Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule and to vote ``yes'' on the previous question.

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am very pleased to join with my colleague from Texas in support of this resolution and congratulating Lance Armstrong, America's premier cyclist, in his recent victory. During this year's tour, Lance won the four most important stages of the race, the 3-time trials and the first mountain stage, and he staked his place alongside some of the greatest winners of the past. Regarded as one of the world's most demanding sporting events, the 23-day long, 2,306 mile race has challenged some of the world's fittest athletes since 1906. However, this year's victory by Lance Armstrong marks one of the greatest comebacks in the history of sports. It was just a little over 2 years ago when Lance was diagnosed with testicular cancer, a form of cancer which strikes 7,400 men in the United States each year. And while it represents just 1 percent of all male cancers for men in their 20s and 30s, it is the leading form of cancer. Lance was diagnosed with testicular cancer so advanced it had spread to his lungs and his brain. He was given just a 50 percent chance of survival. His doctors' main concerns were no longer his return to racing, but simply to keep him living. However, Lance Armstrong had a different agenda. After undergoing surgery and during sessions of chemotherapy and tolerating nauseating drugs, Lance Armstrong began to ride and train between treatments. And then finally, there was good news. His blood protein levels had returned to normal and his chest x-ray was clear. Lance Armstrong was cancer-free just 1 year after beginning his treatment. Lance Armstrong's incredible achievement to battle back from cancer and to claim victory in the world's premier cycling race not only illustrates his strong will and determination, but it also serves to send a strong message to all cancer patients and survivors, both young and old. As Lance Armstrong simply put it after stepping down off the podium, ``We can return to what we were before and be even better.'' Mr. Speaker, earlier this week, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kasich), my good friend and colleague, referred to Lance Armstrong as the ``real McCoy,'' a true American hero. This resolution congratulates him on his spectacular performance and recognizes his contributions to inspire those fighting cancer, and it deserves our support. When Lance was diagnosed with cancer, he had a choice and he chose to fight. However, he is not just fighting for himself, but for all cancer patients worldwide. By establishing the Lance Armstrong Foundation, he is raising awareness, increasing research and providing services for people with cancer. To the cycling community, his victory may seek to inspire our next generation of cyclists, just as American Greg Lemond's second win inspired him. But to cancer patients and survivors around the world, his victory means much more, and his fight and determination send such a strong message to never give up. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate Lance Armstrong not just for his victory in France, but more importantly, on his victory in life. He is a true American hero, and I urge strong support for this resolution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our deputy whip.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 256 is a structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2488, the Financial Freedom Act. This fair rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means. With the adoption of this rule, the House will amend the bill that was reported by the Committee on Ways and Means. This amendment, which was printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report, will reduce the size of the bill from $864 billion to $792 billion in an effort to comply with the Senate's interpretation of the budget resolution. To achieve this reduction, the amendment slows the phase-in period for several provisions in the bill, including the 10-percent reduction in income taxes, the repeal of the individual alternative minimum tax, the repeal of the death tax and the reduction of the corporate capital gains tax. In addition, the small-saver provision, corporate AMT changes, and certain pension provisions are also modified by the amendment. More importantly, this rule adds a new title to the Financial Freedom Act that strengthens our commitment to debt reduction. Tax relief and debt reduction are not at odds with one another and achieving both goals simultaneously makes good economic sense. For years, Republicans fought tooth and nail to achieve the balanced budget we enjoy today. We argued that it was immoral to continue a pattern of deficit spending that adds to our debt and places a burden of higher interest payments on the backs of our children and grandchildren. We stand by those arguments today and will continue to pursue our priority of debt reduction through this legislation. A vote for this rule will be a vote in favor of reducing our national public debt by $2 trillion over the next 10 years, and this is not an empty promise. The fact is that we are paying down debt as we speak. The Social Security surplus that we have locked away, which is not currently being used to pay benefits, is reducing our debt now. America's debt is shrinking fast. Debt as a share of our economy is rapidly heading toward its post-World War II low of 23.8 percent. This is compared to just 5 years ago when debt as a share of the economy was above 50 percent. So we are making significant progress and by voting for this rule we will ensure that we continue down this path of steady debt reduction. At the conclusion of the debate on the rule, I will seek to amend the rule to further address the issue of debt reduction. My amendment will self-execute a change requiring across-the-board tax relief to take effect only if specific debt reduction targets are met. In addition to these changes, the House will have the opportunity to debate and vote on a minority substitute to be offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee. This amendment, which provides an alternative to the Financial Freedom Act, is printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report and will be debatable for 1 hour. All points of