Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it has been nearly five months since the President called upon Congress to create a new Department of Homeland Security, and nearly four months since the House first took up that task. This legislation has been through a long journey, full of procedural and partisan roadblocks, weighed down by special interests, and slowed by a storm of misdirection. I could not be more pleased that we are here today with this compromise legislation that will finally allow us to move the bill to the President's desk. This is a historic achievement. In recent days, members of the House and Senate have been through a thoughtful, thorough, and cooperative process. Every effort was made to address each concern while maintaining a basic framework that creates an effective department. This legislation will give the new Department of Homeland Security the tools it needs to succeed in its mission. And this, in my mind, is the key, because the new department's most basic and core mission will be to secure America from terrorist attack. On September 11, 2001, the streets of New York and Northern Virginia were turned to ash, while a grassy field in Pennsylvania played quiet witness to the final act of a heroic group of Americans. Creation of the Department of Homeland Security is the bold and necessary next step we must a take to ensure that this dark day is never repeated. We are not creating new government, we are creating better government. We are not legislating new bureaucracy, we are streamlining to face a new threat. We are making government smarter, more flexible, and ultimately, better able to secure America. The perpetrators of terrorism are shadowy and agile, and they target us like predators without distinction between military target and ordinary citizen. They are a 21st Century enemy with an agelessly corrupt goal-destruction of life, elimination of liberty, and restriction of human freedom. Our enemy has recognized that our greatest strength--the open society in which we live--also makes us vulnerable to their attacks. We fight this enemy not just on battlefields abroad, but in our very cities and towns. We must be able to respond at home in a strong, coordinated and agile way. The new cabinet-level department is only one part of our national response, but it is an essential part. The new Department will consolidate the vital preparedness, intelligence analysis, law enforcement, and emergency response functions that are currently dangerously dispersed among numerous federal departments and agencies. And in the process, the legislation balances the need to protect America with the need to preserve the American way of life that we are protecting. Thus far, the government has shown immense resolve and dedication, going to extraordinary lengths to respond to the terrorist threat. We are safer than we were on September 10th one year ago. But as the government's efforts reach the limits of their bureaucracies, we must rethink our government structure so that our nation can be even stronger, smarter, and better prepared. One of our revolutionary forefathers, George Mason, once said, ``Government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection and security of the people, nation or community.'' Make no mistake--our work today undertakes this very core function of government to secure the American people. I urge all of my colleagues to take measure of the task before us, and to support this fair rule and the underlying bill. It has been a long journey, but this legislation, and the American people, are all the better for it.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his strong leadership on this resolution. I rise in strong support of the rule which will allow this body and the American people the opportunity to engage in over 20 hours of debate on the resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. I would like also to take a moment to thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee on International Relations, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), and the ranking member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos), for their efforts to put this country ahead of any other consideration. Mr. Speaker, it is with a very heavy heart that we begin this debate on a resolution to authorize the use of force against another nation to protect freedom, the freedom of all Americans, the freedom of Iraq, the freedom of people all around the world. This is the freedom to be safe from fear, to be safe from oppression, and to be safe from hate. It is a choice that none of us wishes to make, but it is a choice that has been made for us. The President made his case to the American people last night and to anybody able to hear his speech. Unfortunately, the major networks chose not to carry it, so anyone whose local affiliates carried it or who have cable were able to hear his impassioned plea. But anyone who could hear his speech knows that this President does not want to lead us into war, but little has changed since he identified the threat from Iraq in his January State of the Union address. Iraq continues to pose a serious and imminent threat from its development of weapons of mass destruction and the obvious potential for Iraq to transfer these weapons to terrorist groups, terrorist groups that, like Saddam Hussein, hate the United States of America. There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man and, under his leadership, Iraq is a dangerous nation. Our quarrel is not with the Iraqi people. They are among those who have suffered the most under this regime; and, like the Afghanistan people when liberated from al Qaeda, the Iraqi people will rejoice if liberated from Saddam Hussein and his regime of terror. By acting today, we move to protect the American people. We do not abandon diplomacy, and we seek international support. However, we do serve notice to the Iraqi regime and, indeed, the world that the United States will defend itself against all threats. As we move forward, we keep in mind that the goal of any decision with regard to Iraq must be disarmament. Saddam's arsenal of terror must be dismantled, and time may not be on our side. Each day we wait, each day we put off acting, each day we are led astray by idle delays puts us closer to real risk. Iraq's claim that they are now suddenly willing to allow inspectors back in is extremely dubious. We have been down this road before. To achieve real assurance that Iraq is disarmed and cannot threaten our national security, more serious action may need to be taken. For the last year, we have waged a war against extremism, against hate, and against terror. Today's resolution will give our President the tools he needs to continue and to win this fight. I urge my colleagues to support this rule to allow us to enter into this full and open debate.