Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I do not have any requests for time, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the heroic service of Sergeant Ronald D. Busby. From his hometown of Columbus, Ohio, Ronald answered the Vietnam War's call to arms by enlisting in the U.S. Army in 1967 at the age of 20. He quickly earned the rank of sergeant and began to distinguish himself for his acts of courage and leadership. On the evening of August 8, 1968, Sergeant Busby led a night ambush patrol. For his actions that evening, he was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart. Tragically, like so many of his fellow soldiers, Sergeant Busby was killed in action that fateful evening. He was three days shy of his 21st birthday. I have heard the phrase ``All gave some, some gave all.'' For veterans like Sergeant Busby, those six words represent more than a phrase; they represent a legacy larger than the tallest mountain. His example lives on as a reminder that America will remain the land of the free only so long as it remains the home of the brave. As we approach the final Veterans Day of the 20th century, let us remember Sergeant Busby and our countless veterans who served their country so faithfully for our freedoms.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

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

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend 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, House Resolution 352 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2389, the County Schools Funding Revitalization Act. Under the rule, 1 hour of general debate will be controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order as base text a substitute amendment which is printed and numbered 1 in the Congressional Record. This substitute language, which will replace H.R. 2389, represents a bipartisan compromise brokered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) to address the concerns of some environmental groups. The rule further amends this compromise language to make technical amendments and clarify a budgetary issue. As my colleagues know, under an open rule any Member may offer any germane amendment to the bill, but under the rule priority recognition will be given to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. And, of course, the rule offers the minority an additional opportunity to amend the bill through a motion to recommit, with or without instructions. During consideration of amendments, the Chair will have the flexibility to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes, as long as the first vote in a series is 15 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the goals of the County School Funding Revitalization Act are straightforward. The bill seeks to provide a temporary solution to a very real problem for counties that include Federal land. Since the enactment of two compacts, one in 1908 and the other in 1937, these counties have counted on revenue from the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to pay for public schools and roads. This revenue compensates the counties for the revenue they would have otherwise received had the land been sold or transferred into private ownership. However, in recent years these Federal revenue payments have plummeted as Federal timber sales have declined by 70 percent, leaving communities searching for the resources they need to educate their children and maintain basic infrastructure. This has been especially devastating for students who have seen their classes canceled, teachers laid off and extracurricular activities eliminated as budgets shrink. Mr. Speaker, education reform has become a top national priority for both parties, and this bill plays a small yet meaningful role in enabling local communities to give their children a quality education. Specifically, the bill will stabilize payments to forest communities by providing for a 7-year safety net of guaranteed funding. The payments to States and counties with Federal land will be based on the average of the highest three payments received by States and counties between 1984 and 1999. However, the legislation is not without controversy. Because the Federal payments made to forest counties are linked to timber sales, some believe there is a perverse incentive to cut down more trees. These opponents advocate a decoupling of timber sales from the revenues. To address some of these concerns, this rule incorporates compromise language into the bill. Under the compromise, revenues will still come from timber sales, but if this source of funding proves inadequate, dollars from the general fund may be used to pay forest communities. This effectively takes the pressure off the Forest Service to cut more trees. Further, counties that receive more than $100,000 through the Forest Service will be required to use 80 percent for schools and roads and the remaining 20 percent for local projects on Federal lands. These local projects will be designed to restore forest health for economic or recreational use and will be approved by a local committee representing a broad range of community interests. Additionally, the project must comply with all Federal laws, environmental and otherwise. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, the payments that this legislation guarantees are meant only as a short-term safety net. The bill establishes a forest county payments committee that is tasked with developing a long-term policy to improve upon the current system of revenue sharing between the Federal Government and forest counties. Within 18 months, the committee will submit its recommendations to Congress for our consideration. In summary, this legislation offers a balanced approach to ensure that the agreement the Federal Government made with States and counties that include Federal land within their borders is honored. By providing these safety net payments, we will enable local communities to provide better educational opportunities to children, as well as maintain their socioeconomic infrastructures. The rule is balanced as well. It presents a compromise version of this legislation to the House for open debate and amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this open rule as well as the communities who need our assistance to educate their children. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 352 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 6 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the dean of the Ohio delegation and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior. (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me remind my colleagues, as my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, just did, that this is an open rule. Not only does it provide for a completely open amendment process, it provides balance for the process by inserting compromise language into H.R. 2389 as well. This bipartisan compromise has the support of the National Association of Counties, the National Education Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and some 800 rural education, government, business, and labor organizations from 37 States. For any Member who still has concerns about the legislation, the rule allows any germane amendment to be debated and voted upon. I hope my colleagues will support this very fair, balanced, open rule. More importantly, I urge my colleagues to support the children and the schools who will benefit from the needed assistance this bill will provide. This is a great opportunity to shore up public education in rural forest communities through a balanced, equitable approach. I hope Members can support this effort. 