Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds for a point of clarification for the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey. We are not talking about taxpayer dollars. We are talking about savings accounts that can be used to pay expenses at either public or private schools. It is not going to siphon off any money from public education. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes and 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Cunningham].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Archer], distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio [Ms. Pryce].

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Christensen].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde].

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], our illustrious chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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 is yielded for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon, the Committee on Rules met to grant a rule that provides for a motion to concur to the Senate amendments to H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997 in the House. It is a simple rule that provides 1 hour of debate on the motion equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Supporting this rule and the motion to agree to the Senate amendments will allow us to complete the long legislative process on this bill. H.R. 1122 would then be ready to be sent to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where the President will again have the opportunity to end the cruel procedure known as partial-birth abortion. During the Committee on Rules hearing yesterday, we heard impassioned pleas to make two amendments in order, one by the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey] and one by the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Hoyer]. Neither of those amendments were ruled in order. I respect their heartfelt sentiments on this emotional issue. But I would like to point out that if we went through the normal legislative process, going to conference with the other body and working out our differences, the subsequent conference report would not be amendable either. It may be alleged that the majority on the Committee on Rules is trying to cut off debate on this issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are merely trying to complete this legislative process in a timely manner. The two proposed amendments have not gone through the normal process. They have both expanded the scope of the bill and contain language that should be carefully deliberated by my colleagues so that we are all completely sure what they mean. With respect to H.R. 1122 and the Senate amendments, the two substitute amendments offered by the minority are irrelevant. The amendments would ban third-trimester abortion except to save the mother's life or health. While that may sound perfectly reasonable, the vast majority of partial-birth abortions are performed in the fifth and sixth month of pregnancy, not the third trimester. Further, the health exemption would effectively permit all abortions. The Supreme Court interprets health abortions so broadly as to include all those related to social, psychological, financial, or emotional concerns. I realize that the Hoyer amendment defined health in another manner. The gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady], chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, provided testimony that indicated that there was still a great deal of latitude given to abortionists to determine if the health exemption applied. Despite all the attention that will be given to what is not on the floor today, I would now like to focus on what is going to be on the floor today, a ban on the brutal procedure known as partial-birth abortion, with protection for the life of the mother, and let me be perfectly clear that if her life is in jeopardy, the ban does not apply, and fines and possible prison terms for physicians who violate the ban and perform this atrocity. This resolution will allow us to vote on accepting three acceptable, simple Senate amendments which delete some language in the life exception. The bill still bans partial-birth abortion unless it is necessary to save the life of the mother, clarifies the definition of partial-birth abortion, and allows a physician to present evidence in court from the State medical licensing authority on whether the partial-birth abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother. There is little debate about the brutality of this procedure. In fact, the gruesome and violent partial-birth abortions are unconscionable. It has been confirmed that thousands of these procedures are performed every year. Many of those are elective and performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. More than 80 percent of the American people and the American Medical Association support banning this practice. We live in a civilized society, one that cannot consciously condone or tolerate such inhumane and uncivilized procedures. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the Senate amendments to H.R. 1122. It is time we complete our work on this important bill, and take a step closer to banning this most monstrous type of abortion. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Tiahrt]).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn]. (Mr. COBURN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire of the amount of time left for each side, please.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn].

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, when was the last time that the American people saw such a spectacle as last week, when the Senate Finance Committee conducted hearings on the IRS abuses? Listen to some of the shocking things that we heard. IRS agent Jennifer Long, a 15-year veteran with the agency, actually told the Senators that the management of IRS systematically concluded that Americans who reported less than $20,000 in income a year were tax cheats because nobody can live on that income. Well, I have got some people back home who would totally disagree with that, especially seniors who live on fixed incomes every day, and they get by on a lot less than that. IRS agents are not told to go out and be just, to be fair, to use good judgment to enforce their laws. No; they are told to go out and raise as much money as possible. If they do not shake down enough money, their careers could be in jeopardy. And now the White House is asking the very same agency that is out of control to reform itself. Maybe this is the most amazing spectacle of all.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment today. I have just three simple points. One, I speak as a parent and also as a former mayor who spent many, many years in the local area fighting the drug war and knowing the ravages of what happens. It is simply not proper for the Federal Government to be funding a program, or any government, really, to fund a program like needle exchange. In a time when drug use is again on the rise, we simply should not send a message of tolerance in any form, because we need to discourage drug use, not try and make it safer for the user. It has been a fact, and it is still a fact, that when society disapproval of drug use drops, we see drug use rise; and we are in the midst of that there. I reference one of the President's research reports in youth attitudes toward drugs. It is talking about marijuana and 12th graders, but it shows a definite rise. They are saying that there is a correlation between that and a 3-year lag in the rising cocaine use after that. My concern is that heroin is now becoming the drug of choice. Anything that we begin to do that literally encourages that in any way, I believe is a big mistake. I urge people to support the Hastert amendment.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I urge a yes vote on Smith-Barcia-Hyde- Oberstar, which will restore the pro-life Mexico City policy; and a no vote on the Gilman-Pelosi-Campbell-Lowey-Greenwood-DeLauro-Slaughter amendment, which would substitute vagueness for clarity and, therefore, defeat the purpose of this important pro-life policy. The question before the House is simple: Should the United States give many millions of dollars for family planning programs to organizations actively engaged in performing abortions overseas? When we choose the surrogates in foreign countries, the groups that will represent our country in matters related to family planning and population control, do we really want to choose organizations that are known primarily as abortion providers? What message does this send about American values? The substitute amendment would substitute a vague, and therefore, unenforceable standard, promoting abortion as a method of family planning for the clear and precise standard in the Smith-Barcia amendment. Under the substitute language, U.S. family planning grantees can promote abortion as vigorously as they want, so long as the Clinton administration was willing to certify that these abortions were not done as a method of family planning. The Smith-Barcia amendment, in contrast, would prohibit our grantees from either performing or promoting abortion, except in three cases clearly defined: rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother. Mr. Chairman, when it comes to protecting human life, we must choose precision and clarity over vagueness and uncertainty. Please vote no on the substitute, and yes on the Smith-Barcia-Hyde-Oberstar amendment.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.