Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 141 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this rule and the bill to repeal the death tax. Mr. Speaker, the American dream is about the opportunity of every American to build a better future for themselves and their children through hard work and personal initiative. It could mean building your own business, pouring your own sweat into a small farm just to turn out a profit and saving each day so that you can leave something to your family. Yet it is these Americans who are working hard, playing by the rules and paying taxes all the while who upon their death become victims of an onerous and unfair tax that discounts their dedication, punishes their entrepreneurship, and denies their dying wishes. Think of the young man who 50 years ago was the first in his family to go to college. He worked hard, he pulled himself up, and he made a better life. Should he not be able to provide a better life for his family, for his children as a result of his lifetime of work and savings? Rewarding hard work and initiative is part of the promise of our Nation. But, no. Instead, the government taxes this initiative, this promise, not once but twice. Think of the small businesswoman or family farmer. Their money is used to run their businesses, pay their hard-working employees and invest in needed equipment, all the while paying their taxes. To pay the death tax, families must sell off assets, lay off these workers and even sometimes close their doors completely. This is not right. There is no logic or fairness in this tax. Small, family-owned businesses, farms and ranches are integrally connected to our communities and represent the American values that are at the core of our country. Yet many small businesses and family farms and ranches are not passed on and continued after the first generation because of the death tax. Let us not talk about carve-outs or exceptions that help only some but not all families. It is time to completely eliminate the death tax and reinvest in America so that business owners, farmers and all dedicated individuals can pass on their dreams and ensure that their values live on. Mr. Speaker, last year I was joined by every single one of my Republican colleagues and 65 of my friends from across the aisle in voting to eliminate the death tax. We again have a chance to do the right thing and end this tax on the American dream. Let us bury the death tax.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me say in closing that the time has come once and for all to eliminate this tax on marriage. If one is paying taxes today, they are paying too much. And just because they are married, they should not have to pay more. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, pass the marriage tax penalty and Family Relief Tax Act so we can send it to the President, who is waiting to sign it. This legislation is long overdue. 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 yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Riley).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Kerns).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my friend, the chief deputy whip.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means requested, House Resolution 104 is an appropriate and fair rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6, the Marriage Tax Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act of 2001. 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 to offer 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, as taxpayers all across America are completing the dreaded annual ritual of filling out tax forms and writing checks to the government, thousands of newlywed couples across the Nation have had a rude awakening. By simply saying those magic words ``I do,'' newlyweds across our great Nation may be surprised and probably outraged to find that their tax bill has increased by hundreds and maybe thousands of dollars. Hopefully, these couples have not cashed and spent the wedding checks they received from Grandpa Joe and Aunt Lucy, because they still have to pay Uncle Sam. We should not really be surprised. After all, there is not much that the government does not tax. But it is hard to find a good reason to tax marriage and penalize the most fundamental institution in our society. Still, each year, 42 million working Americans pay higher taxes, not because their incomes have gone up, but simply because they are married. This is fundamentally unfair and discriminatory. Mr. Speaker, most families find that, to make ends meet, both spouses have to work. Under our current Tax Code, working couples are pushed into a higher tax bracket because the income of the second wage earner, often the wife, is taxed at a much higher rate. Because of the marriage penalty, 21 million families pay an average of $1,400 more in taxes than they would if they were single and living alone or single and living together. Mr. Speaker, if one is paying taxes today, one is paying too much; and if one is married, one is unfairly singled out to pay even more. It is simply wrong and irresponsible to increase taxes on married couples, especially when marriage is often a precursor to added financial responsibility such as owning a home or having children. The Marriage Tax Penalty and Family Tax Relief Act will bring fairness to the Tax Code by doubling the standard deduction for married couples, expanding the 15 percent bracket so more of a couple's income is taxed at a lower rate, and increasing the amount that low-income couples can earn and still be eligible for the earned income tax credit. But H.R. 6 does not just help out newlyweds. It also helps out our Nation's families as well by doubling the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000. H.R. 6 provides relief to all couples suffering from the marriage penalty tax, which means lower taxes for almost 59,000 couples in my district alone. Mr. Speaker, since earning the majority, Republicans have kept our promises and reached our goals of balancing the budget, paying down the debt, and protecting Social Security and Medicare; and there is no turning back. The fact is the government is currently taking in more money than it needs to operate. That is the very definition of a budget surplus. The surplus is big enough that we can give some of it back to the people who earned it because, if one is paying taxes today, one is just paying too much. What better place to start than by correcting the inequity in the Tax Code that affects 25 million married couples. Mr. Speaker, it is time to either defend the marriage penalty or to eliminate it altogether. There should be no more excuses. I urge all my colleagues to support this fair and appropriate rule so that we can once again pass the Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act and send it to the President who this time is waiting to sign it. It is long overdue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes 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. Modification To Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute Offered By Ms. Pryce of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means, now printed in the bill and proposed to be considered as adopted in the pending resolution, be modified by the amendment that I have placed at the desk.