Sue Myrick

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, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. (Mr. GOSS 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 gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. 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. On Thursday, July 17, the Committee on Rules met and granted an open rule by voice vote for the consideration of H.R. 2169, the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act for fiscal year 1998. The rule waives clause 2(L)(6) of rule XI relating to the 3-day availability of the report, clause 7 of rule XXI relating to the 3-day availability of preprinted hearings and section 401(a) prohibiting consideration of legislation containing contract authority not previously subject to appropriation of the Congressional Budget Act against consideration of the bill. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations. It waives clause 6 of rule XXI prohibiting reappropriations in an appropriations bill against provisions in the bill and clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting unauthorized provisions in an appropriations bill against provisions in the bill, except as otherwise specified in the rule. An amendment related to the St. George Ferry Terminal project printed in section 2 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted upon passage of this resolution. The rule also strikes from the bill expedited procedures related to the total realignment of the Amtrak Commission because it falls under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Rules and should not be included in an appropriations bill before it has been properly considered by the Committee on Rules. Priority recognition will be provided to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone votes during consideration of the bill and reduce votes to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, an effective and well-integrated transportation infrastructure has long been one of our Nation's greatest assets. It has enabled us to foster a diverse and expansive economy and made it possible for families to travel easily around the Nation and the world. Each region of the country has distinct needs with regard to transportation. Each year, we in this House are tasked with the responsibility of guaranteeing that our vast transportation network does not slide into disrepair. I congratulate the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation for the fine work they have done on this bill. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Wolf], the chairman, and the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Sabo], the ranking member, worked very hard to make sure that the bill fairly and effectively distributed needed funds across the Nation. They produced a good bill with bipartisan support, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I also realize that some in this House may have different views on this important issue that they would like to express. That is why I am also happy that this bill will be considered under an open rule so that open and honest debate can be carried out. This bill is another step toward achieving a balanced budget, but it does not sacrifice the needs and safety of the traveling public. The need for new and improved highway systems connecting our Nation's cities with emerging suburban centers and more rural areas increases every year. H.R. 2169 includes a 20-percent increase in highway funding that is desperately needed. I am particularly aware of this problem because it is one that I faced while serving as mayor of Charlotte, NC. The growth that we are experiencing in Charlotte is typical of many emerging cities throughout the South and the Nation. The disaster of TWA flight 800 last year focused a great deal of concern on air travel safety in the United States. Like all of my colleagues and millions of Americans, I spend a great deal of time in the air. Safe air transportation is important not only for commerce but also for a growing number of families on vacations. Safety issues are a key component of H.R. 2169. The bill increases funding for the FAA, including the installation of airport security devices, alert systems to prevent runway collisions, and improved weather detection and forecasting systems. It also increases FAA personnel by adding 500 air traffic controllers and 326 staff members responsible for safety certification and regulation. Unfortunately, too many Americans lose their lives on our Nation's highways each year. It seems like every news report during Christmas, Thanksgiving, and other holidays always includes stories about the number of fatalities. Of course, those stories are not limited to holidays, it happens every day. This bill provides $333 million to programs designed to help reduce those numbers and includes a new prelicensing drug testing program and critical airbag safety initiative. To many, Amtrak is a vital link to work and family, particularly in the Northeast. H.R. 2169 increases capital appropriations to the embattled rail line by $30 million over last year. It also provides a $75 million increase for Amtrak's Northeast corridor improvement program. The Coast Guard has long been a partner in the war on drugs. They must enforce Federal laws on the high seas and other waterways within its jurisdiction. There has been an increase in drug trafficking in the waters off the United States. The Coast Guard works diligently to put a stop to that activity. Perhaps the most important part of this bill increases funding for the Coast Guard's operating expenses to target efforts to interdict ocean drug trafficking. I again congratulate the Committee on Appropriations on a fine bill and ask that my colleagues support its passage and the open rule under which it will be debated. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK

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 purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 26, the Committee on Rules granted, by voice vote, an open rule providing 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations for the consideration of H.R. 2016, the military construction appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. The rule waives points of order against provisions in the bill which do not comply with clause 2 of rule XXI prohibiting unauthorized appropriations and legislation on general appropriations bills, and clause 6 of rule XXI prohibiting transfers of unobligated funds. The rule provides for priority recognition to those amendments that are preprinted in the Congressional Record. The rule also provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the Chairman may reduce voting time on postponed questions to 5 minutes, provided that the votes take place immediately following another recorded vote and that the voting time on the first series of questions is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Today we will consider the first bill in the annual appropriations process. Because the other body and conference action on the National Defense Authorization Act has not been completed, the Committee on Appropriations considered only projects recommended for authorization when crafting H.R. 2016. All projects included in H.R. 2016 are approved subject to authorization. This is a product of a bipartisan effort to ensure that the needs of our service men and women are effectively addressed. The committee chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Military Construction both testified that debate on the measure was very short in both the subcommittee and full Committee on Appropriations where it passed with a voice vote. The living conditions of our Nation's fighting men and women have been the focus of much attention and grave concern. Currently, 62 percent of troop housing spaces and 64 percent of housing family units are unsuitable. It is imperative we work to improve their living conditions, which are directly linked to readiness, morale, and retention. I am proud of our continued efforts to improve the housing for the Armed Forces, those brave Americans that protect our freedoms. In particular, the need for improved family housing has increased dramatically. Since the 1950's the all-volunteer structure of the Armed Forces has resulted in the steady rise of married service members. More than 60 percent of those serving today are married. It is important that we have a sustained, flexible approach to meet their needs. H.R. 2016 addresses the severe backlog in readiness, revitalization and quality of life projects. To address this problem, the committee included funding above the administration's request to fund the planning and construction of several barracks, family housing and operational facilities. Included in the additional funding is: Ten additional unaccompanied housing projects; new construction and improvements to family housing units, benefiting approximately 2,438 military families; four child development centers; operational and training facilities for the active service; and operational, training, environmental compliance and safety related activities for the Reserves. Good infrastructure is key to military installations operating effectively and achieving their mission. They need good transportation networks, rail lines, roads, airports and seaport facilities, communication systems, telephone lines and satellite uplinks and downlinks, and mundane but vital support like water and sewer systems, and electrical generation and distribution systems. There have been reports that aging installations are suffering from crumbling infrastructure and support facilities. It is crucial we give the revitalization of these facilities sufficient priority so that they are able to meet their mission requirements. This bill dedicates funding to continue to address these problems. Other commitments addressed in the bill include funding for the continued implementation for the base realignment and closure program. The funds are necessary so that the base closure schedules can be met and the savings realized. The bill gives the Department of Defense the flexibility to carry out this complex task in the most efficient manner possible. This is a good bill that honors the commitment we have to our Armed Forces. It helps ensure that the housing and infrastructure needs of the military are given proper recognition so that our Armed Forces can continue to defend the freedoms we all cherish. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the open rule on this important bill. 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 178 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, Brian Matthew Eichenbrenner of Charlotte, NC, died in the early hours of Saturday morning, June 7, 1997, just 4 days before his 18th birthday. He was valedictorian of Providence Day School, and he also received the Headmaster's Award. He was the founder and president of the Society for the Political Advancement of Mankind, an Eagle Scout in Troop 133, and a faithful member of Sardis Presbyterian Church, president of SADD, member of the Cum Laude Society, Outdoors Club; the list goes on. Brian had every right to be openly proud of all of his achievements, but he shunned the praise these distinctions gave him. His life goal was to help others help themselves. One would always see Brian cheering on a fellow swimmer or tutoring a peer or performing a simple act of friendship or love that he freely gave to the world. His family, community, and all who knew Brian Eichenbrenner feel the void of his death and appreciate the gifts and values he instilled in their lives. In lieu of achieving his earthly goals, he will be with the Lord, watching over the people he so dearly loved. Brian Matthew Eichenbrenner of Charlotte, NC, died in the early hours of Saturday, June 7, 1997--4 days before his 18th birthday. He was valedictorian of Providence Day School and he also received the Headmaster's Award. Brian was the founder and president of the Society for the Political Advancement of Mankind, an Eagle Scout in Troop 133, and a faithful member of Sardis Presbyterian Church, president of SADD, member of the Cum Laude Society, Outdoors Club--the list goes on. Brian had every right to be openly proud of his achievements. However, he shunned the praise these distinctions gave him. His life goal was to help others help themselves. One would always see Brian cheering along a fellow swimmer, tutoring a peer, or performing a simple act of friendship and love that he freely gave the world. Brian Eichenbrenner chose politics as his method to aid his fellow man. One of his dreams was to have led a filibuster in the U.S. Senate. In 2032, Mr. Eichenbrenner was planning to run, and win, the Presidential election. Brian lived his life to the fullest. He spent his life donating his time and efforts toward his peers. He desired their success as much as, or even more, than he desired his own. His family, community, and all who knew Brian Eichenbrenner feel the void of his death and appreciate the gifts and values he instilled in their lives. In lieu of achieving his earthly goals, he will be with the Lord, watching over the people he so dearly loved--those he called his friends.