Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

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, 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. 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 450 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the 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 purpose of debate only. Before the Memorial Day recess, the Committee on Rules met and granted a modified closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3433 in the House without intervention on any point of order. The rule provides that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means shall be considered as adopted, as modified by the amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule provides for consideration of an amendment printed in the Congressional Record, if offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee, which shall be considered as read and shall be separately debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between the proponent and opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3433 would reform the system under which people collect Social Security disability benefits and receive vocational rehabilitation services. Under the bill, recipients would receive a ticket or voucher to obtain job training services in a variety of private sector agencies. The Federal Government would then reimburse these agencies based on the number of recipients they have moved into gainful employment. CBO estimates that H.R. 3433 would add $38 million to the Federal surplus from 1999 to 2003 because the bill will help to move disability recipients off welfare and into work. Many individuals with disabilities want to work. They are limited, though, in their ability to access rehabilitation services; and they fear losing health care coverage and benefits. Having served on the board of Learning How in Charlotte for many years, I have seen the frustrations firsthand and the concerns. This bill removes such disincentives. It broadens the rehabilitation choices of the disabled and it extends Medicare coverage for an additional 2 years for those who participate in the Ticket to Work program. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting because a lot of us do not even have any idea that we may one day become disabled. I had a good friend in this field who was disabled who called the rest of us TADs, it was temporarily disabled. The idea is that any day, any time it could happen to one of us and we would be in the same position. The bill makes sense. It grants the disabled a measure of independence while adding to the projected Federal surplus. 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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, perhaps it is just a coincidence. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that the President turned a blind eye as one of his wealthiest campaign contributors harmed our national security by helping the Chinese improve their ballistic warheads. Maybe the President did not mean to accept campaign donations from the Chinese Red Army at the same time he changed U.S. policy to benefit China's missile program. There may be an innocent explanation for the President's decision to ignore his Secretary of State, the Director of the CIA and the Pentagon and to allow his campaign donors to help China's military. Finally, maybe it was just an accident when the President gutted the Justice Department's investigation into the matter. If there is an innocent explanation, though, the American people have not heard it yet. The facts, as we know them, are deeply disturbing. What frightens, angers, and troubles me is that we do not know all the facts yet. These are serious matters. China has 13 missiles aimed at U.S. cities, and it would be shocking if the President helped to make the missiles more accurate. Clearly, the American people deserve an explanation. Unless and until we get such an explanation, the President should postpone his scheduled trip to China. After receiving campaign donations from the People's Liberation Army, after associating with Chinese agents and after changing U.S. policy to benefit the Chinese military, the President has no business jetting off to Tiananmen Square to attend ceremonies with China's Communist leaders. To do so would be an insult to the American people and those Chinese who lost their lives in the fight for democracy.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, due to a death in my extended family, I was unavoidably absent on Tuesday, May 12, 1998, and as a result, missed rollcall votes on H. Res. 423, H.R. 3811, H.R. 2829, and H. Res. 422. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted ``aye'' for all of these rollcall votes. And I ask that my statement appear at the appropriate place in the Congressional Record.