Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, due to an official leave of absence for family obligations, I was absent during legislative business on November 12, 1997. If I had been present, I would have voted in the following manner: House Resolution 319 (rollcall No. 629): Rule providing for the consideration of the bill (S. 738) to reform the statutes relating to Amtrak, and for other purposes. Aye. House Resolution 314 (rollcall No. 630): Waiving a requirement of clause 4(b) of rule XI with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules, and for other purposes. Aye H.R. 2159 (rollcall No. 631): Foreign Operations Appropriations Act Conference Report. Aye.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today, I, along with Representative Tom Ewing of Illinois and Representative Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania, introduced the Child Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Act, CAPE Act. This bill builds upon the foundation of the Child Abuse and Neglect Enforcement Act [CANEA], which was introduced by my close friend, and former colleague, Susan Molinari. As the mother of a wonderful young child, it breaks my heart to know that nearly 2,000 children die each year of abuse and neglect. In 1 recent year alone, there were 992,617 substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect in our country. As a Federal legislator, I believe we must continue marshaling our Federal resources in a way that helps State and local officials in their fight against child abuse and their efforts to help the innocent victims of such abuse. The CAPE Act contains a number of important provisions designed to assist State and local law enforcement and child protective services workers in fighting child abuse and providing assistance to the innocent victims. First, the bill helps States provide access to criminal conviction records by child protective and child welfare workers. This will help such workers identify whether troubled children may be victims of abuse at the hands of adult caregivers. Second, the bill helps States provide law enforcement instant and timely access to court child custody, visitation, protection, guardianship, or stay away orders. This will help police establish the validity of urgent complaints that children have been snatched by an abusive ex-spouse, so that such complaints can be pursued in a timely manner, particularly when courthouses are closed. This provision addresses a very real problem which was brought to my attention by the Ohio State attorney general Betty Montgomery. Third, this bill allows major Federal law enforcement grant funds to be used by State and local police for enforcement of child abuse and neglect law. This adds an additional $500 million which may be used in the fight against child abuse and neglect. Fourth, the bill doubles the amount of Federal funding to States which may be used for victims of child abuse. This will significantly increase funding for things such as training for child protective workers, child advocacy centers, and support for court-appointed special advocates. In addition, I, and the other sponsors of the bill, will request that the General Accounting Office study the amount of documents required under the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act and other Federal laws related to child abuse and make recommendations on reducing the number of paperwork requirements. This is the first step which the sponsors are taking towards reducing the paperwork required of child welfare workers, so that they will be able to spend more time working with children they serve. We must never give up the fight to protect our Nation's children from abuse and neglect. While I do not believe the CAPE Act will end child abuse, it would provide a another arrow in the quiver to be used in the fight.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule I, the pending business is the question de novo of the Speaker's approval of the Journal of the last day's proceedings. The question is on the Speaker's approval of the Journal. Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Journal stands approved.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me remind my colleagues who are focused so loud on campaign finance reform that the House will have that debate when we return in the spring. Currently, there is no consensus on what campaign finance should look like, as was evidenced by hearings held in the Committee on House Oversight. Our hope is that by March or April, the House will find some consensus on this issue so that meaningful campaign finance reform can be passed and signed into law. I want to remind my colleagues who are focusing on what we have not done of what we have accomplished in the first session. And once again I will remind them. We have passed legislation to provide for tax relief for the first time in 16 years, a balanced budget that eliminates the deficit by 2002, adoption reforms for children in foster care, comp-time for America's workers, housing reform for low-income families, education reform for children eager to learn, and IRS reform for the taxpayers. I have to say very proudly that much of this has been accomplished in a bipartisan manner. So, Mr. Speaker, we should be proud of these accomplishments and recognize that while we see a break in the action here soon, this resolution does not signify the end of the 105th. We will be back next year to add to our good works. Further, Mr. Speaker, this resolution, in and of itself, should not be controversial. There were no objections heard in the Committee on Rules. So I urge my colleagues to support the rule. 