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I also commend my colleagues for bringing this legislation forward. I commend my colleague from California for her remarks on this issue. We all do want to work together to solve the problem. I served as the mayor of Charlotte, NC, which is a large city. We definitely are experiencing all these problems with crime and teenage drug abuse. It is in every part of the country. It is not just in the large cities. It especially was important to me when I was mayor, and it is still important to me that we solve the problem. There is no reason we should not have solved it long ago. I have witnessed firsthand the devastation that this causes in our communities, the devastation of lives and the crime that comes along with it. I have worked on the streets so I know firsthand of what I am speaking. I also found the best way to solve the problem was through local organizations, groups that came together who really could work together, who knew what the problem was and could best solve it at the local level, not with the Federal Government dictating to them but giving the options of them knowing how best to do it. The Drug-Free Communities Act of 1997 encourages that local community involvement to solve the problems by forming these coalitions. I have always said we at home know best how to solve our problems and we know best how to achieve success. The most successful substance abuse programs do have coalitions of churches and religious organizations involved. We need to encourage more of that because that is one of the main reasons that they work. I for one do not want to attend any more funerals of 13-, 14-, and 15-year-olds who have been senselessly murdered or drug overdosed because we have not done all we could do at all levels of government and all levels of community to solve this. I urge support of this bill.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, another part of the genteel soul of America died last Saturday night in the small North Carolina town of Weldon, just off I-95, a town where everyone knows everyone else, where just a short time ago evening strolls ended with neighbors chatting on spacious front porches, where everyone was responsible for everyone else. That is the way it was. Hazel Sechler was virtually blind, 88 years old, and she lived alone and had for over half a century since her only husband met an untimely death. She threw herself into her church work and into her townspeople's needs, including those of my husband Ed, totally into his life for all of his life. She was truly one of the family. Hazel Sechler was a genteel woman, no cross words for anyone, and she possessed an awesome positive attitude. Hats and gloves did not separate her from the town wino or other misfortunate. She was truly a lady. Saturday night, someone cut her telephone line while she was talking on the phone to a neighbor. He forced himself inside her house, raped her, and slashed her throat. A genteel part of America died Saturday night; and in a national sense, virtually no one noticed. Yet, Hazel Sechler, the infirm, blind old lady of Weldon, NC, left perhaps enough in those she touched to rekindle the love of God in other places.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for H.R. 3. As a former mayor of a large city, I have been for years deeply involved in trying to solve the problems, not only of juvenile crime, but of crime in general, and also from the standpoint of looking at prevention programs as well as justice solutions. Unfortunately, our area is growing very fast, and with that comes increased juvenile crime, like the rest of the country is experiencing. I am very sad to say as mayor I attended more funerals of 13-, 14-, and 15-year-old children than I care to remember, senseless murders and young people who did these things that I would talk to afterward who would have absolutely no remorse for their actions. This bill helps our system deal with these problems. I also have a son who is a law enforcement officer. I spent many hours on the streets with the police and the sheriff and other people. So I come to this having had some experience with the issue. I would like to say that the majority is not ignoring prevention. We recognize the need for prevention. However, accountability is prevention. We have got to teach children that their actions hold consequences, and many youthful offenders that face those consequences of their actions stop their criminal careers before they start a life of crime. H.R. 3 is only a part of our effort to combat juvenile crime. The Committee on Education and the Workforce is currently working on a bill aimed directly at prevention, and it should be coming to the floor in the upcoming weeks. I would also like to remind my colleagues that that bill is part of more than $4 billion this Federal Government is spending on at-risk and delinquent youths this year. I also support the bill because it is not a mandate to the States, and as a former and local official I am very sensitive to that issue. The States are not mandated to do anything by H.R. 3. They are given the incentive to reform their juvenile justice system, which is not unlike the truth in sentencing incentive grant program that provided certain grant programs for things like more prisons. That program has been successful, and so will H.R. 3. H.R. 3 provides funds to the States who access those incentives to be used for a wide variety of juvenile crime fighting activities, building and expanding juvenile detention centers, establishing drug courts, hiring prosecutors, establishing accountability programs that work, the juvenile offenders who are referred by law enforcement agencies. So I urge support of H.R. 3 and urge rejection of the substitute.