order against the Rangel amendment are waived. Finally, the minority will have an additional opportunity to change the bill through a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today is a great day for America. For the first time in decades, the Federal Government is living within its means and actually spending less money than it has received from the taxpayers. Twenty, 10 or even 5 years ago, who would have thought it possible that the Federal Government could muster the discipline to curb its appetite for spending, slow the growth of government, and actually have some money left over at the end of the year? Amazing. But we stand here today to tell the American people that it is true. This year, there will be a total surplus of $161 billion, and, over 10 years, we expect a surplus of $2.8 trillion. Even to the government, that is a lot of money. Let us be clear. We are not just talking about the dollars we have locked away in the Social Security Trust Fund. We are also talking about an on-budget surplus that has not been identified for any specific program or purpose. It is extra money that the government has no plans to spend. So, today, we say to the American people, we are sorry that we overcharged you. We have enough money to run the government and to meet our obligations. So we are going to give back some of your hard-earned tax dollars. That is what the Financial Freedom Act is all about. This comprehensive legislation will provide tax relief for all Americans to manage their most important needs at virtually every stage of life. We believe that every taxpayer deserves relief. So the bill provides a 10 percent reduction in taxes across the board. In addition, the bill includes a number of specific tax relief provisions that will give people greater freedom to fulfill their personal priorities. If one is a student, one will benefit through the expanded education savings accounts and more interest deductions for student loans. If one is married, one can expect relief from the marriage penalty to the tune of $250 a year. If one is a small business owner, one will get an increased deduction for your health care premiums. One will be able to expense more of one's office equipment, and one will escape the extra surcharge on the unemployment taxes that one pays. If one is planning for retirement, the Financial Freedom Act offers one a stronger pension system, a 100 percent deduction for the purchase of long-term care insurance and capital gains relief. If one lives in a low-income community, one will see one's neighborhood improved through targeted pro-growth tax initiatives that help start-up businesses, encourage revitalization of buildings, and help poor families save more of their money. When one dies, one's family business, family farm, or personal savings will no longer suffer a fate of extinction. This bill phases out the destructive death tax. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on. I am sure many of my colleagues will discuss the details of these many provisions. But the point is that all taxpayers deserve a share in the rewards of a balanced budget, and this bill seeks to give back to all American taxpayers what is rightfully theirs, the overpayment they have made to the Federal Government. Now, Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues do not share this view. They want to hang on to the taxpayers' money, and they are fighting tax relief with the rhetoric that relies on erroneous claims that we are forsaking our commitment to Social Security and Medicare if we pass this bill. Well, I am pleased to have this opportunity to set the record straight. The Republican budget plan, along with the Social Security lockbox legislation which the House passed and the President supports will reserve $1.9 trillion for the Social Security and Medicare programs. That is far more money than we are devoting to tax relief. In fact, $2 out of every $3 of the total budget surplus will go to strengthen Social Security and Medicare. Every dime of payroll taxes will be used for these retirement programs, every dime. So given the facts which demonstrate an honest commitment to the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare, I have to wonder whether my colleagues' protests are heartfelt or if some other issue is really driving their opposition to this bill. I know it is hard for some of my colleagues to part with a surplus. But today, Americans are paying a record high 21 percent of GDP in taxes. What is the justification for this financial punishment that we are asking the American people to endure? If we cannot provide tax relief in a time of peace and prosperity when the Federal Government is awash in money and people are being taxed at record rates, then when will the time be right? I hope I live to see better circumstances, but I believe we have a rare opportunity today to return some money and control back to the individuals who make this Nation strong so that they can make decisions for their families and their futures with the money they have earned. By giving this money back, we are imposing additional discipline on politicians who will not have the money to spend on bigger government. Mr. Speaker, we should all be proud of the part we have played in moving our government down a path of fiscal responsibility that has contributed to the economic prosperity our Nation enjoys today. I hope my colleagues will join me in taking this next step toward creating a limited government that meets its core responsibilities but then gets out of the way so that the people can be free to pursue their personal priorities and seize on the opportunities that will allow them to live their American dream. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule so the House can move forward to debate and pass the Financial Freedom Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey), and I might just point out that if we had had any cooperation or assistance from the minority we would not have to amend rules on the floor.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus). (Mr. BACHUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Kuykendall).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we have one speaker remaining.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert a description of the amendment that I will offer in the Record.