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 my friend, 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. Mr. Speaker, on Friday night, with little debate, the Committee on Rules reported House Resolution 311 by voice vote. This rule provides for the consideration and adoption of resolutions in preparation for the adjournment of the first session of the 105th Congress sine die. The rule includes a laundry list of items that the House must take care of in preparation for the end of the year, when it is time for us to leave Washington and go home to our families and constituents. For example, the rule makes in order a joint resolution that would waive certain enrollment requirements with respect to specified bills, so that after legislation is passed, it can be sent to the President for his signature without delay. Further, the rule provides for consideration of a joint resolution that specifies the day when the 105th Congress will reconvene for a second session. Each of these resolutions will be debatable for 1 hour, equally divided between the majority and minority leaders, and will be subject to a motion to commit. Further, with the adoption of this rule, a resolution to provide for the appointment of two Members of the House to inform the President that the House is ready to adjourn, unless he has some other communication to make to the House, will be adopted. Other housekeeping items this rule provides for will allow the Speaker, majority leader, and minority leader to accept resignations and make appointments to commissions, boards, and committees following adjournment. This rule also disposes of H. Res. 306, which the House has no need to consider. Finally, this rule looks forward to the time when we will return to Congress next year, refreshed and renewed, ready to work, by setting the date for the President's State of the Union on Tuesday, January 27, 1998, at 9 p.m. Mr. Speaker, as we plan for adjournment, it is worthwhile to reflect on the accomplishments of the first session of the 105th Congress. And we have a lot to be proud of. Perhaps most notably, the 105th Congress passed legislation to provide tax relief for the first time in 16 years. Through your efforts, we have given 41 million children a tax credit, we have slashed the capital gains tax to promote economic growth, and we have reined in the death tax to provide relief to family-owned farms and businesses. At the same time, we reached our goal of enacting a balanced budget that will eliminate the deficit by slowing the growth of government spending and creating a small, more effective Federal Government. Through that same legislation, we saved the Medicare program from bankruptcy, extending its life for at least 10 years, so that today's seniors and future generations will have the affordable, quality health care they so strongly deserve. And that is not all. This House has passed legislation to move children from foster care to permanent homes. We passed legislation to give workers the flexibility of opting for time off rather than overtime pay, and we passed housing reforms to help low-income families. In recent days, we have started down the path to overhauling our onerous tax system by passing legislation to reform and restructure the IRS. And the education reform measures we have adopted will give hope to children eager to learn and the promise of choice to parents who want the best for their kids. Mr. Speaker, we have worked hard, and it shows. Now it is time to wrap up our work, go home to our families and constituents, and renew ourselves for the legislative challenges that lie ahead. Adoption of this rule will take us one step closer to the completion of a very productive first session, and I urge its swift adoption. 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 311 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the privileged resolution before us. Let me start by saying that there are few in this body who do not take pleasure in the company and comity of the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez]. It is not pleasant to dwell on the misfortunes of this case, but this issue speaks directly to the integrity of this institution which we should all strive, and strive hard, to protect. There is a constitutional responsibility of this House to judge the qualifications of its Members, and that of course includes judging the outcome of contested elections. While this task is not a pleasant one, it is one that requires serious attention and thoughtful deliberation as our decisions set important precedents about the legitimacy and integrity of the Federal elections and the laws which govern them and each and every one of us here in this body. We will hear plenty of impassioned debate today that will be driven by politics and influenced by personalities, but this is not about personal attacks, and it is not about personalities, it is about obeying the law and fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities. Are my colleagues who have repeatedly asked us to put this matter unresolved behind us really advocating turning a blind eye to voter fraud? Are they really suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote in elections and in the same breath demanding campaign finance reform in the interests of honest elections? Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest to my colleagues that we should spend our energy enforcing the laws we have at hand. The law of our land, the law we are bound constitutionally to obey and enforce, that is what this debate is about. Inflammatory rhetoric that evokes images of racism and discrimination, that is transparent. It does a disservice to this institution and to the American ideal of free and fair elections. In the interests of protecting our Nation's great democracy, I urge my colleagues to fulfill their responsibility to protect the sanctity of American elections by demanding a thorough and honest investigation of this and all contested elections. Nothing less will bring credit to this House. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the resolution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I rise in strong support of this bill. I congratulate the chairman, and I congratulate also my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Portman], for all the hard work and dedication that he has brought to this issue and, with him, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant] who has long championed this cause and kept our feet to the fire. It should not be difficult to convince any of my colleagues in this body that the IRS needs to be reformed. Each and every one of us provides case work to our constituents, and we have all heard the numerous, tragic horror stories about how the IRS has unfairly treated honest, hard-working taxpayers. I could go on and on and enumerate those stories, but I do not have to; we have all heard the same ones. Mr. Speaker, no one here is claiming that H.R. 2676 is a panacea for our ailing tax system. It does not abolish the IRS or scrap the Tax Code, as many of our constituents would like. But until we do that, and we will do that, this bill takes a step toward installing a modicum of fairness into a system for those who are simply forced to comply with the Tax Code's painful provisions.