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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 6 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), chairman of the subcommittee.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me remind my colleagues that this rule is very fair. It not only amends the bill to bring it to a more moderate position, but it actually accommodates all but one Member who filed amendments with the Committee on Rules. There may be an argument about the direction in which the Straight A's bill moves other education policy, but there should be no controversy over the fairness of this rule. No matter what my colleagues' position on the Straight A's approach of moving education decisions away from Washington and into the hands of the States and local school districts is, today we will all have an opportunity to engage in a serious debate about the value of Federal education programs and the role the Federal Government should play in helping children learn. This is a debate that is critical to the future of our Nation. So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule, participating in today's debate, and working to give our children every opportunity to meet their full potential. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the Straight A's 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, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the ranking member on 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 338 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2300, the Academic Achievement for All Act, also known as Straight A's. The Straight A's Act encourages innovative education reform that will better prepare our Nation's children for the 21st century. We have made a huge investment in education at the Federal level, yet we are not seeing the positive results each time we add more dollars and resources to Federal education programs. I think we all agree to some degree of failure at the Federal level, or education would not top the list of both parties' legislative agendas. Yet, while we agree that reform is necessary, Congress has a hard time coming together on the one solution that will give a better future to every child. That may be because there is not one solution. Each school is different and each child is unique, so how can we find the answer, the answer, that will make every school a first-rate institution and help every child reach his or her full potential? The Straight A's bill recognizes that such an individualized task may be beyond the reach of the monolithic, far-removed Federal Government. This legislation suggests that we look to those who are most familiar with the school systems and who are closer to the students to implement education policies and reforms that will make a real difference. Instead of making schools fit into a mold of a Federal education program, Straight A's lets States and school districts create their own programs and use Federal dollars to make them work. Straight A's is an option, not a mandate for States. The only requirement is results. Each State that participates must sign a 5-year performance agreement and a rigorous statewide accountability system must be in place to participate. States must report annually to the public and the Secretary of Education as to how they have spent their funds and on student achievement. The bill provides penalties for failure, and it rewards results. That does not sound so bad, does it? I would even say it is hard to argue against this type of flexibility and change, given the shortcomings of our education system under the status quo. But as my colleagues know, this bill is not without controversy. Whether it is fear of change, a distrust of State government, or healthy skepticism, there are a number of Members who are concerned that the flexibility offered to States through this bill is too broad. Happily, there has been a compromise, and this rule implements a reasonable middle ground by limiting to 10 the number of States that may part in Straight A's. With adoption of this rule, the Straight A's Act will become a pilot program rather than a nationwide policy. In addition to this amendment, which is printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules, an amendment to remedy a direct spending issue will be incorporated into the text of the bill when the rule is adopted. The rule provides for 2 hours of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The House will then have the opportunity to consider two amendments printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report. One is the manager's amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), which will be debatable for 10 minutes. The other is an amendment to be offered by (Mr. Fattah), which will be debatable for 20 minutes. Two amendments may not seem very generous, but of the amendments filed with the Committee on Rules, only one amendment was denied. And it was a Republican amendment, which was not germane to the bill. So I think the rule is very fair to the minority and to the Members of this House who sought to amend this legislation. I should also mention that the rule provides an additional opportunity to change the bill through a motion to recommit with or without instructions. In addition, to give the Chair flexibility and for the convenience of the House, the rule allows the Chair to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question, if preceded by a 15-minute vote. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that this rule implements a compromise that will allow 10 States to escape from the red tape of Federal Rules and regulations to implement the education reforms that they guarantee will improve student performance. These 10 States may use Federal dollars, including Title I funding, as they see fit, to raise academic achievement, improve teacher quality, reduce class size, end social promotion, or whatever they feel is required in their schools to meet their performance goals. And the compromise ensures that States continue to address the needs of disadvantaged students. With this compromise, we are moving forward with education reform in a measured way that builds upon and follows the successful model of the Ed-Flex program, which has now been expanded to all States. If the Straight A's program proves as popular, we will come back to this body and work to give all States the freedom to implement innovative reforms and help their students. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this fair rule, which finds a middle ground and accommodates virtually all Members who have expressed an interest in improving this legislation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the Straight A's bill. 