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 104 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Ohio State University Women's Basketball program, which on Wednesday night concluded in dramatic fashion its 2001 season by winning the Women's National Invitation Tournament. The Buckeyes have displayed extraordinary mettle and determination throughout the course of their season, overcoming incredible odds just to reach the postseason. A string of injuries, including the loss of last season's Big Ten Freshman of the Year LaToya Turner, would cause most teams to fold their tents. With a depleted roster, the Buckeyes were forced mid-season to recruit a soccer goalie and a volleyball player just to field enough players to practice. However, last night in Albuquerque, in front of the largest--and perhaps most hostile--crowd in WNIT history, the Buckeyes indomitable spirit prevailed. Ohio State came back from a twelve-point deficit to capture the WNIT crown, as well as the hearts and imaginations of Buckeye fans nationwide. While it is important to recognize the achievement of Coach Beth Burns, and the performances of Tournament MVP Jamie Lewis and All- Tournament Selection Courtney Coleman, the Buckeye's victory is best viewed as a celebration of teamwork and camaraderie, and reminds us all of the purity inherent in college athletic competition. Again, congratulations to the Ohio State Women's Basketball team, and thank you for your inspiring and extraordinary season.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), my colleague on the Committee on Rules, for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this balanced rule for the Republican budget resolution. The rule provides for a full and free debate of our Nation's budget priorities. Mr. Speaker, the budget before us today is the hard-earned reward for years of fiscal discipline exercised by this Republican-controlled Congress. I am proud to say that this budget makes historic strides in paying down the Federal debt to its lowest level in more than 80 years, while investing in priority areas that will guarantee security for every generation of Americans. What I am talking about is a better education for every child, the prescription-drug plan for every senior who needs it, and the return of the tax surplus to the American people. This plan also provides the funds necessary to rebuild our defense readiness and fulfills the commitment to our Nation's veterans. This budget plan further promotes a sound economy by holding the rate of spending at the level of inflation, and by providing for critical reforms in Medicare and Social Security, by including a prudent emergency set-aside for natural disasters. I would like to commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member, and all of the Members on the House Committee on the Budget for their hard-working commitment to produce a thoughtful bill that meets our most important priorities. Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that this fair rule will bring to the floor is a responsible budget; and it will keep us on the path of fiscal responsibility and economic prosperity. I support the rule, and I urge its support by the rest of this House.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During the consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Committee on Rules met and passed this resolution providing that it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of Wednesday, March 21, or Thursday, March 22, for the Speaker to entertain motions to suspend the rules relating to the measures previously outlined by the reading clerk. The Members and their staffs have had time to examine these rules, and the Committee on Rules is not aware of any controversy or concern. While these items are non-controversial, they are indeed important pieces of legislation to many Members of this body and, more importantly, to the constituents we represent. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, as well as the six bills it makes in order. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 92 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that these are non- controversial measures, and that they are important to many Members of this body. The resolution will simply allow this House to complete its work on these initiatives. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution and the underlying legislative initiatives.

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote just taken. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Reynolds

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, at this time of record surpluses, should Americans pay 40 percent of their income in taxes? Should they pay more to the tax collector than for food, shelter, and clothing combined? Mr. Speaker, the truth is that, if one is paying taxes today, one is paying too much. That is why we are here. Let us take a look at the road that has led us down this path. We have paid down $363 billion of debt since 1997. We have already taken steps to protect nearly $3 trillion for Social Security, Medicare, to provide for further debt relief. According to the conservative budget projections that we keep hearing, we continue to maintain a very significant surplus. Mr. Speaker, if one is paying taxes today, one is paying too much. Now we have the opportunity to provide American taxpayers, all American taxpayers, with a refund for the taxes they have been overcharged. By taking this step today, we can further empower people to help themselves and to help our economy. How can we ever underestimate the importance of this money to individuals and their families? This tax relief represents new clothes for children, school tuition or personal debt reduction or even a new heater or air conditioner for a home. Mr. Speaker, if one is paying taxes today, one is paying too much. We have a record surplus. We cannot spend it. The American people need it. They have record debt. They can use it. Return to sender. Let us give it back and let them spend it.