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying legislation. As the gentlewoman described, this rule makes in order the Education Savings Act for Public and Private Schools, of which I am a proud cosponsor. Mr. Speaker, there is no more important investment that we can make as a country than in the future of our Nation's children. Stimulating and challenging young minds through a quality education will ensure that they have the tools to achieve personal success, and to continue America's tradition of leadership and innovation. The bill this rule makes in order will allow every child to have an A plus account in which $2,500 may be deposited each year for that child's education. The interest on these investments will accrue tax- free, and withdrawals can be spent for virtually any educational need, school books, computers, tutoring, uniforms, transportation, tuition, any of these things, from kindergarten all the way through to college. The beauty of these accounts is that the choice of how to spend the money is left to the parents. Make no mistake, this is not Government money, it is hard-earned taxpayer money coming out of the pockets of individuals who had the foresight and discipline to save it, whatever their income level. Nameless, faceless bureaucracy is taken out of the equation. All the Government is giving is a break to hard-working families who want the very best for their children. Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle shrink at the thought of even the simplest education reforms, claiming that public education will be the loser. Their solution to what ails our education system is increased spending at the Federal level, more Federal strings attached, more one-size-fits-all solutions. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, why do they insist on killing public education by insisting that command and control remain in Washington? Under the Education Savings Act we get the best of both worlds: more investment in education, and greater involvement of parents and the others interested in the community. Public schools stand to gain as much as any other educational institution when there is more money available to go around. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support increased investment in our Nation's future through the education of its children. Every Member should support this rule and the underlying legislation. Do it for the children.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Shuster], the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the debate provided for under this rule should be more than sufficient to address any new concerns that have arisen since the House last considered this measure and passed it overwhelmingly by a vote of 406 to 4. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this fair and generous rule. 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 such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 270 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica], a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Petri], a member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 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 270 is a modified closed rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2247, the Amtrak Reform and Privatization Act of 1997. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided, and makes in order the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure's amendment in the nature of a substitute. Further, the rule makes in order two amendments printed in the report of the Committee on Rules as well as the Democratic substitute. To expedite floor proceedings, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may be allowed to postpone votes during the consideration of H.R. 2247 and to reduce votes to 5 minutes, provided they follow a 15-minute vote. Finally, the rule also provides the minority with the customary motion to recommit with or without instructions. Many of my colleagues may recall that last Congress the House considered and passed an Amtrak reform bill. In fact, that bill is virtually identical to the legislation before us today and it passed the House by an overwhelming vote of 406 to 4 with the support of both political parties, the administration, and organized labor. So one would think that without much debate the House could again easily pass this compromise legislation. But oddly things have changed. Last night, in the Committee on Rules we heard testimony to the effect that organized labor has had a change of heart and no longer finds the Amtrak reform bill to their liking. While the reason for this mood swing was not made fully clear, the Committee on Rules voted to make in order two amendments that had the support of organized labor, a bipartisan amendment offered by my colleagues, the gentlemen from Ohio [Mr. LaTourette], and [Mr. Traficant], as well as an amendment offered by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Quinn], which will be offered as a substitute to the LaTourette-Traficant amendment. Each amendment will be debatable for 20 minutes. In a further effort to alleviate recent concerns, the Committee on Rules agreed to allow the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure to offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute which will be debatable for 30 minutes. That means that under the rule, two Democrats and two Republicans will have the opportunity to offer amendments to the Amtrak reform bill. In addition, the minority has the opportunity to offer a motion to recommit with or without instructions. I would submit to my colleagues that the rule before us is very balanced and, given the easy passage of virtually identical legislation in the 104th Congress, I think the rule provides adequate time to debate the substance of the legislation, including the new concerns that have cropped up. Mr. Speaker, not only is the rule before us fair, but the underlying legislation it allows the House to debate is critical. Amtrak's financial state is rapidly deteriorating. In April of this year, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure appointed a panel of outside experts to study Amtrak. The panel reached the unanimous conclusion that Amtrak is facing a severe financial crisis with bankruptcy looming the next 6 to 12 months. In response, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure reintroduced legislation to implement a number of long-awaited reforms that will stave off bankruptcy and put the railroad back on track, ready to serve the many passengers who rely on its services. H.R. 2247 will eliminate the Federal Government's micromanagement of Amtrak and provide Amtrak with needed flexibility