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, rise to congratulate and celebrate the accomplishments of my fellow Ohioan and good friend, Tony Hall, as he is confirmed today as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome, Italy. Over the years, I had the pleasure of working with Tony on the House Rules Committee, as well as on many issues important to our state. Tony has done so much good work for the people of Ohio. However, I rise today not just to recognize his service to my state, but to emphasize the immeasurable contributions he has made to our nation and our global community. Tony was a voice of conscious to all of us and kept us keenly aware of human rights conditions around the world. Through his far reaching travels to the Philippines, East Timor, Paraguay, North Korea, Romania, and the former Soviet Union, Tony took an interest in relieving human suffering wherever it exists. With his personal experience, Tony was able to present us with a greater understanding of the realities of the human condition. I will always remember Tony's life-long determination to fight and alleviate hunger in our poorest neighborhoods, towns, and cities at home and around the world. For four years, Tony served as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Hunger, and he went on hunger strike to protest the abolition of the committee. He founded and chaired the Congressional Hunger Center. He sponsored innumerable legislative efforts to provide food to war-torn areas around the globe, increase assistance to low-income Americans, and fight hunger-related disease. His devotion and tireless effort to rid the world of hunger have been widely respected and recognized. Tony received the 1992 Silver World Food Day Medal from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the United States Committee for UNICEF 1995 Children's Legislative Advocate Award, the U.S. AID Presidential End Hunger Award, the 1992 Oxfam America Partners Award, the Bread for the World Distinguished Service Against Hunger Award, and the NCAA Silver Anniversary Award. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize no less than three times so far in his career. I can think of no individual with more expertise, better experience, or a bigger heart to take on this position with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. Tony has a long and proud record of public service--as a member of the Peace Corps, the Ohio House of Representatives. the Ohio Senate, and finally as a member of Congress for nearly 24 years. I know that in his new role, he will be serve the United States with the same dignity and dedication with which he has served in all his prior roles. Tony, you will be truly missed around here. We have shared our happiness for legislative victories for our state, and shared our grief when we lost our children to cancer. You may no longer be a fellow- Member of the House, but you will always be a friend. I congratulate Tony on his life of accomplishments and wish him the best of luck in his new position. He will be greatly missed by all of us here, and his legacy of passion, determination, and perseverance will be remembered and followed here in Congress for years to come.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, just over one year after the tragic events that touched the life of every American, to give solemn remembrance to that darkest of days. As do all Americans', my heart continues to ache when I think about the countless victims and families struck by the sad and shocking attacks of September 11, 2001. But, there is also pride in my heart for our great nation and the men and women who have responded so resolutely and valiantly to this challenge to our very way of life. The stories of tragedy, and the compelling stories of heroism, that emerged from the smoke and shattered buildings will forever be a part of our memory that day. When I rose to the House floor one-year ago filled with so many deep and powerful emotions, I pledged that we would not let the days that followed be remembered just for our sadness and anger, but for our national resolve. As a nation, we have pulled together in so many ways to overcome the vicious attempt to break our national spirit. We are living in historic times, and I have been so proud of the American people. New York City has been the personification of American strength and resiliency. I have also been proud of our work here in Congress to put aside politics to provide our armed forces and law enforcement officers with the resources and tools they need to fight the war on terrorism, and to make this nation safer than it was on September 10, 2001. This war is not an issue of politics, it is an issue of patriotism. Those responsible for last year's horrific events seriously miscalculated the strength and resolve of Americans. Our sense of security may have been temporarily unsteadied, but our unity is unwavering. Our bonds of liberty, our bonds of freedom, our bonds of democracy are stronger and run deeper than any individual, than any building, than any monument. No act of violence, no sharpened razor, can sever them. America has been committed through this last year to the difficult realities of living in the shadows of war. We have gone on living our lives because to do otherwise would be giving in to the evil behind September 11. But there should be no doubt that we will remain committed until those responsible learn the steep cost of taking innocent lives--innocent American lives--on American soil. We will never stop working to make America safe and secure. The flame of liberty remains bright and will continue to shine upon the world, casting deep into the dark shadows of violence, intolerance, and extremism. This is a time of remembrance. But it is also a time to renew our dedication to fighting until America is free from the threat of terrorism.