Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 489 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. No, I am not aware of that. I am not aware that is necessarily the case, because the rules of the committee state otherwise. The rules of the committee state this is a public process, that there is a vote on it.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) the chairman of the subcommittee.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman, there is nothing secret about these allocations. There is nothing out of order. Reading from the guidelines for allocation from the reserve fund, I will read part three in total of these procedures: Committee on House Oversight consideration, number 1, open debate will occur on the request; number 2, budget submissions will become public; number 3, committee vote will determine, A, allocation of the funds; B, amount of the allocation; and, C, scope of the projects. There a vote, it is public, everything is above board and open. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my colleagues that while this rule is structured, the amendments it makes in order are Democratic amendments. I would also like to remind my colleagues that funding for the legislative branch has been pared down significantly over 4 years, resulting in a 15 percent downsizing. The underlying legislation is bipartisan, and we should congratulate this subcommittee for their hard work by adopting this rule and moving on to debate the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, just so we can all be clear about this rule and about the statements made by the gentleman from Texas regarding the lack of leadership, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett) did not even come to the Committee on Rules yesterday to testify and ask that his amendment be made in order. His amendment does go to the issue of recycling. But this rule does make in order an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) which will allow us to vote to put more money into the recycling program. This issue will receive fair debate under this rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield two minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. That is being explored. There are several different proposals on the table. I am sure the gentleman is aware that there are many Members on our side of the aisle that are very interested in this as well. I have been trying to work with them so that these small farmers are not cast out overnight. But it does not belong on the taxpayers' shoulders. I feel the same as the gentlewoman from Washington in that respect.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. That still is a very viable possibility. We will be working through the next 2 weeks of recess to further that goal. I cannot say exactly that that is how it will happen, but I can say with great assurance that it will no longer be a burden on the American taxpayer.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. If the gentlewoman will yield, the assurance that the gentleman is asking for is that this subsidy will not any longer be in existence as a result of the tobacco legislation, he has that assurance.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. That is correct.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I thank the gentlewoman from Washington for yielding for the purpose of this colloquy. I recognize the gentlewoman's long-standing role in trying to solve this program funding issue which we debate each year. I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that we on the Tobacco Task Force and in leadership share her concerns and are committed to correcting this problem as part of our efforts to craft tobacco legislation later next month in a more comprehensive way. I have to say that I myself personally feel very strongly. I have consistently voted against the subsidy as she has. I would like to see it eliminated. I will confirm that this will be a part of the tobacco legislation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the last two speakers were referring to the rules debate immediately preceding this, and to some other extraneous matters. This Member was not present for that very spirited debate. As I understand it, it was a procedural attempt to keep the legislative ball rolling and the appropriations process on track. But, nonetheless, this rule is not objectionable. I am gratified to hear the gentlemen approve of this rule. After all, it is wide open, and it is as fair as it could be made fair. 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 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 this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 478 makes in order H.R. 4060, the fiscal year 1999 Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill, under a completely open rule, which the Committee on Rules reported by voice vote. As is customary, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The rule waives clause 7 of rule XXI, which requires printed hearings and reports to be available 3 days prior to consideration of an appropriations bill. Waiving this rule facilitates consideration of this noncontroversial bill, which the Subcommittee on Energy and Water reported by voice vote. The rule also waives clause 2 of rule XXI, which prohibits legislating on an appropriations bill. The Committee on Rules conferred with the authorizers and determined there was no opposition to this waiver. Similarly, the Committee on Ways and Means has no problem with waiving clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which addresses tax and tariff provisions under that committee's jurisdiction. The rule also waives clause 6 of rule XXI, which prohibits reappropriations in a general appropriations bill. To ensure an orderly amendment process, the rule allows the Chair to accord priority recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Further, the Chair may postpone and reduce votes to 5 minutes, as long as the first vote in any series is a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides for the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, like many of my colleagues, I was shocked to learn that the President's fiscal year 1999 budget proposal would cut spending for the construction of new levees, flood walls, and other protective water infrastructure by almost 50 percent. In fact, the recommended funding levels for these projects, managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, would be the lowest in real dollars in the history of the civil works program. How quickly the administration forgets. It was only 5 years ago that the Midwest was ravaged by floods which caused millions of dollars in damage and waged a devastating human emotional toll on those citizens who lost their homes, businesses, and communities to ever-rising flood waters. Even more recently, the State of California has battled unrelenting floods that left the citizens searching for the means to rebuild their communities. It is unclear where the next flood tragedy will appear. But eviscerating the construction budget of the Corps of Engineers only ensures that the damage will be more widespread. Our recent past should convince us that investing in a defense system to prevent flood damage is far preferable to spending the money on cleanup after lives have been destroyed. My constituents in central Ohio would be directly affected by the short-sightedness of the administration's budget. The West Columbus floodwall is currently being built to protect the homes and businesses along our Scioto River from catastrophic floods. In 1913, 1937, and 1959, the Scioto overflowed its banks, causing millions of dollars' worth of damage to both residential and commercial property. Without floodwall protection, 17,000 residents continue to be placed at risk of life, injury and personal hardship. And that is only my story. Construction of the West Columbus floodwall has been on track since it began in 1993. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers identified a need for $16 billion in the next fiscal year to keep the project on schedule toward completion. Yet, the President slashed the Corps' budget. I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade), the chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), the ranking member, and the rest of my colleagues on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water for crafting a very fiscally responsible bill that restores these devastating cuts proposed in the President's budget, while at the same time keeping spending below the fiscal year 1998 level. As my colleagues know, the energy and water bill provides funding for much more than flood protection. This legislation funds the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Energy, the Appalachian Regional Commission, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In their bill, the subcommittee was able to increase spending on programs, such as the solar and renewable programs, science programs, and the atomic energy defense activities. The bill also includes important funding for defense environmental management and cleanup of hazardous and radioactive materials. These dollars will clean up sites throughout the country which were contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons. Additionally, provisions of the bill seek to increase the efficiency of the Department of Energy through contract competition and reevaluation of the Department's organizational structure. Mr. Speaker, the final product of the work of the subcommittee is $78.7 million below fiscal year 1998, keeping us on track to a balanced budget and a smaller, smarter government. My colleagues in the Committee on Rules, both Democrat and Republican, had nothing but praise for the efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) to produce a balanced, bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule, which will provide for a thorough debate of spending priorities. Further, I urge my colleagues to support the subcommittee's fine work by voting yes on this responsible energy and water appropriations bill. 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 478 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman from California, the ranking member, and I also appreciate his hard work, that of the entire committee and that of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. McDade) for a very tough job under difficult circumstances. I have no further speakers, Mr. Speaker.

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, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 465 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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, 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, House Resolution 465 is a structured rule to provide for consideration of H.R. 3494, the Child Protection and Sexual Predator Punishment Act. This common-sense legislation responds to the menace of sex crimes against children, including those facilitated by use of the Internet. As is customary, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule makes in order the Committee on the Judiciary's amendment in the nature of a substitute, and all points of order against it are waived. As my colleagues know, the Committee on Rules prefers to provide open rules for consideration of legislation by this House. However, in the case of H.R. 3494, the committee felt it was necessary to structure the debate process to ensure that the laudable goals of this legislation are not jeopardized by controversial amendments dealing with a host of criminal issues unrelated to the bill's purpose. Proof of the Committee on Rules' good intentions is evident in the rule before us. The committee allowed every Member who filed a germane amendment the opportunity to offer it on the House floor. These 10 amendments, offered by both Democrats and Republicans, are printed in the Committee on Rules report. The amendments may be offered in the order printed by the Member designated in the report and will be debatable for the time specified, equally divided between a proponent and an opponent. All points of order against the amendments are waived. They are not subject to amendment, nor are they subject to demand for division of the question. To provide for expeditious consideration of the bill, votes may be postponed and reduced to 5 minutes, as long as the first vote in any series is a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides the minority with another opportunity to change the bill through a motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, for most of us, the Internet has opened up an exciting world of opportunity where we have almost instant access to vast resources that can enhance education and facilitate communication among our citizens. Many parents and teachers are eager to share this valuable tool with our Nation's children. But, sadly, criminals have also recognized an opportunity in the appeal of the Internet. Sexual predators have found a window through which they can prey upon our children. These predators can safely hide behind their computer screens, create a fictional identity, and make direct contact with our children. These young victims cannot possibly know that instead of making a friend, they are communicating with an adult who is hoping to lure them into a life-altering, illegal sexual experience. We are not sure how many pedophiles are stalking our children through their computers, but we do know that these incidents are becoming more and more common. We must act to protect our children from this sickening practice. The legislation, which this rule makes in order, will prohibit contacting a child over the Internet for the purposes of engaging in illegal sexual activity. It will also outlaw using the Internet to knowingly transfer obscene materials to a child. These commonsense provisions are long overdue. Several months ago, I was shocked to read that an incarcerated child molester was convicted of trafficking in child pornography on the Internet while he was still in prison. It is unacceptable that prisoners have the privilege of using Internet resources and are finding ways to reach beyond prison walls to continue their attacks on the most vulnerable in our society. I authored language that prohibits unsupervised access to the Internet by Federal prisoners, and encourages States to do the same. I want to thank the Committee on the Judiciary for including this provision in their bill. There are a number of other commonsense provisions in this bill, as well. It authorizes the court to detain child sex offenders while they await trial, it permits the FBI to immediately initiate an investigation in a kidnapping case, and it allows for a Federal investigation of serial murder offenses when States or localities request such assistance. The Child Protection Act does not stop at Internet crimes. The bill recognizes that it is when children are lured to meet their predator, face to face, that the most heinous crimes occur. Children who have met with their stalkers have been kidnapped, photographed for pornography, raped, beaten and worse. Through tough penalties and prison sentences, H.R. 3494 cracks down on these crimes as well. For example, the legislation doubles the maximum prison sentence for repeat sex offenders who commit the Federal crime of transporting a person for sexual activity. The bill mandates life in prison for serial rapists and double prison sentences for abusive sexual contact with children under the age of 12. These strong sentencing provisions are important, because the recidivism rates for sex offenders and pedophiles are 10 times higher than that of other criminals. Frankly, chances are that these predators will strike again. Yet child molesters serve prison sentences averaging less than 3 years. Mr. Speaker, we cannot afford to wait to offer these basic protections to our children. I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule so that we can begin debate on this important legislation. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Dunn).