Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall no. 204, I was unavoidably detained in traffic. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), one of the authors of this legislation. (Mr. BARTON of Texas 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 reiterate that this rule is identical to the rule the House adopted last year by voice vote on the same issue. It gives ample opportunity for all sides to be heard on the tax limitation amendment, and it gives the minority two separate opportunities to change the underlying legislation. Let me also remind my colleagues that the tax limitation amendment has the support of 68 percent of all Americans, and it is not hard to understand why. Today nearly 40 percent of the average American family's income goes toward taxes. It is reasonable in the minds of those Americans to put a small bump in the road that will slow down the people who want to take even more of their hard-earned money. Today's vote will not end debate on this matter but instead it will start the debate down across all 50 States, down to the local level where the people will determine whether amending the Constitution is in order. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to let reasonableness and the will of the people prevail by voting ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the tax limitation amendment. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 407, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Moakley), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all the time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 407 is a modified closed rule providing for the consideration of H.J. Res. 111, the tax limitation amendment, which seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a two-thirds vote of Congress to pass legislation which increases taxes. Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time this Congress has considered such an amendment. In fact, the rule before us is virtually identical to the rule the House adopted last year which provided for consideration of the same issue. As in 1997, the rule provides for a generous 3 hours of general debate time, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. In addition, the rule provides for the consideration of an amendment offered by the minority leader or his designee which will be debatable for 1 hour; and another opportunity for the minority to change the legislation will be available through the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. My colleagues should understand that when the House votes to adopt this rule, it will automatically adopt an amendment to H.J. Res. 111, which is specified in the Committee on Rules report. Specifically, the amendment will clarify that any bill, resolution or other legislative measure changing internal revenue laws will be subject to a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate and that the vote must be a recorded vote. This is the same language that the Committee on the Judiciary added to last year's bill. Further, the amendment clarifies that any revenue increase that is a result of a tax cut would not be subject to the two-thirds vote. This is the language which the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum) was successful in adding to the tax limitation amendment last year. Its purpose is to ensure that the amendment does not inadvertently make it more difficult to reduce taxes in the future. Again, I would reiterate to my colleagues that both this rule and the underlying bill we will consider are virtually identical to what the House voted on April 15, 1997. Given the similarities, some of my colleagues may question the purpose of revisiting this issue. Well, what we learned in the Committee on Rules yesterday is that support for this measure is growing and no doubt will continue to grow. Sixty-eight percent of Americans support an amendment to the Constitution requiring a supermajority vote by Congress to raise taxes. Today's vote will provide another opportunity for Members to respond to their constituents and public opinion, which across party lines is clearly supportive of a tax limitation amendment. I am sure that when Members were home in their districts over the Easter and Passover holidays they had the opportunity to meet with their constituents who were either preparing their taxes or had just paid them. I hope those meetings remind all of us just who is paying the tax bills around here and how high the Government's bills have become in terms of what the average American family can afford. The Federal tax burden alone is now nearing a record one-fifth of family income. How can this Congress justify a tax rate that represents the largest burden Americans have been asked to bear since World War II? Combined with State and local taxes, Americans are saddled with the highest tax rate ever. At a time when our economy is booming, unemployment is low, and we are on the verge of realizing a budget surplus, this policy is simply unacceptable. The illogic of this situation cries for reasonable measures to control our government's insatiable appetite for consuming the taxpayers' hard-earned pay. Reasonableness is what the tax limitation amendment demands of this institution. Mr. Speaker, all the amendment before us would do is make it a little bit harder for Congress to raise taxes during times of peace. At the same time, it encourages Congress to look at other options other than taxes as a means of managing the Federal budget. I don't think any of my colleagues would claim that there is no fat in the Federal bureaucracy to trim. But, while the special interests that benefit from government spending often have a paid voice looking out for their interests, the average American taxpayer has to rely on his or her Member of Congress as a voice for controlling spending and protecting their paychecks. Considering that the average Federal tax burden per person has more than doubled from 1980 to 1995, I think Congress needs to do a better job of looking out for our constituents, the taxpayers, interests. Through this amendment, our constituents will have a voice that can compete with that of special interests. And we know tax limitation amendments can be effective. They have been tried and tested by the States with very good results. In States that require a supermajority vote to raise revenue, taxes have increased more slowly, economies have grown more rapidly, and jobs have been created more quickly. Mr. Speaker, the need for this constitutional amendment is clear. Congress has demonstrated that even in times of prosperity and peace it cannot curb its penchant to tax. The discipline and balance imposed by our Founding Fathers was swept away by the 16th amendment which gave Congress the right to directly tax individuals' income. As a result, the power to lay and collect taxes has been so abused that families are no longer saving to buy homes and pay for their children's education. They are saving to pay the government on April 15. It is time to restore some discipline and fairness to our system if we are to ever to give our citizens the economic freedom to pursue their dreams, whether those dreams are of homeownership, education, self-employment, a secure retirement, or a more prosperous future for their children and grandchildren. Given what is at stake, a higher standard of consideration and consensus for higher taxes is totally appropriate and should be demanded by the American people. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation. This is a balanced rule that will enable the House to have a full and fair discussion of the merits of this constitutional amendment, and I urge its swift adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my good friend and colleague from the great State of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules is planning to meet next week to grant a rule on H.R. 2575, the Visa Waiver Extension. Subject to the approval of the Committee on Rules, this rule may include a provision requiring amendments to be preprinted in the amendment section of the Congressional Record before being offered. So, for example, if the bill is considered on the floor on Wednesday, as is currently anticipated, amendments would have to be submitted for the Record by Tuesday, March 24th. Amendments to be preprinted should be signed by the Member and submitted at the Speaker's table. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are properly drafted and should check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House. It is not necessary to submit amendments which comply with the rules to the Committee on Rules or to testify.