in managing its work force. For example, H.R. 2247 will restructure Amtrak's management by removing the current board of directors and providing for the appointment of an emergency reform board which will recommend a plan to restructure Amtrak. The bill also creates a seven-member advisory council of business experts having no affiliation with the railroad industry, Amtrak, or the U.S. Government who will be charged with evaluating Amtrak's business plan, cost containment measures, productivity improvements, and accounting procedures. The council would then recommend to Congress how best to proceed toward partial or complete privatization of the railroad. In addition, the bill gives Amtrak the option of contracting out work which will provide for desperately needed capital savings. Contracting out the work to repair and modernize Amtrak's facilities alone would save taxpayers an estimated $262 million. The bill also makes some reasonable changes to onerous labor protection requirements that will allow Amtrak to streamline and reassign its work force in line with commonsense business practices. Other reforms in the bill will provide options for private financing and encourage States to continue their financial support of Amtrak in cooperation with other States to ensure their citizens have continued access to valued intercity rail services. These and other reforms in H.R. 2247 promise to continue Amtrak's service for passengers in the short term and set the railroad on a course to financial solvency and self-sufficiency in the long run. While these changes are dramatic by necessity, they are carefully designed in fairness to the American taxpayers and Amtrak's employees. Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. Our constituents who rely on intercity rail services and all American taxpayers are looking to Congress to address Amtrak's crisis in a reasonable, responsible, and timely manner. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to adopt this fair and balanced rule without delay so that the House can move on to debate the important issues surrounding Amtrak's future. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this bill. Today we have an opportunity to open the courthouse doors to America's private property owners who are clamoring outside, hoping to gain entrance merely to exercise their constitutional rights. At one time in our Nation's history the property rights of individuals were sacred. In our Constitution the Founding Fathers provided that that no person shall be denied of life, liberty, or property without due process, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. But increasingly local, State, and Federal Governments have overlooked the Constitution and placed more and more restrictions on land use in a manner that ignores rather than protects the interests of those who own the land. In these situations, it is only right that landowners have a fair opportunity to challenge the decisions of governmental bodies in court. But instead their access to justice is routinely denied. In fact, only 20 percent of takings cases successfully weave their way through the procedural obstacles that await them in a journey that takes an average of 9\1/2\ years to navigate. Mr. Chairman, this bill sends a message to Federal courts that they can no longer willingly ignore takings cases. In effect, the bill will give private property owners their day in court and finally put the decision within their view.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, just the other day I visited Hine Junior High School with some of my colleagues just a few blocks away from the Capitol, and while there, I spoke with the students. They are wonderfully bright, capable students. They deserve the best in education, just like young people all across America do. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, many children in the District of Columbia are made to endure some of the lowest school standards and some of the most dangerous conditions in the country, despite the fact that the D.C. public schools spend some of the most money per student in the Nation. Clearly, throwing money at the problem is not working to improve these schools. Mr. Chairman, some fortunate students in the District have families who can afford to send their children to private schools, parochial schools, or to move to the suburbs where the schools might be better. But many in the District do not have that luxury. It is a crime that some would suggest simply maintaining the status quo for those families who have no choice, relegating their children to the prison of the same tired, dangerous, underperforming public school system that we have been observing with horror for too many years now. Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that this bill does not take money from the D.C. public school budget. It adds scholarships on top of that budget. This bill will, in fact, enable more money to be spent on the children who remain in the D.C. public schools, enhancing education for all students across the board. Mr. Chairman, by providing parents some choice, we will be sending a wake-up call to the public school system telling them they can no longer take the children of D.C. for granted. By passing this reform, we will be telling the D.C. public schools, you must change, you must produce, you must live up to the hopes and dreams of the children and the families of the District of Columbia. Now is the time, and here are the resources. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge the defeat of the Moran amendment that would critically strip out this critical reform.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, my friend, for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this rule and the VA-HUD conference report. I would like to commend the gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], the chairman, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Stokes], the ranking member, for ably guiding the VA-HUD appropriations bill through conference. The final bill they produced speaks very well of their efforts. This year's fiscally responsible bill shaves $1 billion off the President's request and it successfully prioritizes spending to ensure that we fulfill our responsibility to our Nation's veterans, provide needed housing to less fortunate Americans, keep the exciting discoveries of the U.S. space program alive, and provide adequate resources to keep America's air clean and water safe. There are many accomplishments in this legislation worth extolling, but I want to focus on a portion of the bill that is of special significance to me as a former member of the Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent Agencies. Since the 1970's, section 8 rental assistance contracts have helped provide private low-cost housing to seniors, disabled persons, and low-income families. However, these 20-year contracts have begun to expire, leaving millions of Americans unsure of the future of their housing. The funding in this bill to renew expiring section 8 housing contracts is both important and necessary. However, I have long maintained that the program itself needs to be restructured to bring down the high cost of section 8 housing. In that vein, I joined with my friend from Virginia [Mr. Moran] to sponsor legislation this year to achieve such reforms. Therefore, I am very grateful to the chairman, the gentleman from California, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and our colleagues in the Senate for their hard work to forge an agreement on the section 8 reforms included in this legislation. I know it was not easy, but I am convinced that it was well worth their efforts. The timely reforms in this bill will ensure the stability of section 8 properties so that affordable housing will continue to be available for our citizens with the greatest need. The solutions this legislation provides will save hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars while putting the power to reform the program where it belongs, right in the local communities. For this achievement, and for the many good things in the VA-HUD conference report, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and move towards swift passage of the underlying legislation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

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. 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 and should be limited to debate on the issue at hand. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 254 provides for the routine consideration of the fiscal year 1998 energy and water development appropriations bill. The resolution waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration. The rule provides that the conference report should be considered as read. Let me begin my congratulating the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Fazio] for ably guiding the energy and water appropriations bill through conference. The product of their hard work is a fiscally responsible conference report that spends $1.9 billion less than the President requested, once again demonstrating to the taxpayers that this Congress is serious about cutting waste and prioritizing our spending. Mr. Speaker, I believe this bill does an excellent job of accurately assessing our Nation's energy and water needs, adjusting the administration's request for water resources infrastructure. For example, the conference report provides funding for important flood control activities of the Army Corps of Engineers, a need that was definitely brought to light by the devastating floods that ravaged the South and Midwest last winter and throughout this past spring. I would like to commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. McDade] and the subcommittee for their continued support of the West Columbus flood wall project. In 1913, 1937, and 1959, melting snow and heavy rains caused the Scioto River to overflow its banks. The resulting catastrophic flood caused the loss of many lives, destroyed homes and businesses, and damaged millions of dollars' worth of residential and commercial property. Ensuring a continued Federal commitment to this project is essential to providing the West Columbus community peace of mind and a real measure of protection from the looming threat of destructive floods. There are examples all across our Nation of exactly the same situation found in this conference report. I would also note that the conference report continues our commitment to downsizing and streamlining the Federal Government by imposing a number of management reforms on the Department of Energy, all designed to keep the Department focused, efficient, and accountable to the taxpayers. There are more than a few of my colleagues who view the Department of Energy as the epitome of wasteful bureaucracy that has outgrown its original limited purpose. How the Department responds to the reforms implemented by this bill will send an important message to Congress about what the future of this agency should be. In the meantime, the conference report will provide the necessary DOE funds for basic scientific research, accelerated cleanup of contaminated DOE sites, maintenance of our Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, and a continuation of solar renewable energy programs. In addition, the conference report begins the phaseout of funding for another agency that has outlived its necessity by terminating the appropriations for the Tennessee Valley Authority after fiscal year 1998. I should note that through this legislation the TVA will receive $70 million for its nonpower program, but this amount represents a 34 percent cut below the current level and the administration's request. Mr. Speaker, as the fiscal year draws to a close, I encourage my colleagues to adopt the rule before us without delay so that the House may proceed with consideration of the fiscal year 1998 energy and water conference report. I urge support for both the rule and 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 254 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, never have we heard or seen a more shameless, despicable display of playing the race card from the bottom of the deck than that we are seeing here today with regard to the disputed Sanchez election. I have heard investigations into voter fraud described as a witch hunt, an attack on all Hispanic voters, and an unprecedented attack on Hispanics throughout the Nation. I have heard our constitutional duty to ensure fair and honest elections characterized as targeting every Hispanic voter as if they did not have the right to vote. What utter nonsense. Fair and honest elections are not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. Is the other side really suggesting that voter fraud should not be investigated? Is the other side really suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should be able to vote? The other side's reckless, irresponsible, and deliberately inflammatory charges are an insult to this great institution, to the American ideal of fair and honest elections.