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 338 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 336 is a modified, open rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 2, the Student Results Act. The legislation authorizes Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as well as a number of other programs, which assist some of our Nation's neediest students. Over the years, educational programs for the disadvantaged have failed to accomplish their core mission: closing the achievement gap between wealthy and poor students. And while the Title I program has its faults, its shortcomings have not led us to abandon it. We believe that through thoughtful, common sense reforms in Title I, we can make some real progress for children and achieve the results we have been striving for for more than 30 years. The Students Results Act improves upon the existing Title I program not only by increasing our investment in education, but also providing for greater accountability, more parental involvement, well-trained teachers and local flexibility to implement school reforms that work. I, for one, am looking forward to today's debate, because it is not about who can spend more money; we are increasing Title I funding in this bill. Instead, it is about new ideas and having the courage to admit some failures and move in a new direction. Under the rule, the House will have 90 minutes to engage in general debate, which will be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for his hard work and determination through a lengthy markup process to put this bipartisan legislation together. His committee reported it by a vote of 42-to-6. It is always great to have bipartisan agreement on an issue as crucial to our Nation's future as education. The bill has earned even the administration's support. Still, some of our colleagues would like a chance to amend it. Therefore, the Committee on Rules has provided for an open amendment process. Under this rule, any Member who wishes to improve upon H.R. 2 may offer any germane amendment, as long as it is preprinted in the Congressional Record. In the case of the manager's amendment numbered 5 in the Record, the rule provides that it will not be subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question. To ensure that debate on H.R. 2 is adequate, yet focused, the rule provides for a reasonable time cap of 6 hours during which amendments may be considered. Overall, the House will have almost 9 hours to debate the provisions of and changes to the Students Results Act, which should be more than ample time, given the bill's widespread support. To further facilitate consideration of H.R. 2, the rule allows the Chair to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question, as long as it is followed by a 15-minute vote. After the bill is considered for amendment, the rule provides for another chance to make changes to the bill through the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Madam Speaker, Title I is the anchor of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and it is the largest Federal and elementary education program. Since its creation in 1965, taxpayers have provided over $120 billion in funding to teach disadvantaged children. The initial investment in title I back in 1965 was $960 million, which grew to $7.7 billion by 1999. H.R. 2 continues our commitment to disadvantaged kids by authorizing more than $8 billion for title I next year, but we are not just throwing more money at education and claiming victory. We know that more dollars will not automatically translate into smarter kids. H.R. 2 strengthens academic performance by holding all States, school districts and individual schools accountable for ensuring that their students meet high academic standards. One incentive to produce results will come through the promise of cash rewards to title I schools that close the achievement gap between students. The success or failure of title I schools will be documented in annual report cards that will be distributed to parents and communities; and when schools fail to show improvement parents will be given the opportunity to take their children out of failing schools and enroll them in other public or charter schools. It is simply unfair to trap children in schools where they cannot learn so we give them a bit of freedom, including money for transportation to a new school through this legislation. The Student Results Act also recognizes that good results cannot be gotten without well-trained teachers. Good teachers are our best chance to help our children succeed. H.R. 2 ensures that all newly hired teachers funded by title I dollars are fully qualified by raising the standard for teachers' aides. Under the bill, teaching assistants will need to have 2 or more years of college education or an associates degree. Local communities will have greater flexibility to ensure their Federal dollars are meeting the real needs of their student population. For example, local education agencies will be able to combine and commingle Federal funds to address the needs of small rural school districts or the needs of Indian children. These are just a few of the reforms the Student Results Act will make to move our Federal education policy toward the principle of accountability, quality teaching, and local control. There are also a number of other programs authorized in this legislation, including migrant education; neglected and delinquent youth; magnet school assistance; Native American, Hawaiian and Alaskan programs; gifted and talented students; rural education; and the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance program. The reforms made in these programs through H.R. 2 will move us away from the Washington-knows-best model of the past to a policy that equips parents, communities, and schools with the resources, authority, and accountability to ensure that every uniquely talented child has the opportunity to succeed. Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to join in today's debate about the future of our children and our Nation by supporting this fair rule that will provide for a full debate on a key component of our Federal education policy. I urge a yes vote on both the rule and the Student Results Act. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time and, in closing, I would remind my colleagues this rule provides for consideration of a bipartisan bill through an open amendment process. Any Member may offer any germane amendment as long as it is preprinted in the Congressional Record. The rule does impose a 6-hour time limit on the consideration of amendments; but, overall, the House will have almost 9 hours to debate the Student Results Act and propose changes to it. On top of the 4-day markup held by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 9 hours of debate on the House floor is wholly adequate. Madam Speaker, with the passage of this rule, the House will embark on a very important debate over Federal education policy. Today, we are not squabbling about money, we are talking about kids and the tremendous investment that we are making in them. Let us make sure that that investment pays off and our success is measured by the academic performance of students in schools. Where there is failure, let us expose it and be bold enough to try something new. Where there is success, let us reward it and strive to repeat it. And in all of this, let us remember that the best interests of the children must always be paramount. Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this fair rule so that we can move on to debate legislation that represents the single largest component of our effort to improve elementary and secondary education. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the Student Results Act. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 336 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 am pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 328 is a rule providing for the consideration of the VA-HUD conference report which provides funding in fiscal year 2000 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental Protection Agency, among other programs. The rule waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. Mr. Speaker, today, with the passage of this rule and the VA-HUD conference report, Congress will be one step closer to meeting our budget goals for the year 2000; namely, maintaining a balanced budget without raiding the social security trust fund to pay for it. We have fought long and hard to achieve a balanced budget by making the tough decisions necessary to reduce Federal spending, shrink the size of government, and reform Federal programs. It has not been easy, change never is, but our work has met with success, which has emboldened our cause. Just this week the Congressional Budget Office reported that in fiscal year 1999, for the first time in 40 years, we experienced a true budget surplus, without touching a dime of the social security trust fund. That means that we have transitioned from a pattern of deficit spending to a new era of balanced budgets, and now to a more honest method of budgeting that really places social security off limits. Mr. Speaker, we have turned a corner, and it is no time to look back. Today Congress will continue down this path of fiscal discipline and integrity as we consider the VA-HUD conference report. I am pleased to report that this conference report is the product of negotiating and consensus between Congress and the President, who worked together to come up with adequate funding for a variety of priority programs. Not only were the levels of funding in the bill agreed to in the spirit of cooperation, but the offsets, which ensured that the bill meets our goals of protecting social security, were also approved on a bipartisan basis. The VA-HUD conference report reaches a balance by actually reducing spending below last year's level while adding resources to our top priorities, not the least of which is support for our Nation's veterans. While we can never fully repay the debt we owe to those who were willing to sacrifice their lives for our freedom, it is worth noting that this conference report provides for the largest increase in veterans health care programs in a decade. The $1.7 billion increase the conference report provides will bring spending on veterans health care to a total of $19 billion. That is just for next year. In addition to helping veterans, this bill addresses the critical housing needs of our most vulnerable populations. For the poor and homeless in our society, the VA-HUD conference report provides an increase of over $2 billion for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing for our Nation's elderly will see an increase of $50 million over last year. Disabled housing will receive an additional $5 million, and the people living with AIDS who are served by the HOPWA program will see a boost of $7 million. Moreover, the Housing Certificate Fund, which fully funds Section 8 renewals and tenant protections, is funded at $11 billion, which is significantly more than the President's budget request. But, funding for HUD is not just about housing. The Department also promotes community development. I am pleased that added to the conference report is $55 million to fund the designated empowerment zones across our Nation. With the blessing of the Federal Government, these communities have worked to develop strategies to attract investment, revitalize their neighborhoods, and create jobs. But their plans rely on a commitment of assistance by the Federal Government that we should honor. The conference report will help us meet that commitment by providing some $3.5 million for each urban empowerment zone, as well as $15 million in grant money for rural empowerment zones and enterprise community programs. The VA-HUD conference report also finances the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which it seems we have to call on far too often as our citizens have seen their communities ravaged by hurricanes, floods, or fire. In times of true emergencies and catastrophic loss, our Federal Government has a responsibility to reach out and help people put their lives back together. The conference report provides $300 million for FEMA, as well as $2.5 billion in emergency disaster relief, which matches the President's request. At the same time, this legislation addresses the most pressing concerns of those who need our help today. It also invests in future generations through the funding for environmental protection and scientific research. For example, the EPA will receive more funding than the President requested. However, these dollars will be focused on local efforts to address pollution, particularly the States' efforts to ensure clean water and safe drinking water for their citizens. In addition, State Air Grants will be fully funded at the level requested by the President. When the House first debated the VA-HUD appropriations bill back in August, many Members expressed their concerns about maintaining our commitment to scientific research in our Nation's space program. At that time, the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) made a commitment to working in conference to improve the level of funding for these programs, and he has. The National Science Foundation will see an increase of $240 million over last year, and NASA will receive more than $13.5 billion, which is $75 million more than the President requested. Mr. Speaker, all told, this bill is a testament to the commitment this Congress has made to responsible government in the context of a balanced budget. In the case of the VA-HUD conference report, we have achieved these goals on a bipartisan basis with the President's cooperation. So I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in support of this rule, so we can continue our march towards a responsible, honest Federal budget that keeps our eye on the ball and our hands off of social security. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the conference report. 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 328 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in closing, let me remind my colleagues that this rule is customary for the consideration of appropriations conference reports. Further, the conference report itself is the product of bipartisan cooperation between the President and the Congress. The White House worked with the conference committee to ensure that its priorities were funded, and the President agreed to the provisions in the bill that ensure its fiscal responsibility. This bill contains many good things that I know my colleagues can support, including the largest increase in veterans health care spending in a decade, increased funding for numerous housing programs, restored funding for important science programs in NASA, and funding for emergencies and disasters that matches the President's request. All of this, and still the conference report maintains our commitment to a balanced budget while keeping Social Security off limits. We made the tough decisions. We prioritized, and we have a good work product to show for it. I can congratulate the gentleman from New York (Chairman Walsh) and all the conferees who made this process work. I urge support for the rule and the 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.