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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn) a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from the State of Florida (Mr. Stearns) to speak out of order. (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to proceed out of order for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Olympic Committee's 5th Olympic Dinner

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, to close, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentelwoman 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. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that once again the Committee on Rules has reported a completely open rule. H. Res. 384 will provide for fair and thorough debate of House Resolution 2883, the Government Performance and Results Act Technical Amendments of 1997. The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. For the purpose of amendment, the rule makes in order the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill. Under the rule, any germane amendment may be offered and any Member of this House who wishes to improve upon the bill may do so. However, priority recognition will be given to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. After the amendment process there will be another opportunity for those who oppose the bill to be heard through the motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule provides only one waiver which pertains to a 3-day layover requirement for the committee reports. Finally, to facilitate consideration of H.R. 2883, the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone votes and reduce voting time to 5 minutes as long as any postponed question follows a 15-minute vote. Mr. Speaker, as the custodians of our Nation's purse strings, Congress has an incredible responsibility. We have been entrusted to safeguard the hard-earned money that the taxpayers send to Washington. It is our responsibility to see to it that those dollars are spent wisely and that the American people get the biggest bang for their buck, and that is what today's debate is all about. With passage of the Government Performance and Results Act in 1993, we took an important first step toward fulfilling our responsibility. Very simply, the Results Act requires Federal departments and agencies to set measurable performance goals in an effort to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Federal Government, a common sense request to achieve a very important goal. However, it appears that many Federal agencies do not feel quite the same sense of responsibility to the taxpayers that Congress does. Many agencies were reluctant to develop the strategic plans required by the act. And finally, when they did submit their initial drafts, the results were disappointing at best. For example, very few agencies linked their mission statements to the actual statutory authority under which they operate. This suggests that agencies do not set their goals and priorities based on what the agency has been designed and mandated to do. Another troubling pattern among the agencies was their insufficient attention to fundamental problems, such as management weaknesses, reliability of data, or duplicative functions. These are essential issues that must be examined by any organization that hopes to be even remotely effective. But even though these agencies earned failing grades for their plans and appeared to be way off course in terms of fulfilling their primary functions, they were still unwilling to exert the extra effort required to make the grade. Congress asked the agencies to go back and improve upon their plans, but under existing law the agencies do not have to submit any additional information for three more years. H.R. 2883 addresses this roadblock to progress by requiring the submission of revised agency reports by the end of this fiscal year. These reports must provide the fundamental information lacking in the previous reports to ensure that an accurate picture of the agencies' operations is painted. Now, some oppose this bill, claiming it would be too burdensome for the agencies, but this is not about the bureaucracy's hardship, this is about the unjustifiable financial burden we place on American taxpayers. If Congress takes its responsibilities to the taxpayers seriously, we cannot just talk about a smaller, smarter, common-sense government, we must back that rhetoric with action. And it is not enough to simply pass a bill to require accountability among agencies if we do not enforce it. We must demand compliance, and if the law proves too weak it is incumbent upon Congress to strengthen it. Mr. Speaker, we must be relentless in our pursuit for complete and honest information that will allow us to make wise decisions and prudent investments of taxpayers' dollars. H.R. 2883 takes us to the next step in our quest for efficient, effective government by requiring agencies to fill in the gaps and glaring omissions in their strategic plans sooner rather than later. The taxpayers deserve no less. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I would remind my colleagues that this is a fair rule providing a wide open amendment process and thorough debate on the issue at hand. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and support all our Nation's taxpayers by voting ``yes'' on the underlying legislation. 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 384 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I remind this body that this is an open rule. 