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I thank both of my colleagues for bringing this bill forward. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) was talking earlier about the child care credits and what a difference it would make for families who are struggling to make ends meet. That is just one good example of what we are talking about. When I go home, people say to me, ``Y'all do some dumb things up there.'' All the time I hear that. And they say, ``There is no common sense, where is the common sense that we have back here at home? You do not do it.'' And one of the most frequent complaints I get that on is the Tax Code. People say it makes no sense to them. I think we probably would have to be completely out of touch with the world today to in any way defend our Tax Code as reasonable or common sense. Mr. Speaker, any one of us could send our tax forms to eight different accountants and we would get eight different examples of how we could do our taxes because nobody really knows. We have complicated the dickens out of the code. It does not make sense to any of us and even the experts have a heck of a hard time trying to figure it out. One of the things I think that is especially stupid is the marriage tax penalty; I mean, penalizing people for getting married. And many young couples do not have a clue that this is going to hit them until after they have been married and file their first joint tax return. Then they find out that all the sudden, good grief, we owe a bunch of money we did not think we owed. So in looking at it from common sense like we do back home in North Carolina, we say why in the world are we encouraging as a Federal Government young people to live together instead of getting married because we tax them more if they get married? I mean, that does not make sense to anybody back in North Carolina. It certainly does not make sense to us. That is why I am so glad my colleagues brought it forward. There is no rationale to this when we think about why they are doing this. Why? Other than to put more money in the government coffers. Taxes put more money in the government, and the government just spends it instead of letting the hard working Americans keep their own money in their own pocket, which is what this is about. So I am just real encouraged that my colleagues brought the bill forward and I hope that everybody is going to support this so that we can get rid of this dumb idea that taxes people because they married.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I very much respect the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and I know how hard she works to face the problems that are in the District, which everybody acknowledges. So I do want to say that this bill is in no way an attack on the D.C. school system. This bill is a way to look for solutions to help and to solve some of the problems. Most of the people will agree, and I think it has been well documented in the press, that there are a lot of problems in this school system. There are problems, yes, in school systems all over the country. It seems to be the number one issue that parents say they are concerned about, is the education of their children. What we are looking at doing with this bill is providing some choice for those parents. This bill would give those parents in D.C. the same opportunity as parents in other communities across the country have. Last fall when the private scholarship fund, the Washington Scholarship Fund was announced, this was only for 1,000 scholarships that would be paid for privately. There were 7,573 children who applied. That is one out of every six eligible children in the District applied. I think that sends a very strong message that there are parents in the D.C. school system who would like and appreciate their child to have that choice. This does not take any money away from the school system. This is additional money, additional dollars that are going into this program. Competition is what has driven America. Competition works with students. Students thrive on competition. Business thrives on competition. There is no reason our school system could not thrive on competition. It is very healthy in America, and it makes things run. I would also like to just say for the record that my understanding is that the constitutional issue was a State constitutional issue in both of those cases. This is not something Federal.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, when we came here and became a majority, we said we were going to change things. We were going to be different. We were going to balance the budget, which we finally did now for the first time in 30 years. And now we are getting ready to break that commitment by $26 billion, $18 billion of it in special pork projects. That is, in my mind, business as usual. What has changed? It is wrong, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. That is the right thing to do.