Mrs. MYRICK

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to just really respond to the last comment and say that this bill is coming to the floor today because forces on both sides of this issue were pulling so hard in opposite directions that they ultimately could not reach agreement on H.R. 929. It was totally impossible for the Committee on Rules to reach a consensus with all parties involved, so in the interests of fairness we decided to bring up legislation that the House has considered in the past. In fact, this is the same legislation that the President vetoed in the 104th Congress. Mr. Speaker, it is not a sneak attack by the majority. It is merely an attempt to bring forth legislation that had broad support in the past so we can consider this extremely important bill; Members can cast their votes with a clear conscience without the pressure tactics from powerful groups on both sides of this divisive issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bentsen]. (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Bunning]. (Mr. BUNNING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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 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 100 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 purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 1122, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate divided equally between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. Finally, it provides for one motion to recommit. In short, H.R. 1122 outlaws the practice of partial-birth abortions. Any physician who performs this inhumane act may receive a fine or receive up to 2 years in prison, or both. The bill explicitly states that if the procedure is necessary to save the life of a mother who is threatened by a physical disorder, illness or injury and no other medical procedure would do, then the physician will not be held liable. The language in H.R. 1122 is identical to the language in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1995, which was vetoed by the President. Members may hear objections by the other side that this bill has not passed through the committee process, but I would like to point out that this is the same language that 80 percent of the American people supported when it passed through Congress previously. The bottom line is that this is not new language we are trying to sneak past anybody. My colleagues are well aware of what this bill contains and any other assertion would be disingenuous at best. During debate on the resolution and the bill itself, you may hear some voices of discontent from Members on both sides of the aisle. I urge my colleagues to make sure they do not lose sight of the true focus of this debate, the horrible procedure known as partial-birth abortion. Try not to forget that the reason we are considering this important bill is to preserve the life of these vulnerable and fragile children. We are talking about human life. When this issue was before the subcommittee, they received testimony from Whitney Goin, proud mother of a beautiful young baby that was born with the organs developed outside of the body. The doctors told her to abort the child, but she elected to have her baby. With the help of skilled doctors and extensive surgery, the child was able to survive and is alive today. No one can ever replace the love and affection that she will be able to share with her baby for the rest of her life. I would encourage all of my colleagues to read the piece by George Will that appeared in yesterday's newspaper. In it, he gives an eloquent argument against this procedure. His son Jon is about to celebrate his 21st birthday. Jon has Down's syndrome, and his parents were asked to decide if they should take him home or not. Jon is leading a productive, happy life despite his mental retardation. I point out these two cases, and there are countless others, because they are a testament to the fact that life is precious and should not be squandered. The joy that children bring to their parents, regardless of their physical or mental condition, is boundless and must be respected. I cannot help but think of my own two sons and my seven grandchildren and the joy that they bring to us. Mr. Speaker, I again implore my colleagues to support the ban and allow these children the opportunity to live a happy and productive life. Abortion has long been an issue that divides our Nation. People on both sides argue with great conviction that they are protecting sacred human rights. However, we are not talking about the general issue of abortion during this debate. Today's debate is about what our society values as right or wrong. We will decide whether our Nation will continue to allow the appalling practice of partial-birth abortion to continue. I am sure that every one of my colleagues is fully aware of the details of this particularly repugnant form of abortion. Therefore, I am not going to again describe the procedure. But I am going to challenge my colleagues to consider H.R. 1122 on the merits of the legislation and make their decision based on the facts as we know them to be today. I am sure some of my colleagues made a decision to oppose similar legislation in the past based on false information provided to them by pro-abortion groups and Ron Fitzsimmons, the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. He said that he lied through his teeth when he said the procedure was rarely used. He now admits that pro-life groups were accurate when they said that the procedure is common. By Mr. Fitzsimmons' estimate, 3,000 to 5,000 partial-birth abortions are performed every year. To further underscore the lies and deception, Mr. Fitzsimmons said in the Medical News, an American Medical Association journal, that ``In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along.'' He further went on to state that the abortion rights folks know it, the antiabortion folks know it and so probably does everybody else. In fact, the truth is the vast majority of cases are performed on healthy mothers with healthy babies. Mr. Fitzsimmons intentionally lied about partial-birth abortions to mislead people because he feared the truth would damage the cause of his allies. While explaining his veto, the President echoed the argument of Mr. Fitzsimmons and his colleagues. H.R. 1122 will allow the President the opportunity to reevaluate this issue, this time with accurate information on which to base his decision. He is not alone. I urge my colleagues who opposed banning partial- birth abortions in the past to reflect on the truth about the misinformation that Mr. Fitzsimmons and the pro-abortion lobby has circulated before making your final decision on this critical issue. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Armey], the distinguished majority leader.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. A lot of different amendments have been mentioned here today, but I would like to remind my colleagues that the veto override vote for this text in this bill today was 286 Members in the House and 58 Members in the Senate. I would also like to remind my colleagues that the life of the mother is protected in this bill. We are bringing this bill forward because it speaks to the partial birth procedure alone. I urge my colleagues to support the rule on H.R. 1122.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 100.