Sue Myrick

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to participate in the following votes. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: September 30, 2004: Rollcall vote 485, on H. Con. Res. 501, honoring the life and work of Duke Ellington, recognizing the 30th anniversary of the Duke Ellington School of the Arts, and supporting the annual Duke Ellington Jazz Festival, I would have voted yes. October 4, 2004: Rollcall vote 487, on S. Con. Res. 76, recognizing that November 2, 2003, shall be dedicated to ``A Tribute to Survivors'' at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, I would have voted yes. Rollcall vote 488, on S. 1814, to transfer federal lands between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior, I would have voted yes. Rollcall vote 489, on H. Res. 567, congratulating the American Dental Association for sponsoring the second annual ``Give Kids a Smile'' program which emphasizes the need to improve access to dental care for children, and thanking dentists for volunteering their time to help provide needed dental care, I would have voted yes. October 5, 2004: Rollcall vote 490, on H. Res. 814, ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted yes. Rollcall vote 491, on H. Res. 814, adoption of the rule, I would have voted yes.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 823 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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, this morning the Rules Committee met and granted a modified closed rule for H.R. 5107, the Justice for All Act. The measure is a combination of a House-passed bill, H.R. 3214, expanding DNA testing to catch more criminals and to allow wrongly convicted people a chance to prove their innocence, and a Senate-passed bill, S. 2329, that improves victims' rights. I am also very pleased that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) included a manager's amendment to address Members' concerns and the Department of Justice, as well as victims' rights groups' concerns. H.R. 3214 passed the House in November, 2003, by a 357-67 margin. S. 2329 passed the Senate in April 2004 on a 96-1 vote. Regarding the crimes victims portion of this bill, the legislation seeks to remedy the apparent disparity between the great number of rights and protections afforded to a person accused of a crime, but the relatively few rights and remedies for victims. The bill amplifies the existing rights for victims and sets forth an explicit enforcement mechanism. Additionally, H.R. 5107 provides funding for legal counsel for victims to assist them in the process and to ensure that these rights are enforced. On the DNA side of this bill, it seeks to position DNA testing so it can finally reach its enormous potential. Unfortunately, the current Federal and State DNA collection and analysis system suffers from a variety of problems. In many cases public crime laboratories are overwhelmed by backlogs of unanalyzed DNA samples, samples that could be used to solve violent crimes if the States had the funds to eliminate this backlog. In my home State of North Carolina, the number of unprocessed DNA samples is 7,000 and the number of unprocessed DNA rape kits is estimated to be 6,000. North Carolina authorities say that the processing and entering of the DNA backlog could solve hundreds of crimes. This legislation will authorize a significant increase in resources to better use DNA in solving crimes, taking dangerous people off the streets and sparing many innocent Americans from further crimes. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LaHood), the original author of the House bill who has been working on this issue for a long, long time. (Mr. LaHOOD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 was unable to participate in the following votes due to a personal matter. If I had been present, I would have voted as follows: September 23, 2004: Rollcall vote 469, on H. Res. 785, on ordering the Previous Questions, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 470, on H. Res. 794, on ordering the Previous Question, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 471, on H. Res. 794, on Agreeing to the Resolution, I would have voted ``yes.'' Rollcall vote 472, on agreeing to the conference report for the Relief for Working Families Tax Act of 2003, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 801 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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 Tuesday, the Committee on Rules met and granted a closed rule for H.R. 106, the marriage protection amendment. The rule provides 2 hours and 30 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. H.J. Res. 106 proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. The amendment states that ``Marriage in the United States shall consist solely of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than a man and a woman.'' The constitutional amendment process is the most democratic process in our Federal system, and it requires approval from two-thirds of each House of Congress and three-quarters of the States by votes of their State legislators. This bill has come up because same-sex marriage advocates have been using the courts and even local officials who have intentionally violated the law to circumvent the democratic process. Passing a constitutional amendment will place the debate where it belongs, with the American people. Forty-four States have already enacted laws that provide that marriage shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Those forty-four States represent 88 percent of all the States and 86 percent of the population. As President Bush said in his State of the Union address, if judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that the gentleman from Massachusetts is aware that the Homeland Security bill, a very complicated bill, is going through, I believe, five committees, and it is in that committee process this week and we are going to have it on the floor next week. So it is not that the Homeland Security bill is not going to be dealt with. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority leader.

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin).