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this important rule that will allow for consideration of these timely resolutions. We on this side of the aisle are very proud of all our timely accomplishments, starting with our budget. We went on to pass many, many important items for the American people: corporate responsibility, prescription drugs, historic tax relief, welfare reform, pension reform, and probably most importantly, homeland security. Mr. Speaker, I am a very strong supporter of all these things, the death tax repeal permanency which this measure includes; but I am here this morning to address an issue that I have been more closely involved with. More than 4 months ago in this very Chamber, the House of Representatives passed comprehensive welfare reform legislation to build on the 1996 historic reforms that changed the culture of our system from one of cyclical dependence across generations to one of personal responsibility. This legislation is a culmination of strong reflection and cooperation between Members of Congress who care passionately about ensuring that all Americans have the opportunity to live successful, productive lives. Mr. Speaker, much has changed since 1996. We have witnessed welfare rolls drop from 14 million to 5 million nationwide. More single mothers are employed than ever before, and nearly 3 million children have been lifted out of poverty. Prior to 1996 in my own home State of Ohio, we were passing out welfare checks to the tune of $82 million every month. Post-reforms, the price tag has been reduced to less than $27 million, and it is going to those who really need the help. In one State alone, that is a savings of $50 million. The welfare reform bill we passed in the House some 4 months ago will protect children by increasing child care funding and improving the quality of child care. It will strengthen families and improve child well-being. And it encourages States to implement innovative programs to offer struggling families the tools and resources they need to secure jobs and provide for their independence. Each one of these provisions is unique to the House bill and will not become a reality if the entire Congress does not finish up its work on reauthorizing welfare reform. As we consider this resolution, only 11 days remain before the 1996 reforms expire on September 30. The House of Representatives has done its work. Failure to deliver this welfare reform reauthorization to the President's desk before the expiration date could send the tremendous progress that we have seen since 1996 spiraling backwards into a sea of dependence. Over the last 6 years, millions of American men and women have overcome adversity, reversed course and rebuilt their lives. They have taught their children about the dignity of having a job and providing for their family. They have shared their stories with friends and neighbors. They are proud. We cannot afford to backpedal on the progress that we have made. Too many people have worked too hard to get where they are today. It is time for the Congress to complete action on this reauthorization. The House has answered the call of the American people and the President is waiting to sign this into law. I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this rule and all the underlying resolutions.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent on June 17, 24, and 25, 2002, and on September 9 and 10, 2002. Consequently, I missed the following recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on roll call votes no. 230, 231, 232, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, and 380.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the anniversary of the day our great nation was forever changed when terrorists attacked and killed thousands of Americans simply because they were American. Today, first and foremost, our Nation pays respect to the victims and their families. We stand united and remind them that one year has passed and still, we will never forget September the 11th. What happened to the United States on that infamous day brought out the best of the American spirit. The enemies who struck us grossly miscalculated the strength and resolve of the American people. They didn't know that our bonds of liberty, our bonds of freedom, and our bonds of democracy are stronger and run deeper than any individual, than any building, than any monument. As President Bush said, ``This country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world.'' During this unprecedented time of great challenge, there will be no corner of the earth where the demons of September 11th will be safe from justice. America will continue to fight for the security of our great nation, and for peace in the world. We will never forget every firefighter, flight attendant, father and friend that died that infamous day. May God watch over their families and continue to bless America.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we keep hearing reference to the word responsibility. We must have responsibility, and the SAFETY Act, the provision included in the en bloc amendment, the manager's amendment, makes the wrong- doers responsible. This indemnification amendment makes the taxpayers responsible. Responsibility is very important, but we cannot make the taxpayers of this country responsible for everything that goes wrong. We do not even know how much this will cost. Proponents did not even ask for a cost estimate. All we know is that the Congressional Budget Office tells us that it will cost a lot over a period of 5 years. We should find out how much this will cost before we proceed by adopting this amendment. Mr. Chairman, the SAFETY Act does not provide immunity from lawsuits, it simply provides that products approved by the Federal Government for use in homeland security, and deployed in cooperation with customers other than the Federal Government in order to save lives, should be allowed the benefit of the existing government contractor defense. We already know that this works. It is already in law. Under these provisions, any person or entity who engages in criminal or terrorist acts, including corporate crimes such as consumer fraud and government contract fraud, they are denied the protections. They do not get them. The Democrats cannot have it both ways. The SAFETY Act that is in the manager's amendment is the fastest and the most efficient way to deploy anti-terrorism technologies, much-needed technologies that will save lives, and it does it without extending any immunity and it does it without leaving the American taxpayers holding the bag. The Turner provision will do just that. It will leave the American taxpayers holding the bag. We get that assignment all too often, Mr. Chairman. Allow the reasonable insurance coverage to kick in, provide for very limited tort reform, and we have the answer. We can go forward.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 354, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.'' Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I compliment him once again on the job he has done with putting this together. Mr. Chairman, the claims arising out of the deployment of qualified antiterrorism technologies would be covered by litigation management provisions that simply provide for this; once again, very simply. A consolidation of claims in Federal court. That makes perfect sense. The requirement that any noneconomic damages be awarded only in the proportion to a party's percentage of fault. That makes perfect sense. A ban on punitive damages. A ban on punitive damages that so often are disproportionate to any real claim or harm done. A ban on punitive damages. Once again, perfect sense. Offsets of awards based on receipt of collateral source benefits. We can only get paid once, not twice or 3 times. A reasonable, very reasonable limit on attorneys' fees, once again, perfect sense. Mr. Chairman, the Safety Act provisions of this en bloc manager's amendment are vital to ensuring that the American people are protected by the most reliable and up-to-date antiterrorism technology available. Unfortunately, the flaws in our current tort system keep that from happening right now. We need the life-saving and life-protecting technologies that are out there close to being developed. But one company, for instance, based in my home State of Ohio, produces a state of the art technology that is vital to decontamination following an anthrax attack. Yet, they are prevented from using this technology to assist in the cleanup of any infected areas or buildings by the daunting and limitless liability that they could face if their patriotic efforts failed for some reason. The Safety Act provisions certainly do not provide immunity in any way from any lawsuit; they simply place reasonable and sensible limits on lawsuits so that America's leading technology innovators will be able to deploy solutions to thwart terrorist attacks. The alternative solution of indemnification is no solution at all. It is fiscally irresponsible; it will attempt to put the Treasury and, through it, the U.S. taxpayers and their deep pockets at risk by those, the very people that exploit the technology producers who join in the fight against terrorism. Mr. Chairman, this is common sense. The time is right for it to happen. The threat of liability has a chilling effect, both on technological advances and the implementation of any new technology. I think it is a perfect place for it in the en bloc amendment; it is reasonable, it makes sense. The time is right for it. We need it now.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 502 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the beginning of what I believe will be a very broad and worthwhile debate on how best to secure our beloved country. There is universal recognition among my colleagues that our Nation is a different place than it was just 10 months ago, and our government must reflect that new reality. While the steps that we take today are a simple reorganization of existing governmental functions, we should not doubt that our work will directly serve the freedom, the liberty and the way of life of all American people. I urge Members to take measure of the task that we have before us, support this fair and open rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, who led us through this process with great decorum and statesmanship.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Weldon), a member of the Committee on Armed Services. (Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims of the Committee on the Judiciary to testify on the Hastert- Gephardt rule.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Diaz- Balart) and fellow member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Portman), a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security and someone who has devoted countless hours to this cause.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), who has worked so hard on this issue over the years before it became something that the Nation was riveted upon. (Mr. THORNBERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the deputy whip.

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), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules and a member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, 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, H. Res. 502 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 5005, the Homeland Security Act. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security. It provides an amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Select Committee on Homeland Security now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule also makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be debatable only for the time specified, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division of the question, except as specified in section 4. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and waives all points of order against such amendments. The rule provides the select committee chairman or his designee en bloc authority. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, America has awakened to a new era in global affairs. As President Bush has noted, we are today a nation at risk to a new and changing threat. We can no longer hold on to the belief that between our shores we are free from the violence of the world. On September 11, we learned all too well and at all too high a price that a stark new reality confronts us as a Nation. We should not doubt that our freedom, our liberty, our very way of life are under attack. Today we take bold and necessary steps to reshape our Government to reflect the sad new reality. The process we will use to take these steps is a fair and equitable one, and I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that while this is a structured rule, this rule reflects the negotiated recommendations of the House leadership, both Republican and Democrat, and will allow for a spirited debate on issues focused on homeland security and creation of the Department of Homeland Security. It is jointly recommended by the Speaker of the House and the minority leader and their wisdom ensures that all opinions will be considered and all issues pertaining to homeland security are aired because, Mr. Speaker, the victims of terror do not care about political differences. This nonpartisan process for consideration of H.R. 5005 illustrates that the security of our homeland simply cannot and must not be a partisan issue. Of course, this does not mean that difficult decisions have not been made during the process of crafting legislation, and it does not mean that more difficult decisions have yet to be made here tonight and tomorrow. I had the great honor to serve on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, which just last week considered and marked up the underlying legislation. Under the fair and steady leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), Chairman and leader, the Select Committee heard from some of the Nation's most selfless, accomplished, and dedicated public servants. We also considered the expert recommendations made by the 12 committees of jurisdiction in the House and incorporated the vast majority of their recommendations. The Select Committee process was fair, open, and inclusive. We continue that practice today with this rule, which was crafted through joint effort by the majority and the minority. The world we live in today is a very different place than it was in 1947 