Mrs. MYRICK

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 is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted a modified open rule to H.R. 2587, which provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule also provides that no amendment to the bill will be in order unless it has been preprinted 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 the postponed question if a vote follows a 15- minute vote. The rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, the rule provides that after passage of the House bill, it will be in order to insert the House-passed language into the Senate bill number. Since 1986, the visa waiver pilot program has allowed tourists from our closest allies to enter the United States for up to 90 days without a visa. In order to participate in the program, a tourist must first purchase a round trip ticket, must not pose a safety threat to United States citizens, and must abide by all of the waiver program's rules and regulations. H.R. 2578 would extend the visa waiver pilot program through September 30, 1999, and will require the Attorney General to collect data on nonimmigrant aliens who unlawfully remain in the United States. Mr. Speaker, the visa waiver pilot program enjoys broad, bipartisan support. In fact, the program has been so successful that under today's open rule we will consider amendments to extend the program to countries such as Greece, Portugal, and South Korea. I urge all of my colleagues to support this open 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 391 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my name as a cosponsor of H.R. 981.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 377 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 is yielded for the purpose of debate. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule to H.R. 2369 which provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Commerce. The rule also waives points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to comply with the 3-day availability of committee reports. House Resolution 377 also makes the Committee on Commerce amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and provides that it shall be considered as read. The rule allows for priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Votes may be postponed during consideration of the bill, and voting time may be reduced to 5 minutes if the postponed vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to reconsider, with or without instructions. The right to privacy is one of the most sacred rights our Founding Fathers fought and died to establish. Since the early days of our Nation, subsequent generations have defended this right. Today advanced technology provides the latest threat to each individual's privacy. I was shocked to hear during testimony before the Committee on Rules yesterday that the FBI actually had to stop using cellular phones during the investigation of the TWA Flight 800 disaster because they were being intercepted by members of the press corps. We have to put a stop to that sort of thing. It is not the high-tech geniuses that we have to worry about. Off- the-shelf scanners are easily modified to turn them into electronic stalking devices. Simply clip the correct wire and someone can listen in in your private conversations. An entire industry which produces these intrusive devices has sprung up. H.R. 2369 is a bipartisan bill which will clearly permit the modification of scanners. It requires the FCC to develop regulations which extend existing protections to new services, including personal communications services, protected paging, and specialized mobile services. H.R. 2369 clearly states that intercepting wireless communications is illegal. Finally, the bill requires that the FCC must investigate violations under this law. H.R. 2369 is a bipartisan bill which moved quickly through the Committee on Commerce and should be supported by the entire House. I urge all my colleagues to support this open rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) for all the hard work and the effort he has put into bringing this bill to the floor. As mayor of Charlotte, I spent far too much time attending funerals of young people that were senseless because of the scourge that drugs have brought on this country. Day after day we hear of more and more people being victimized by drug traffickers. Today we have got the opportunity to fight back and fight back for our children and for our communities. Throughout North Carolina and the Nation, citizens routinely claim that crime is one of their greatest fears and concerns. Nothing is scarier or more dangerous than a criminal possessing or brandishing a gun during the commission of a crime. We do not have to put up with it and we will not. H.R. 424 provides for longer mandatory minimum sentences and clarifies Federal law so that convicted criminals will spend a long time behind bars where they cannot hurt anyone else. Crime victims across the country deserve to know that Congress has dealt harshly with reckless criminals and those criminals need to know that the law is clear, commit a Federal drug trafficking crime while possessing or brandishing a firearm and you will be in prison for a very, very long time. We cannot send that message too strongly or too often. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 424.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the Federal Communications Commission on their newly demonstrated spirit of cooperation as they continue to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996. We are beginning to see the spirit of the new faces on that Commission. There is no question that the new members of the FCC have a lot of work to do--particularly as they work through what their predecessors started in the process which will allow local phone companies into the long distance market. Until just recently, the 14-point check list, designed to ease the long distance entry process, has been a constant source of confinement for local service providers. They have been forced into the courts to seek refuge. The courts have ruled in favor of the local companies. After such a long string of slanted rulings, clearly issued in defiance of the will of this Congress, I am pleased to see that the FCC is singing a new tune. I look forward to seeing those new words develop into new actions--actions that will fulfill the 2 year old promise of lower prices and more choices for American consumers.

Mrs. MYRICK

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, while considering the final appropriations bills, the Senate rolled the Commerce, State, Justice appropriations bill and the Foreign Operations appropriations bill into the D.C. appropriations bill and, therefore, created an omnibus appropriations bill. The House amendment we will consider tonight strikes all provisions out of the omnibus appropriations bill, except for the District of Columbia, and amends that bill with the recommendation of the House Committee on Appropriations. The rule provides for a single motion by the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, or his designee, to concur in the Senate amendment to the text, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, with the amendment printed in the Committee on Rules report and disagree to the Senate amendment to the title. The rule further provides that the Senate amendments to the House bill and the motion are considered as read. The motion is debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. There is little argument that the District of Columbia is in bad shape. The city suffers from deteriorating infrastructure, high crime rates, a shrinking population, and poor services. We must take bold steps to reform the way this city operates so that it can again take its place among the great cities of the world. As a former mayor, I know the challenges that come with running a city. It will not be easy to reform, but we must start now. I was very supportive of the bill that originally passed in the House. I believe that it contains some tough language that will go a long way to changing the face of our Nation's Capital. The bill met with stiff resistance and has been replaced. This is a good rule. It allows us to debate D.C. appropriations as a single issue, rather than as part of an omnibus package. We need to take a step toward restoring some of the luster our Nation's Capital city has lost in recent years. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, and I look forward to the debate about the future of our Nation's Capital. 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 324 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart.