Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, to quote the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, House Resolution 196 is an ``appropriate'' and fair rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 7, the Community Solutions Act of 2001; and it is consistent with previous rules that our committee has reported and the House has adopted on legislation that amends the Tax Code. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. After general debate, it will be in order to consider a substitute amendment offered by the minority which is printed in the Committee on Rules report and will be debatable for 1 hour. Finally, the rule permits the minority another opportunity to amend the bill through a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill as well as the amendment in the nature of a substitute. Mr. Speaker, before I go any further, let me take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) for all their hard work on this legislation. They are certainly dedicated leaders in the quest to help the poor and the needy, both here and abroad. As our President, George W. Bush, has stated, the Community Solutions Act will allow us ``to enlist, equip, enable, empower, and expand the heroic works of faith-based and community groups all across America.'' The Community Solutions Act features three primary provisions to encourage charitable works. First, it provides important tax incentives to increase charitable giving by allowing more than 80 million taxpayers who do not itemize their returns to take a deduction for charitable contributions. In doing so, we are recognizing that generosity flows not only from the wealthy but just as often from the less affluent, some of whom have worked their way out of poverty and wish to give something back to struggling communities and families. It is not necessarily extra incentives these good souls need, but should we not at least show them appreciation for their philanthropy through equitable treatment under the Tax Code? The bill goes further to encourage philanthropy by also permitting tax-free distributions from individual retirement accounts for donations to qualified charities. In addition to individuals, there are businesses that stand ready and willing to help the less fortunate and lift up their communities. H.R. 7 enables this charity through commonsense policies that allow resources to be directed to the needy rather than being discarded. We are a wealthy Nation where resources abound, and we cannot succumb to the luxury of wastefulness. We must do better by our citizens in need, and this legislation embraces that principle. For example, through an enhanced tax deduction, H.R. 7 encourages restaurants and small businesses to donate food to the hungry that might otherwise perish, uneaten, while children go to bed with empty bellies and seniors choose medicine over food. The bill also helps the business community fulfill their charitable missions by removing the threat of frivolous lawsuits that punish the good deeds of donating equipment, facilities, or vehicles to nonprofit organizations. Mr. Speaker, these are commonsense, meaningful steps that we can take to make a real difference in people's lives. ``Charitable choice'' is another tenet of H.R. 7. As first established in 1996 and expanded in subsequent years, charitable choice applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, provisions of welfare and the social services block grant program. The Community Solutions Act appropriately expands charitable choice provisions to include nine new program areas, including juvenile delinquency and prevention, crime prevention, housing, job training, senior citizen programs, community development, domestic violence prevention and intervention and hunger relief. The Community Solutions Act builds on these existing charitable choice provisions which were signed into law already on four separate occasions. I would note to my colleagues that each of these important laws passed this House with wide bipartisan support and well over 300 votes. Mr. Speaker, the charitable choice provisions in this bill prohibit the government from discriminating based on religion against organizations that apply to provide services under specified federally funded programs. In other words, charitable choice provides a level playing field for any group, any group, religious or secular, that wishes to compete for Federal social service funding. Charitable choice says that what an organization believes has no bearing whatsoever on how it is evaluated regarding what it can do for the poor and the needy. In my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, the historic parish of Holy Family Church under the direction of Father Kevin Lutz feeds over 500 people daily in its soup kitchen and provides clothing and needed medical care to those who might otherwise go without. But in addition to the food and the clothing and the medicine, Father Lutz and the many volunteers of Holy Family are proven providers of care and compassion. I am proud of the work they are doing at home in my community. They are able to touch the lives of the needy and the poor in ways that government never can, because those grounded in faith can often provide the steadiest helping hand for those in despair. Of course, charitable choice and the Community Solutions Act maintain important safeguards to protect the fundamental character of these organizations and to prevent them from discriminating against or proselytizing to the individuals which they serve. As crafted under the bipartisan leadership of the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall) and honed by the Committee on the Judiciary, this bill strikes a careful balance between expanding the universe of social care and protecting individual and organizational religious freedom. Finally, the Community Solutions Act creates individual development accounts which will allow low-income individuals to save and have matching funds so that they can accumulate a small nest egg, maybe enough to allow them to reach the dream of buying their first home or completing a college education or even starting a small business. It is a helping hand for those who need it most, who might never get a leg up any other way. This is commonsense legislation that encourages charitable giving and enlists the strongest of our allies in our effort to provide desperately needed social services. Mr. Speaker, we should never turn our backs on those who wish to help in the battle against despair, poverty, crime, and drug addiction. We should never turn our backs on those who have demonstrated an incredibly superior capacity to help over and over, one neighbor at a time. If we do turn our backs on those who seek to help, we turn our backs on those who need the help. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 196 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, the work of the Committee on Rules is never done. We work hard and we work late into the evening trying to fine-tune some of the most controversial issues that this House ever faces. And, indeed, that is exactly what we did last night. My friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), came to our committee and he made his presentation; and he was passionate, as he always is, because he believes in this. And to a large extent, I do as well. This has been his cause, and he has fought it very well. So I am very surprised today by all the fanfare over this manager's amendment, because the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) did not even mention this manager's amendment in his presentation to the Committee on Rules until I brought it up. At that time he said, oh yes, and he explained it briefly, and left us on the committee with the distinct impression that as long as his provisions were included in some way, it was okay to divide it up. Indeed, his words were: ``There are about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 12 changes, one or two are technical, some are substantive, but this is an amendment that gets our bill in a form that we are most comfortable defending. And so, obviously, we like it. Some people have said you might like to divide them up into pieces; however, you decide.'' He told the Committee on Rules, you decide. And so we did. We felt that to divide this up and allow examination of these substantive changes was the right and fair thing to do. So for all of us who have worked so hard to get this bill here today, for everyone who has done so much, no matter where you stand on it, do not kill this rule. Today is the day. Have we not waited long enough? There is nothing unfair about this rule. And if it is defeated, I hope that this country understands who defeated it.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, Joe Moakley was one of the most upfront even-handed Members that I have had the privilege to serve with. This House will sorely miss him. As Ranking Member of the Rules Committee, Joe always had a joke for the members, a smile for the staff, and a twinkle in his eye even as we worked late into the night. He was a friend to all and a mentor to many. A classic Bostonian politician, Joe's life was dedicated to serving the people well. And last week, I learned first hand just how much South Boston and those whom he represented loved him. It was an honor to join his community in their sad good-bye. For the Members of the Rules Committee Joe will not be forgotten. His presence remains with us and his portrait hanging just upstairs in our committee reminds us that he is watching over us.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 143 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), who has been such an integral of this effort.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant), my distinguished colleague.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague and friend, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 143 makes in order the bill H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, under a structured rule. The rule provides 2 hours of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. It makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution, debatable for the time specified, equally controlled by a proponent and opponent. These amendments shall not be subject to amendment or demands for a division of the question. The Committee on Rules worked very hard to ensure that the amendments made in order reflect the variety of views in this House of Representatives on education policy. I think the result is a balanced rule that gives the House the opportunity to work its will on a variety of issues related to the education of our children. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill as well as the amendments printed in the report. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, today we take a historic leap forward on behalf of our children, parents, and teachers across this great Nation. Lately, the attention of Americans has been drawn to the problems of high gas prices and sustainability of our resources. America, it is time to focus that attention on our Nation's most precious resource: our children. H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, does just that. We understand that the future of this great Nation lies in a global economy, and H.R. 1 recognizes that investing in our children today will prepare them and our country for the challenges of tomorrow. The Committee on Education and the Workforce was assigned the arduous task of reforming our Nation's failing Federal education policy. Although there have been many bumps in the road, I am pleased to stand before my colleagues today to present a rule on a bipartisan piece of legislation that will transform the Federal role in education to ensure that no child is left behind. During testimony in the Committee on Rules, we heard time and time again, from both Republicans and Democrats, that H.R. 1 represents the most sweeping comprehensive education legislation to be brought before the House during our tenure. It has been a long time in coming and this bill is truly historic. The education of our Nation's children is the number one concern of Americans, and H.R. 1 is the number one priority of our President. I would like to take a moment to congratulate my colleague and good friend from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Boehner) for his hard work and commitment to improving educational opportunities for our children, and I would also like to congratulate and commend the ranking member of the committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), for his hard work and support of this bipartisan legislation. Despite a decade of economic growth and a Federal outlay of more than $130 billion in the last 25 years, the achievement gap dividing our Nation's disadvantaged students and their peers has continued to widen. Mr. Speaker, the message is loud and clear: money alone cannot be the vehicle for change in our public schools. It is time for accountability, it is time for reform, and it is time for a commitment to our children. We must start by determining which students are in need of additional help and which schools and school districts are in need of improvement. H.R. 1 accomplishes this task by implementing annual assessments in the core subjects of reading and math for students in grades three through eight. However, the bill also recognizes that communities know more about their children than Washington bureaucrats. H.R. 1 respects local control by allowing States to design and implement these tests and provide Federal funds to aid them in that task. It also explicitly prohibits federally sponsored national testing or curricula. Armed with knowledge from these assessments we will be able to determine which schools are failing to educate our children, and this information will be readily available to parents in the form of an annual school performance report card. Based on these facts, H.R. 1 provides a system of accountability to ensure that students do not become trapped in chronically failing schools. As passed out of committee, H.R. 1 provides immediate public school choice for children in schools identified as failing after just 1 year. That is public school choice. This provision will give parents the freedom to choose a better-performing public or charter school to educate their children. The bill also allows parents to seek supplemental educational services, such as tutoring, after-school services, and summer school programs for their children if they are enrolled in a school that has been identified as a failing school for more than 3 years. This measure will act as a necessary safety valve to allow students to seek outside educational support for any state- approved provider using Federal title I dollars. Now, in exchange for these new accountability measures, the plan will dramatically enhance flexibility for local school districts, granting them the freedom to transfer up to 50 percent of the Federal education dollars they receive among an assortment of ESEA programs. This decentralized approach will allow agencies to better target resources to fit the needs of their own communities. Mr. Speaker, since the creation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965, numerous programs and restrictions have been piled and piled and piled upon the act, creating a bureaucratic maze of duplicative policies, all well intentioned, but amazingly inefficient. H.R. 1 will give some needed organization to this patchwork of programs by consolidating or eliminating 34 programs under ESEA and cutting the Federal education bureaucracy in half. At the same time, the bill will target effective proven methods of reading through the implementation of the President's Reading First initiative. Mr. Speaker, we know that over 60 percent of children living in poverty are reading below the very basic level. We cannot expect these children to exceed with this handicap. At the same time, we destine these children to academic underachievement by our failure to teach them to read; we are denying them access to the world that may be opened up to them only through books. The President's Reading and Early Reading First programs will introduce a scientific-based, comprehensive approach to reading instruction and will serve to refocus education policy on this most fundamental skill. The President's education plan, No Child Left Behind, also emphasizes two other fundamental areas of education through the establishment of math and science partnerships. The United States cannot remain a world leader without the math and science knowledge that has made us a leader in technology and scientific discovery. I am very pleased that H.R. 1 includes an initiative which will encourage States to partner with institutions of higher learning, businesses, and nonprofit math and science entities to bring enhanced math and science opportunities to local education agencies with a high need. Mr. Speaker, the 1,000-plus pages of H.R. 1 are filled with calculated reforms that will restructure Federal education policy. It includes provisions to increase safety in our schools, promote English fluency, and improve teacher quality. It encompasses the education plan laid out by our President and provides us with the most important change in Federal education policy in over 40 years. Mr. Speaker, every Member in this House has a vested interest in the education of our children as the Nation's most precious resource. We cannot stand idly by or be timid in fulfilling our responsibility to ensure that every child, rich or poor, white or of color, gifted or disabled have access to an education that gives them every chance to reach their full potential and exceed their goals and their parents' dreams for their future. As we debate this historic legislation, I urge my colleagues to keep the children at the forefront of their minds. I urge Members to support this rule and the historic underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), my distinguished colleague and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), also a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This issue is very close to my heart and a personal priority. By reducing the financial burden that adoption can place on families, more couples can share their love with lonely, wanting children. That is what it is all about, fulfilling the dreams of those who long for a family. I would like to give my personal thanks to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the Committee on Ways and Means for their extraordinary efforts on behalf of this bill; the majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey); and the Adoption Caucus. I urge all my colleagues to support both the rule and this important 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.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall); pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 141 makes in order the bill H.R. 622, the Hope for Children Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. While this is a closed rule, it is important for my colleagues to understand that this bill represents a bipartisan effort that has the support of 289 Members of this body and could be passed under suspension. However, this rule will provide extra time for my colleagues to debate and discuss the importance of the adoption tax credit. Mr. Speaker, adoption is an issue that holds a special place in my heart. It blesses a loving couple with the joy of parenthood and provides wanting children the chance to find permanency in their lives and love in their hearts. As an adoptive parent, I know firsthand this joy, but I also understand the financial burdens that it places on a family. Tragically, this burden can be so high that it prevents a couple from becoming a family and sadly leaves a needing child without a home. Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the legislation that created this tax credit 5 years ago, and an original cosponsor of this, the Hope for Children Act, I am proud to be here today discussing these important changes that serve to update the adoption credit. Since the passage of the original credit 5 years ago, Congress has been working hard to strengthen adoption laws in the United States. In the 1996 legislation, we included a provision that prohibited discrimination in adoption or foster care placements, helping to assure that the cultural, ethnic or racial background of a child would not hinder the placement into a loving home. Then, in 1997, Congress passed one of the most important child welfare laws in 20 years, the Adoption and Safe Families Act. This legislation helped to ensure that consideration of a child's safety is paramount in placement decisions. June of 2000 saw the introduction of the adoption stamp, which many in Congress supported as a way to bring awareness to the 122,000 children waiting to be adopted in this country alone. In October of 2000, with passage of the Intercountry Adoption Act, the United States became the 39th country to ratify the Hague Convention, a cooperative framework between countries which ensures that a child's best interests are safeguarded during intercountry adoption processes. That same month, Congress passed the Child Citizenship Act, a bill that grants automatic citizenship to foreign-born children adopted by American parents. And then came the Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts, which bolsters the efficiency and effectiveness of courts so that children in our child welfare system are not kept from permanent homes due to delays in the court system. Now, in 2001, this House will consider the Hope for Children Act, legislation designed to help foster and facilitate adoptions; legislation that will strengthen families across the Nation; and legislation that will help to provide loving homes to children who desperately need them. Current law provides a $5,000 tax credit to families for qualifying adoption expenses when adopting a child and $6,000 for a child with special needs. This is set to expire. Over 289 Members of the House have cosponsored the Hope for Children Act to show their support for extending and updating these sections of the code. H.R. 622 would begin by making the current tax credits a permanent part of the Tax Code. It would also raise the credit limitations to better reflect the costs of adoptions, allowing families to claim up to $10,000 in qualifying expenses upon adoption. Statistics from the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse show that the cost of adoptions range from $4,000 on the low end to sometimes over $30,000 on the high end, depending on such factors as the cost of birth-parent counseling, adoptive-parent home study and preparation, the child's birth expenses and post-placement supervision until the adoption is finalized. This bill will update the credit to better reflect the costs associated with adoption today. This increase will provide an additional $4,000 to the tax credit for special needs adoptions. Mr. Speaker, 63 percent of the children waiting in foster care are between the ages of 6 and 18. With this increased age comes an increased likelihood that these children will be classified by the State as special-needs children due to histories of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. We have children waiting to be adopted that bring with them physical handicaps, and entire sibling groups that need to be placed in a home together. These children, more than any others, need a loving, permanent home; and families that will open their hearts should be given the utmost support. All of these important changes will be available to families beginning with expenses incurred in the 2002 tax year. Mr. Speaker, we have to reduce the financial burden that adoption can place on families so that couples can become families and more children can sleep peacefully under the roof of loving parents. The Hope for Children Act will continue the hard work and dedication this Congress has devoted to adoption by reducing this huge financial barrier. It will help more children find the love of a family. I urge all my colleagues to support both the rule and this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), an adoptive father himself.