's young child out of school, provided her with alcohol, transported her out of State to have an abortion, falsified the 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. It is wrong, and it has to be stopped. According to the Reproductive Law and Policy Center, a pro-choice group in New York, thousands of adults across the country carry children over State lines to get abortions in States without parental notification laws. So-called men in their twenties and thirties coerce teenage girls to have abortions out of State and without their parents' knowledge. The Child Custody Protection Act would put a stop to this 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. 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 else's teenage child into a different State for an abortion.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, in the past month, we have learned that the President may have turned a blind eye to an issue that caused harm to our national security by helping the Chinese improve their ballistic missiles. We have also learned that he may have ignored the Secretary of State and the Director of the CIA and the Pentagon. Also, the President may have accepted campaign donations from the Chinese Red Army at the same time he changed the U.S. policy to benefit China's missile program. Mr. Speaker, there may be an innocent explanation for this chain of events, but the American people have not heard it yet. These are serious matters, because China has 13 missiles aimed at U.S. cities. It would be shocking if this is the problem that we believe it is with national security. So far, the administration has avoided answering even the most basic questions about its China policy. So today the House will take the bipartisan and necessary step of creating a Select Committee to look into these matters. I hope and pray we will simply discover an unfortunate set of circumstances that involves no illegality. But both Republicans and Democrats in this body recognize that these national security questions deserve a careful look from a serious, bipartisan panel. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to create a Select Committee on China.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say I believe that the gentleman from California's remarks were a little below the decorum of this House in making accusations. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 471 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 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a rule to provide for the consideration of the conference report accompanying H.R. 2646, the Education Savings and School Excellence Act of 1998. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. In addition, the rule provides that the conference report shall be considered as read. Mr. Speaker, every child in this country deserves the best education possible and every parent knows what school will best suit their children. Here in Congress, it is our duty to get out of the way and empower all Americans to follow through on their educational choices. We will do just that tomorrow when we approve the conference report to the Education Savings Act of 1998. Simply put, the Education Savings Act will allow caring fathers and mothers, as well as concerned charities, corporations, friends or grandparents, to save more for their children's education. By permitting parents to deposit up to $2,000 per year in a tax-free education savings account from 1999 through 2002, the bill will help parents pay for elementary school, secondary school, and college tuition. Not all parents need to save for private school tuition though. Often the local public school is clearly the best option. H.R. 2646 recognizes that, even before they send their children to college, the parents and friends and relatives of public schoolchildren deserve tax- free education savings too. The bill permits all young families to save tax-free for tutoring expenses, computers, books, special needs services, and extended day program fees. Mr. Speaker, all too often young parents are unable to give their children the very best. Every year rent, mortgage payments, grocery bills and, yes, taxes limit the educational choices of American families. A select few wealthy parents have no problem paying for tuition, if necessary, as well as for tutors and computer equipment. But the rest of us, we could use real help. Americans should be able to keep a little more of what they earn to pay for education. In addition to tax-free education savings accounts, H.R. 2646 expands government efforts to teach our children to read. The bill authorizes the Secretary of Education to spend $210 million per year from 1999 through 2001 to support State and local child literacy efforts. There is a sense of the Senate in this bill on Dollars to the Classroom. The sense of the Senate resolution says that 95 percent of every Federal education dollar should end up in the classroom. Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. Teachers' unions and advocates of public school bureaucracy may balk at our efforts to expand the educational choice of American parents while we work to improve our public schools, but this bill is a sincere effort to throw politics aside and to help children and families who need help most. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and to support the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just a point of clarification. This bill does not take away any current education dollars. This is over and above what we are currently spending, so nothing is being taken away. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK

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

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

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 Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, one of the previous speakers said that there had not been hearings on this particular issue. There were seven hearings on the issue that is addressed by this amendment. There were 74 witnesses that were heard from at that time. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant). (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a modified closed rule to House Joint Resolution 78. The rule provides that H.J. Res. 78 shall be considered in the House, shall be considered as read, and that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, now printed in the joint resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The rule provides that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto prior to final passage, without intervening motion except as specified. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate on the joint resolution, as amended, equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule provides for consideration of a further amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules, which may be offered only by the Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately 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, I do not take amending the Constitution lightly. In fact, I do not think we should even have to amend our Constitution to permit students and teachers to pray. Unfortunately, though, activist judges have prevented the acknowledgment of God in public. Our only remedy is to let the American people decide whether or not they want to allow prayer in schools. Let me make one thing clear. If this resolution passes both the House and the Senate by a two-thirds majority, it is passed along to the State legislatures. To become part of our Constitution, the amendment then must be approved by three-fourths of the States. A vote in favor of this amendment is a vote to let the American people decide whether there should be prayer in our schools. Each local community has the right to discuss the issue and decide for themselves what they would like to do. No one is forced to do anything. Our schools should be places where children can grow in character. When judges keep God out of our schools, they prevent our children from maturing both emotionally and spiritually. Others may disagree, but I firmly believe that the Founding Fathers of this Nation did not intend to prevent our children from praying in school. Opponents of this amendment will claim that we should not tinker with the Constitution, as if the drafters of the First Amendment meant to exclude God from our public life. God is a part of our public life. ``In God We Trust'' is on our money and here in our Chamber above the Speaker's chair. To such critics I would respond that we honor the Constitution when we use its time-honored amending process to clarify the intent of its framers. H.J. Res. 78 clearly protects the right of each and every American to recognize their God without government interference. The plain wording of the amendment forbids the establishment of any state religion and forbids any coercion on the basis of religion. The intent here is not to force God on anyone. The amendment simply clarifies that we are all free to engage in voluntary prayer in public places. In doing so, the amendment enhances religious freedoms for all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and allow the debate on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify by reading the language in this amendment exactly what we are talking about here today. This simply says, ``To secure the people's right to acknowledge God according to the dictates of conscience: Neither the United States nor any State shall establish any official religion, but the people's right to pray and to recognize their religious beliefs, heritage, or traditions on public property, including schools, shall not be infringed. Neither the United States nor any State shall require any person to join in prayer or other religious activity, prescribe school prayers, discriminate against religion, or deny equal access to a benefit on account of religion.'' Mr. Speaker, that is all there is to it. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 453 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, earlier this evening, I was unavoidably detained and as a result missed rollcall votes #202, #203, and #204. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall vote #202, ``Nay'' on rollcall vote #203, and ``Nay'' on rollcall vote #204.