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 yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 378 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, 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 378 is a modified open rule providing for a fair and thorough debate of H.R. 3130, The Child Support Performance and Incentive Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. Under the rule, any Member seeking to improve the bill by offering a germane amendment may do so. The only requirement is that their amendment be preprinted in the Congressional Record. Normally the Committee on Rules merely affords priority recognition to Members who preprint their amendments in the Record, but this rule requires it. That is because the underlying bill is very technical in nature. For example, it establishes formulas under which States are penalized for noncompliance with Federal requirements. In addition, the bill represents a carefully negotiated agreement with the administration, and amendments to change the bill could compromise the broad support it has earned. Therefore, it is important that the Committee on Ways and Means is aware of any possible amendments to the bill. The rule also waives points of order against the consideration of an amendment to be offered by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). Simply put, the Cardin amendment would deny visas to foreign nationals owing more than $5,000 in child support payments. It also prohibits the naturalization of individuals who are not in compliance with child support orders. In testimony to the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) explained that his amendment has bipartisan support among members of the Committee on Ways and Means, and that the Committee on the Judiciary, which has primary jurisdiction over his amendment, has no objection to its consideration. In an effort to speed up consideration of H.R. 3130, the rule will allow votes to be postponed and reduced to 5 minutes, if the postponed question follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, this rule provides for the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues enthusiastically supported this legislation in 1988 and in 1996 that sought to improve our Nation's system of collecting child support. The fact is that in many States the difference between what is owed in child support and what is actually collected amounts to millions, if not billions, of dollars, which never reach the children who are depending on it. If we want self-sufficiency to be a reality for many low-income single-parent families, we must do better. In recognition of the Nation's poor record of enforcement, Congress instructed the States to establish statewide data systems to help track down deadbeat parents and make them pay. States were given Federal tax dollars to set up these systems, and it is incumbent upon them to do so. However, some States have not been able to meet the Federal standards and deadlines, and as a result, they are facing very significant penalties. No one is suggesting that penalties are inappropriate. The question is whether the punishment matches the crime. Under current law, the penalties are stiff. States that did not meet the October 1 deadline last year are at risk of losing their Federal child support money, as well as their entire welfare block grant. This type of penalty does not just scold States, it threatens to decimate their entire child support program. I think the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) said these penalties are the equivalent of issuing the death penalty for stealing a loaf of bread. My State of Ohio offers a good example of why H.R. 3130 is necessary. Ohio had installed its statewide child support enforcement network in all 88 of our counties in advance of the designated deadline. In Ohio's view, the State was in compliance. However, since Ohio had not entered the data into the system, HHS considered them in violation of Federal requirements. As a result, Ohio was threatened with losing its Federal child support money, as well as the State's entire 728 million TANF block grant. In my mind, that is an excessive penalty that does not square with congressional intent, gives no consideration to the good-faith effort Ohio and other States have made to achieve the Herculean task of setting up statewide systems, and more importantly, it does nothing to help Ohio's children, who are in desperate need of their parents' financial support. H.R. 3130 will move us toward a more reasonable policy that will give States a strong incentive to get their child support programs up to speed, without letting them off the hook for unacceptable delays. Under this bill, Ohio still loses about $1.1 million, and faces additional penalties if they do not have their systems up and running by October of this year. This penalty is real, and the threat of additional fines is sufficient to encourage Ohio and other States into quick compliance without compromising the State's ability to meet the needs of children and families. The gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) deserve congratulations for their good work on this bill, which addresses a real and immediate problem with a fair, bipartisan solution. In the interests of children across the Nation who are waiting for their parents to give them the support they deserve, I urge every Member to vote yes on the rule and yes on this commonsense legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, what does a liberal do when confronted with a tax cut? He opposes it. He condemns it. He becomes outraged at the very idea that Washington could get along with a little less and a family could do with a little more. I opened up the Washington Post to find the headline, President Bashes GOP Tax Plan. Then turning to the New York Times, I find this headline: Clinton Attacks GOP Tax Overhaul Plan. It appears that the days of working on a bipartisan basis with the Republican Congress are over. Liberals are upset. In fact, they are mad at the President for finally helping to pass a tax cut for middle-class families last year. So the liberals will not let the President continue down the road of tax relief, IRS reform, and overhaul of the Tax Code. I guess the New Democrats at the White House are no longer calling the shots these days. It is too bad. The American people want tax reform.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 368 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, 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 368 is a fair and open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2460, the Wireless Telephone Protection Act. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. For the purposes of amendment, the rule makes in order the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute as an original bill and, under this rule, any germane amendment may be offered, with priority recognition given to those Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. In addition, the rule provides for the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. In order to bring this legislation to the floor today, it is necessary to waive clause 2(L)(6) of Rule XI, which requires a 3-day layover of the committee report, and this rule provides such a waiver. Further, to expedite consideration of H.R. 2460, the chairman of the committee will be permitted to postpone votes during consideration of the bill and reduce voting time to 5 minutes on a postponed question as long as it follows a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule provides that upon House passage, it will be in order to move to insert the House language in the Senate bill number. This provision is included because the Senate has already passed the Wireless Telephone Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will support this fair and open rule so that we may proceed with a thorough debate of the underlying legislation, which the Committee on the Judiciary reported favorably by voice vote. The goal of 2460 is straightforward. It seeks to deter cellular telephone fraud. As our society becomes increasingly reliant on cellular technology it is important that we have the tools to discourage and prosecute fraud in the wireless telephone industry. The pervasiveness of such fraud is startling. In fact, calls made from stolen or cloned telephones are responsible for losses to the industry of close to $710 million. The dollars lost are very significant, but perhaps more worrisome are the much more serious crimes which are related to cellular fraud. For example, it is becoming common practice for drug dealers to use cloned telephones to avoid detection when making calls to their sources and clients. Under current law, prosecutors must prove that a person who possessed or used technology to obtain unauthorized access to telecommunications services had the ``intent to defraud.'' But law enforcement officials have pointed out that this is often too hard to meet the standard and prove a violation of Federal law. H.R. 2460 responds to this legal obstacle by removing the ``intent to defraud'' standard, recognizing that there is no reason why any person not working in the wireless telephone industry or in law enforcement would need such high-tech equipment unless they are intending to use it to clone cellular telephones. This change in the law will enable the government to successfully prosecute and punish the fraudulent use of cellular technology. Another provision of H.R. 2460 will clean up existing law by clarifying the penalties which may be imposed for cellular telephone fraud, allowing for a 15-year maximum penalty for violations. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. McCollum), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, explained to the Committee on Rules that this legislation is not controversial; and he requested that the legislation be considered under an open rule so that any Member who may be uncomfortable with the bill will have the opportunity to amend it. The Committee on Rules was pleased to honor that request. In fact, the rule was reported out of committee by voice vote without dissent. So I urge my colleagues to support a free and fair debate on the Wireless Telephone Protection Act by voting ``yes'' on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. (Mr. HALL of Ohio asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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 thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw] for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of the bipartisan Adoption Promotion Act. I want to thank my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly] for all their hard work and dedication on this issue, and also my colleague from Ohio in the other body Senator DeWine. Last April, the House passed this bill by an overwhelming vote of 416 to 5. Since then, we have been patiently waiting for the Senate to follow our lead. That day has come. With the passage of this bill today, we will move one step closer to giving the hope of permanency to children in need of a stable, loving home. Mr. Speaker, every child in America deserves a family and home filled with love and security, free from abuse, free from neglect or the threat of violence. The sad truth is that many children do not enjoy that most basic human right. Of nearly half a million children in foster care, only about 17,000 have entered permanent adoptive homes. What is more astonishing is that, during each of the past 10 years, more children have entered the foster care system than have left it. This legislation will speed the adoption process, especially for those children with the greatest need, those who have been abused or neglected. In addition, we will elevate children's rights so that a child's health and safety will be of paramount concern under the law. Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most important changes we can make. Because too often a foster child's best interest, along with common sense, are abandoned as courts and welfare agencies work overtime to put children back in dangerous situations in the name of family reunification. This bill corrects the perverse incentives of the current system that gives States more money if they have more children in foster care. That is just crazy. Now we will provide States more money if they reduce their foster care caseload by placing kids in permanent, stable homes. Congress and the Federal Government cannot legislate compassion and love for all the Nation's children, but through this legislation we can take reasonable steps to promote family stability and to give children, especially foster children, a fighting chance to see the loving homes that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of thousands of children who need a true family to love and protect them, I urge my colleagues to support this most important legislation. Let us do it for the children.