Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 518 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of granting permanent normal trade relation status to China, and I want to congratulate the Chairman of the Committee on Rules (Mr. Dreier), and so many others, on their very hard work on this issue. We come here together on the eve of a very historical vote that will define our vision as a Congress and secure America's place in the world community. The evidence of the importance of granting PNTR is clear. Just look at my home State of Ohio. Ohio is the Nation's fifth largest soybean producer and sixth largest corn producer. Under these terms, Chinese tariffs on soybeans will be set at a new low of 3 percent and 1 percent for grains. This means increased exports for Ohio. Increased exports means new business, new jobs, and greater prosperity in Ohio. If my colleagues question the importance of these economic benefits, then they should keep this fact firmly in mind: China will join the WTO with our without our support. Therefore, the question that really faces us is whether we want to be a part of the process and reap the significant economic benefits or whether we want to find ourselves on the outside looking in. If anyone should remain unpersuaded by irrefutable economic benefits for America, then remember that our vote also represents new hope for the people of China. I firmly believe the best way to foster change and social improvement for China is for the United States to remain engaged. Let us shine the light of liberty across the ocean, over the Great Wall, and into the heart of China by expanding our trade relationship. Greater economic freedom is a precursor to political freedom. We must decide whether we will extend our hands to assist the pro-reform elements in Chinese society or turn our backs and allow the misguided militant socialist forces to strengthen their hold. We must take the battle of freedom versus tyranny to the Chinese people. Change in China will not occur overnight, but change will not occur at all if we shut out China from the world market and shut ourselves off from the world as well. We cannot turn our backs on the Chinese people, and we cannot turn our backs on this opportunity for America. We must support PNTR.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate my good friend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for his dedication to this cause and for his hard work in the battle against cancer on every front. I also want to recognize the courage of my colleague the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick). Her own personal fight against cancer is truly inspiring. The battle she is waging is not just for her own survival but also to promote awareness so that other women may prevail against this dreaded and all too familiar disease. The public education that promotes early detection is absolutely crucial for cancer patients. And in the case of breast cancer, education is no small task, since one in eight American women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. After breast cancer, cervical cancer is the second most commonly diagnosed malignancy in women, 15,000 each year. This cancer often has no symptoms, and regular pap smears are our best defense. This legislation builds on efforts Congress has already taken to encourage early detection of these cancers among low-income women. While these services are absolutely critical, their value is significantly diminished if these women find out they have cancer but do not have the resources to access treatment. Imagine coping with the fear of being diagnosed with cancer compounded by the prospect of having no way to pay for the treatment that could save your life. This bill helps these vulnerable women by encouraging States to provide Medicaid coverage to those diagnosed. And, in my mind, if it is a good public policy to use tax dollars to help these women detect their disease, then certainly it is worth every penny we spend to help them fight it. I urge all of my colleagues to join with me in giving these women hope by voting for the Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Act. I congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) and the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Myrick).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, let me first congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for their very, very important work. We all hope that the wealth of our Nation and the amazing technological advances that have been made in medicine will give us the necessary resources to protect our children from harm. We have made tremendous progress, but the sad fact is that there are still so many diseases that affect our children for which there is no cure, or even effective treatment. The legislation before us will give child victims and their families hope by devoting more Federal resources to diseases such as autism, Fragile X, asthma, skeletal malignancies, juvenile diabetes, the list goes on and on. Sadly, it is quite long. This legislation will also focus on prevention by encouraging healthy pregnancies, analyzing data about birth defects, and investigating the deaths and severe complications through pregnancy. In addition, a new pediatric research initiative at NIH, along with reauthorization for money to train physicians at children's hospitals, will help us better understand the way in which diseases attack children and how to give them the most effective and appropriate care. There are critical differences between medical care for adults and medical care for children, which must be reflected in training of physicians and treatments designed for a child's system, which is still developing. This legislation recognizes and focuses on these important differences. Mr. Speaker, while we may never be able to make a child understand why they are sick or are made to suffer, we can invest in the research that will allow our best and brightest scientists to solve the mysteries of childhood disease so that more children can live the carefree youths to which they are entitled. What better way to invest our Nation's resources. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this important child health initiative that will give hope to children and families across America who are searching for answers and praying for a return to the normalcy that will come with good health. As America's leaders, this investment in our children's health is really the least we can do to secure a better future for our Nation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Once again I would like to emphasize the fairness of this rule. Of the 12 amendments made in order by the rule, five are Democrats' amendments, four are Republicans' amendments and three are bipartisan. I would say this is not only fair but generous since the bill itself is not particularly controversial. Like the rule, the underlying bill is a careful balance built on compromise which has earned the support of 155 bipartisan cosponsors. It is also supported by numerous organizations from the Fraternal Order of Police and the Consortium for Citizens With Disabilities to the Homebuilders and America's Community Bankers. Mr. Speaker, as Congress grapples