when the last major reorganization of our Government took place. At that time, as noted by President Truman, the world was a place ``in which strength on the part of peace-loving nations was still the greatest deterrent to aggression.'' Today our military might, while still vital to our national defense, is no longer sufficient in and of itself to deter aggression and to ensure our national security. The perpetrators of terrorism have recognized that our greatest strength, the open society in which we live, also makes us vulnerable to their attacks. They are shadowy and agile, and they target us like predators without distinction between military target and ordinary citizen. The war against terror is fought not just on battlefields abroad but in our very own cities and towns. We must be able to respond at home in a strong, informed, coordinated and agile way. The creation of a new Cabinet-level Department is only one part of our national response, but it is a very essential part. The new Department will consolidate vital preparedness, intelligence analysis, law enforcement, and emergency response functions that are currently dangerously dispersed among numerous Federal departments and agencies. And while no price is too high to ensure the long-term security of our Nation, this Department will be created in a way that eliminates redundancies and inefficiencies so that costs are minimized. Specifically, this bill takes steps to protect our borders through inclusion of the Coast Guard, the Customs Service, and several important functions of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service. The bill ensures that the new Department will engage and coordinate with State and local first responders by including FEMA and the Secret Service. The bill promotes world-class research and development in the public and private sectors. And importantly, the bill preserves our essential freedoms and liberties while ensuring that the Department is open and accountable to Congress and the American people. This legislation ensures that the new Department will have all the tools it needs to successfully protect and defend America in the near future and as the threat continues to evolve. An essential tool in the new Department's arsenal will be its flexible and motivated work force that can respond swiftly to this shifting threat. The legislation maintains all the basic Federal employment protections, including protections for whistleblowers and the right to collectively bargain, while allowing additional agility in key selected areas so that the new Department can attract and retain the best and brightest and move personnel when national security requires. The success of the new Department will be inexorably linked to the abilities, motivation and hard work of its employees, and this bill respects and protects their rights. President Truman described the period following World War II as ``an age when unforeseen attack could come with unprecedented speed.'' Fifty-five years later that description applies equally well. Once again, Congress must heed the call of our President and take up an historic task. Thus far the Government has shown immense resolve and dedication, going to extraordinary lengths to respond to the terrorist threat. We are safer than we were on September 10, but as the Government's efforts reach the limits of their own bureaucracies, we have to rethink that structure so that our Nation can be even stronger, smarter, and better prepared. I urge all my colleagues to take the measure of the task very seriously. In no uncertain terms, our work will protect the American people. I hope that we will have an open, honest, and productive discussion. While we may disagree on the minutia, at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, we must not let the safety and security of the American people be a casualty of this debate. I urge all my colleagues to support this fair rule and the underlying bill, and I will now I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pay tribute to Susan Hirschmann--an amazing member of the Majority Whip's staff who is leaving the House of Representatives after serving the public and this institution for 10 years. It is difficult to sum up who Susan Hirschmann is or to overstate her impact on this institution. Susan is many things to many people, and she is always there for Members whatever their need. Whether you are in need of a meal, a sounding board, or a project for your district--Susan is there and she delivers! There's no doubt in my mind that Susan's savvy and intellect is at the foundation of most successes of our Republican majority. She is not just a leadership staffer, she is a leader. And, for women who want to be power brokers in Washington, I can't think of a better role model. While Susan's credentials as a conservative Republican are sterling, she doesn't discriminate on ideology. For one, she knows that every Member represents a vote. But, she is more than a vote counter. She respects the House as an institution and she's always looking out for the team, and that means understanding and caring about the Members. I want to take this opportunity to thank Susan: for listening--even when the message is tough to hear, for offering her sage advice, for telling it like it is, for getting the job done--no matter the obstacles, for being an inspiration to women, and most importantly, for her friendship.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet later this week to grant a rule which may limit the amendment process on the legislative branch appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. The bill was ordered reported by the Committee on Appropriations Thursday, July 11, and is expected to be filed later today. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment must submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a very brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol no later than 12 noon on Wednesday, July 17. Members should draft their amendments to the bill as reported by the Committee on Appropriations. The text is available at the Committee on Appropriations. 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.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 475 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Again, this is an open rule and noncontroversial, but a necessary piece of legislation. It sets up a clear process for building investigation and will allow use, upgrade of the safety of existing buildings and future structures. I urge all my colleagues to support this rule and this very, very important piece of legislation. I want once again to commend the committee and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman, and all who have participated in drafting this important piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.