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

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, September is National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. Education and advocacy are crucial in the fight against cancer. Imagine a disease that takes the lives of 30,000 U.S. men each year. Now imagine that disease ablated in just a few hours with minimal pain and side effects. Ultrasound is revolutionizing prostate cancer treatment and is well on its way to replacing traditional treatment models. I am honored to have a company in my district that is making this revolutionary treatment a reality. U.S. HIFU is a development company dedicated to fighting cancer and preserving patient quality of life with noninvasive high intensity focused ultrasound technology. High Intensity Focused Ultrasound, HIFU, is a state-of-the-art acoustic ablation technique for prostate cancer treatment that utilizes the power of ultrasound to destroy deep seated tissue with pinpoint accuracy. HIFU is noninvasive, non-ionizing and 88-99 percent of patients treated have a PSA (prostate specific antigen) of less than 1 after one year, which indicates no evidence of recurrence. Equally important is that there has been minimal to no incidence of incontinence and only 7 percent erectile dysfunction. It can be preformed in one to three hours on an outpatient basis with an epidural anesthetic. Unlike other treatments, HIFU patients are up and walking around within hours of being treated. The Sonablate 500, the HIFU device, targets tissue in the prostate in the same way that sunrays entering a magnifying glass burn a leaf. When a magnifying glass is held above a leaf in the correct position on a sunny day the sunrays intersect below the lens and cause the leaf to burn at the point of intersection. The scientific principles at work in this example are the same as those with HIFU. The energy source is the only difference. Instead of light as the energy source, HIFU utilizes sound. In basic terms, the technology allows the physicians to get a live image of the prostate and cancerous tumor, carefully target cells with custom treatment planning and kill the tumor with a beam of clean ultrasound energy effectively destroying the cancerous tissue, leaving surrounding healthy tissue untouched. HIFU involves no incision, and it can be applied repeatedly without damaging other tissue, unlike radiation-based therapies. As many as one-third of patients who receive either external radiation therapy or brachytherapy have a recurrence of cancer; fortunately, HIFU can be a salvage technique for these recurrent failures. Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer found in American men and the second leading cause of death in men. The American Cancer Society estimates that there will be about 230,900 new cases of prostate cancer in the United States in the year 2004. About 29,900 men will die of this disease.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I would like to honor and recognize the YouthNetwork Crisis Shelter. On October 21st, 2004 the YouthNetwork Crisis Shelter will be celebrating their thirtieth birthday. I have known Dave Hoppe, Executive Director of YouthNetwork, and Kyle Boyles, Senior Development Officer and the staff for many years. They have been and will continue to be an integral part of the Charlotte, NC community. The YouthNetwork Crisis Shelter was founded in 1974 by members of Dilworth United Methodist Church in Charlotte. Originally know as The Relatives, the shelter was established due to the rising concern about the growing number of homeless youths in the center city. Since its founding, it has served thousands of teens and their families over the past 30 years. The shelter continues to be one of Charlotte's most successful charitable causes. Located on East Boulevard in Charlotte, the Crisis Shelter serves the community as a coed, 9-bed emergency shelter for runaway, homeless and other youth in crisis. The Shelter is one of the Alexander Youth Network's numerous programs for positive growth and improvement of youth. Staff provides 24-hour supervision, individual and family conferences, recreational activities, and community referrals. I greatly appreciate all their efforts and dedication to the Charlotte community.

Mrs. MYRICK

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 734 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. On Wednesday, the Committee on Rules did meet and grant a closed rule for H.R. 3313, the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. The rule provides 90 minutes of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. This bill seeks to utilize the constitutional authority of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal judiciary to hear cases which may arise as a result of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, otherwise known as DOMA. The bill reserves that authority to the States. The bill provides that no Federal court will have the jurisdiction to hear a case arising under DOMA's full faith and credit provision. This provision in DOMA codified that no State would be required to give full faith and credit to a marriage license issued by another State if that relationship is between two people of the same sex. Long- standing Supreme Court precedent recognizes the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of courts that it creates. In essence, the bill says no Federal court will have the opportunity to strike down DOMA's full faith and credit provision. The result of such a decision by the Federal courts would in effect invalidate the numerous Defense of Marriage Acts which have passed in at least 38 States. This would mean that the citizens of States such as Michigan, California, Virginia, Texas, and Florida, who have their own statutes to define marriage as between one man and one woman, would have to recognize the marriage licenses issued to same sex couples by other States that allow that practice. I believe the people of these States as well as the people of my home State of North Carolina should be able to defend and preserve the institution of marriage and that we today should support their efforts. This is the way it has been throughout civilization. It is our job to prevent unelected lifetime appointed Federal judges from striking down DOMA's protection for the States. To that end, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to clarify the actual wording of what this bill does. It does not favor or disfavor any particular result or any group of people. It is motivated by a desire to preserve for the States the authority to decide whether the shield Congress enacted to protect them from having to accept same sex marriage licenses issued out of State will hold. There is no ill will here toward anyone. It does not dictate the results, either. It only places final authority over whether the States must accept same sex marriage licenses granted in other States in the hands of the States themselves. This bill should be supported, I believe, by any Member who supports the proposition that lifetime appointed Federal judges must not be allowed to rewrite marriage policies for the States. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

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

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume for just a clarification. Marbury v. Madison is entirely consistent with H.R. 3313. It established the principle of judicial review and stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court has the final say on the issues it decides, provided either the issues it decides are within its original jurisdiction or Congress by statute has granted the Supreme Court the authority to hear the issue. It is that simple. If a case does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Federal courts because Congress has not granted the required jurisdiction, Federal courts simply cannot hear the case. The author of Marbury v. Madison was Chief Justice John Marshall, as was stated, and Chief Justice Marshall himself, after he decided that case, dismissed cases when the Federal courts had not been granted jurisdiction by Congress to hear them under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

Mrs. MYRICK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to read a couple of quotes from Thomas Jefferson that he made, of course, a long time ago. He lamented that ``the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the Constitution of the federal judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped. . . .'' In Jefferson's view, leaving the protection of individual rights to fellow judges employed for life was a very serious error. Responding to the argument that Federal judges are the final interpreters of the Constitution, Jefferson wrote, ``You seem . . . to consider the [federal] judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so.'' They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their core. Their power is the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries are to the elective control. The Constitution has elected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.