with budget surpluses and many Americans bask in our Nation's economic prosperity, we cannot turn a blind eye to those who have been left behind and who are still struggling to know what the American dream is all about. We can give these hardworking individuals a chance to experience the pride and independence that is the heart of the American society by giving them a chance to own their own home. The flexibility, local control and personal empowerment that this bill offers to our housing policies is the right way to lend a helping hand to those Americans who are honest, hardworking citizens and who need a small boost to get ahead and improve their lives for themselves and their families. I urge support for this fair rule and for the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we have no requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), ranking member of the Committee on Rules; 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, House Resolution 460 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1776, the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, after which the House will consider a bipartisan manager's amendment, as well as 11 other amendments that the Committee on Rules made in order. Of these amendments, five will be offered by Democrats, four will be offered by Republicans, and three are bipartisan. Additionally, the rule allows the minority to offer the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions. So I think it is fair to describe this rule as carefully balanced and fair. It gives Members on both sides of the aisle equal opportunity to alter the legislation, and the House will have the opportunity to fully debate the merits of the bill. Mr. Speaker, the American Homeownership Act is the result of hard work and negotiation, and I commend the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio) for his continued commitment to updating and improving our Nation's housing policies. The goal of H.R. 1776 is simple. The bill seeks to help more Americans realize the dream of owning their own home. While today's economic prosperity has allowed our Nation's homeownership rate to peak at 67 percent and nearly 70 million households own their homes, we all know that not every American is enjoying today's economic boom. For too many hard-working families, homeownership seems an unattainable dream. H.R. 1776 takes a number of steps to reduce the barriers to homeownership that low-income Americans face. For example, the bill reduces unnecessary, excessive regulation that adds thousands of dollars to the cost of a home. Under this legislation, all proposed Federal regulations must include a housing impact analysis so that the Government can determine if policies will jeopardize the availability of affordable housing. H.R. 1776 also empowers local communities to boost homeownership in their neighborhoods. People who own their homes have a greater stake in their neighborhoods; and by increasing homeownership, cities can look forward to cleaner, safer neighborhoods. Under the bill, localities will be able to leverage public funds with private funds in order to increase homeownership opportunities. Through the creation of a mixed-income loan pool and a home loan guaranteed program, more Americans will have access to affordable housing. Local flexibility is also enhanced by provisions that allow mayors and local government officials to use Federal funds to assist first- time home buyers who are municipal employees to purchase homes in the communities where they serve. It makes sense for those who are largely responsible for the safety of our communities and who act as role models for our children, such as police officers, fire fighters, teachers, to actually live in the neighborhoods where they work. This bill will grant localities the flexibility to establish smarter urban planning policies and strengthen their communities by allowing city workers to become our neighbors and keeping workers closer to their jobs. The American Homeownership Opportunity Act also helps families who rely on section 8 rent assistance, by giving public housing authorities the option of providing a single grant to a tenant as a down payment assistance in lieu of the monthly assistance for rent. Special assistance is also provided to the disabled, to Native Americans, rural residents, and senior citizens through this bill. Another housing policy that H.R. 1776 corrects is the existence of HUD-foreclosed, vacant, and substandard properties that scar neighborhoods and hamper economic vitality. This bill seeks to put these properties into the hands of local governments and community development corporations who can revitalize these neglected neighborhoods. Finally, the bill updates the antiquated provisions of the Manufactured Housing Act to improve the quality, safety, and affordability of manufactured homes and the Federal management of the program. These changes are the result of cooperation and negotiation among Congress, the industry, and consumer groups. In fact, Mr. Speaker, on the whole, H.R. 1776 is the product of cooperative efforts between Democrats and Republicans, and it enjoys the support of numerous organizations, including the National Education Association, the Homebuilders, the Mortgage Lenders, Community Bankers, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Realtors, to name just a few. Still, for those who are not fully supportive of this bill, the rule provides the House with an opportunity to consider a number of amendments that may alter its provisions. I hope that after today's full debate of this measure, its merits will be very clear and that the House will preserve the good policy of this long-awaited and carefully crafted bill. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act. Let us take this opportunity to help more Americans know the pride and independence that owning a home offers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 460 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. Hastings), for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule. As a cosponsor of the underlying legislation, H.R. 3671 the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs Improvement Act of the year 2000, I am pleased that this open rule will allow this body to fully debate this environmentally sound and fiscally responsible legislation. H.R. 3671 addresses recently uncovered waste, fraud and abuse in two very important funds established by two different acts of Congress which provide money to the States for wildlife and sport fishing conservation programs. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's sportsmen and women proudly contribute to wildlife and fish improvement projects every time they purchase fishing tackle, hunting gear, or any other sporting goods. However, recent oversight hearings held by the House Committee on Resources and an audit conducted by the General Accounting Office have revealed widespread abuses and misuses of millions of dollars of these funds, which are financed by the excise taxes on sporting goods, guns, ammunition, fishing tackle, and motor boat fuel. In fact, the General Accounting Office has characterized this program as one of the worst- managed programs the investigator has ever encountered. H.R. 3671 addresses and rightfully corrects these abuses by increasing accountability and reeling in the administrative use of these funds so that this waste of taxpayer money will not occur in the future. Simply put, the money paid by our Nation's sportsmen and women will go toward wildlife and fish improvement projects, as the law specified, rather than on unauthorized expenditures, slush funds, alcoholic beverages, or overseas trips to exotic designations. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3671 goes to the very heart of why our constituents elected us to office, to safeguard their money and to ensure that it is spent wisely. As a fiscal conservative, my constituents sent me to Washington to reduce the size of bureaucracy, increase the efficiency of Federal programs, and improve the accountability of our government. This bill represents the very checks and balances between the administration and the Congress which our Founding Fathers envisioned to control waste, fraud and abuse. Passage of this legislation will allow us to regain the trust of those who enjoy what our great outdoors has to offer and who seek to contribute to its conservation. I would like to commend the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) and the House Committee on Resources for their bipartisan work in oversight in protecting the American taxpayer while at the same time increasing funds for true conservation. I urge adoption of this open rule and passage of the underlying bill.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 87 I was in advertably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, let me remind my colleagues that this rule that we are considering is a fair rule. The House will have the opportunity to debate the major points of contention surrounding the private property rights legislation. The Committee on Rules has made in order two Democrat amendments as well as a bipartisan substitute which will be debatable for 1 hour. Under the rule, questions of how this bill affects local decision- making and authority, how property owners' constitutional rights are treated as compared to other civil rights, and how we can ensure our citizens have the opportunity to see a timely resolution of their constitutional claims, all these things, will be discussed at length. Then, with the benefit of this debate, the House may work its will. These are weighty questions, and the rule respects the disparate views of the Members of the House by providing for a full debate. I urge all my colleagues to support this fair rule so that we may move forward with today's debate and act to ensure that our citizens have access to their courts and the opportunity to fully exercise the constitutional rights that we each fight to uphold every day.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. 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 yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 441 is a fair rule that provides for the consideration of the key issues surrounding H.R. 2372, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000. The rule provides for an hour of general debate, after which the House will have the opportunity to debate two Democrat amendments and a bipartisan substitute. Adequate time will be allowed to fully debate the merits of each amendment, with an hour of debate time provided for the bipartisan substitute. In addition, the minority will have the opportunity to offer a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today, with the adoption of this rule, the House will have the opportunity to open the Federal courthouse doors to America's private property owners who are clamoring outside, hoping to gain entrance to exercise their constitutional rights. At one time in our Nation's history, the property rights of individuals were sacred. In our Constitution, the founding fathers provided that no person shall be denied of life, liberty or property without due process, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. But increasingly, local, State, and Federal governments have overlooked the Constitution and placed more and more restrictions on land use in a manner that ignores, rather than protects, the interests of those who own the land. In these situations, it is only right that landowners have a fair opportunity to challenge the decisions of governmental bodies that affect their constitutional rights in court. But instead, their access to justice is routinely denied through procedural hurdles that prevent the resolution of their ``takings'' claims. In fact, over the past decade, less than 20 percent of takings claims raised in the U.S. district court had the merits of their cases heard, and for those who chose to spend time and money to appeal their case, only about 36 percent had their appeals heard on the merits. For the few lucky property owners whose appellate cases were found to be ``ripe'' and the merits reached, the journey to an appellate court determination took them an average of 9\1/2\ years to navigate. These numbers do not even take into account the many low-income or middle-class property owners who are too intimidated by the process and costs involved to venture down this road in the first place. There are two major obstacles in the path of property owners who wish to vindicate their constitutional rights in Federal court. First, property owners must demonstrate that the government entity which has ``taken'' their property through an administrative action or regulation has reached a final decision regarding how the property may be used. Now, it is not hard for local governments to take advantage of takings law by repeatedly delaying their final decision on land use, putting property owners in a perpetual holding pattern and keeping them out of Federal court. In these situations, the merits of the cases are never heard. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2372 lowers this obstacle by clarifying when a final decision has been made, so that property owners can move on to the next step in resolving their claims. Under current law, private property owners also must show they have sought compensation through the procedures the State has provided. Why should we require that a State court complete its considerations of questions of Federal constitutional law before a Federal court can take action? This runs counter to the Supreme Court's refusal to require exhaustion of State judicial or administrative remedies in other Federal claims, since it is the paramount role of Federal courts to protect constitutional rights. Further, the time, energy, and money that it takes to exhaust administrative remedies, pursue a case in State court, refile in Federal court, and fight a government entity with deep pockets, present hurdles that are far too high for the average property owner to ever clear. H.R. 2372 will allow more takings cases to reach the merits in Federal courts by removing the requirement that property owners litigate their Federal takings claims in State court first. While H.R. 2372 gives hope of swifter justice to many property owners, there are several things it will not do. It will not alter the substantive law of takings under the fifth amendment. It will not prevent local governments from enacting regulations to protect the environment or health and safety of its citizens within the bounds of the Constitution, and it will not reduce the heavy burden of proof faced by property owners in takings cases in the first place. Still, there are concerns about these issues, particularly regarding this legislation's effect on local zoning processes. I am pleased to inform my colleagues that under this fair rule, an hour of debate on the Boehlert-Delahunt substitute will allow the House to fully consider this issue. While this bill is not without controversy, this rule is fair in its treatment of the minority, as well as in its provision for ample debate of the issues at hand. Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this rule, and 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 441 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. 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.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady), Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. 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.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of March 20 to grant a rule which will outline the amendment process for floor consideration of the budget resolution for fiscal year 2001. The Committee on the Budget ordered the budget resolution on March 15 and is expected to file its committee report early next week. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by 4 o'clock p.m. on Tuesday, March 21. As in recent years, the Committee on Rules intends to look more favorably toward amendments offered as complete substitutes. Members should also use the Office of Legislative Counsel and the Congressional Budget Office to ensure that their substitute amendments are properly drafted and scored and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their substitute amendments comply with the Rules of the House.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make an announcement. Today, a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet next week to grant a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3822, the Oil Price Reduction Act of the Year 2000. The Committee on Rules may grant a rule which would require the amendments be preprinted in the Congressional Record. In this case, amendments must be preprinted prior to their consideration on the floor. Amendments should be drafted to the version of the bill reported by the Committee on International Relations. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, many people ask me, How can you come to agreement on a budget with the President whose vision for America is so different from your own? That is a fair question. And the answer is, with much difficulty. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Democrats and the Republicans have honest fundamental differences in our views of the role of government in our lives. It is no secret that the Democrats want government to have a greater role in our lives and Republicans think that the government role is already far too great. It is no secret that Democrats want to increase the size and power of government. Republicans want to reduce them. It is no secret that the Democrats think that more government can help solve the problem of poverty. Republicans think that far from ending poverty, government welfare programs perpetuate it. Mr. Speaker, we have disagreements on matters of principle, but the American people have asked us to work together on our country's budget. Let us go forward and carry out their wishes. Next week we will have that very opportunity.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very fair rule which will allow the House to work its will on the question of raising the minimum wage and providing tax relief to the very businesses that will pay the cost of this new Federal mandate. Now, no matter what my colleagues' position may be on the minimum wage or on tax relief, they will have an opportunity to make their views very clear through the procedure by which we will consider these two bills. Now what could be fairer? For those who support this minimum wage, this rule makes in order legislation to increase it by a dollar over 3 years. If that table is not fast enough, the rule allows Members to vote for a Democrat amendment that increases the minimum wage by $1 over 2 years. Now, of course, many of my colleagues do not think the government should play any role in setting the wages and telling businesses what to pay employees. Even these Members will have at least two opportunities to make their disapproval known when they vote against the Martinez-Traficant amendment and final passage. Whatever one's view is on the minimum wage, I hope that we all recognize that this policy is not free. Someone actually has to pay the higher wages. Those who pay the highest prices are the small businesses across this Nation, the engines of our economy, those businesses which are creating jobs for some of our workers who are the very, very hardest to employ. That is why this rule also allows the House to vote on tax relief for these small companies. The mom and pop store fronts and the new start- up businesses, the dreams of our country's entrepreneurs. Under this rule, Members can register their support for these businesses by voting for legislation that increases the self-employed health insurance deduction to 100 percent, reduces the death tax so that family businesses can be passed on from one generation to the next. It increases the deduction for business meal expenses, and it reforms pension laws to help businesses offer more retirement security to their workers. All of these changes will be helpful to the businessmen and women who are responsible for the innovations and job creation that are making this economy so very strong. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with some controversial issues today on which Members of the House have very, very different views. But this rule gives all Members a fair opportunity to express their position and let the House work its will. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are not happy, but believe me, Mr. Speaker, many of our colleagues on this side of the aisle are not happy either; and it is my experience that that usually means we have a pretty good rule. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio

Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. McIntosh), who has done so much hard work on this bill.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from the great State of Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon a ``Dear Colleague'' letter will be sent to all Members informing them that the Committee on Rules is planning to meet the week of February 14 to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process for H.R. 2366, the Small Business Liability Reform Act of 2000. Any Member who wishes to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by noon on Tuesday, February 15, to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported by the Committee on the Judiciary. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the office of the parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the Rules of the House.