Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the Mollohan amendment on census sampling, and in support of the provision offered by the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hastert]. As a former judge I want to stress that sampling is neither a Republican issue nor a Democratic issue. It is a legal issue and a constitutional issue which ultimately should and must be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, not a politicized commission as proposed by the Mollohan amendment. By defeating the Mollohan amendment, we will help clear the way for enactment of the Hastert provision. Now, here is what the Hastert provision does. First, it recognizes that the legislative and executive branches have reached an unresolvable impasse on the subject of sampling and statistical adjustment. Then it asks the judicial branch to fulfill the role envisioned for it by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, and step in and decide this dispute through the court system. Then it protects the taxpayer by getting a court decision on the legality of sampling and statistical adjustment before billions of taxpayer dollars are spent and potentially wasted. Now, just like a judge would issue a temporary restraining order to prevent further harm in a dispute between two private parties, the Hastert provision would move to protect the taxpayers from potential harm by putting a temporary hold on funding for sampling while the court hears the case. Once the Supreme Court has reached a final decision, the temporary funding hold is removed and the Census Bureau will be free to spend money in compliance with the law as determined by the court. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to defeat the Mollohan amendment and to allow the enactment of the Hastert provision. Then we will count. We will count the poor, we will count the minorities, we will count all Americans, as is required by the Constitution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time, and I rise to express my support for both this rule and the underlying resolution. House Resolution 253 is a closed rule to govern debate on a very serious matter that speaks directly to the issue of whether this institution is willing to demand that the laws it passes are honored and enforced. It is both that simple and that important. Mr. Speaker, we will hear plenty of impassioned debate today that will be driven by politics and influenced by personalities. The gentlewoman from California [Ms. Sanchez] is a pleasure to serve with and we all take pleasure in her company, but this is not about personalities. The resolution that this rule makes in order addresses the willful failure of the Hermandad Mexicana Nacional to comply with a valid legal subpoena. However, some of my colleagues clearly are missing the point. It does not matter who requested the subpoena; it does not matter what the subpoena is expected to uncover, nor does it matter what the ethnicity is of the parties served by the subpoena. What is significant is that the subpoena is valid under the processes laid out by a Federal law that has been on the books for over 25 years. How long can this body sit idle as the Hermandad completely ignores this subpoena and, in effect, challenges the legitimacy of the Federal Contested Elections Act? The bottom line is that if one breaks the law, then one must face the consequences, but somehow our friends on the other side of the aisle express outrage at this very simple principle. Are they really suggesting that voter fraud should not be investigated? Are they really suggesting that non-U.S. citizens should be allowed to vote? And if the Department of Justice is content to drag its feet in the face of this defiance, then as a former prosecutor and a former judge, I believe it is the responsibility of this House to send a strong message that we demand that the law be enforced. It is a sad day for all of us when we cannot expect this body, which is sworn to uphold the Constitution, to honor this very basic legal process. The other side's deliberately inflammatory charges are an insult to this great institution and to the American ideal of fair and honest elections. We keep hearing clamoring for campaign reform. Well, I respectfully suggest that we enforce the laws that we have at hand. That is what this resolution is about, and I encourage my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying resolution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, due to a very important family commitment, on Thursday, September 4, 1997, I sought, and was granted, an official leave of absence from the majority leader. Because of my absence, I was unable to cast recorded votes on the below-indicated amendments and/or bills. However, if I were present, I would have voted in the following manner: H.R. 2159, Fiscal Year 1998 Foreign Operations Appropriations 1. Burton Amendment (No. 38): Nay. 2. Campbell Amendment (No. 76): Nay. 3. Paul Amendment (No. 32): Nay. 4. Fox Amendment (No. 41): Nay. 5. Torres Amendment (No. 17): Nay. 6. Stearns Amendment (No. 3): Yea. 7. Gilman/Pelosi substitute to Smith Amendment (No. 15): Yea. 8. Smith Amendment (No. 15): Nay. 9. H.R. 2159 Final Passage: Yea.

Mr. PRYCE of Ohio

Mr. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at the risk of losing it on C-SPAN, at the risk of having Members miss their planes, I would just like to close this by saying how much this body will miss you, Susan, and how much I will miss you, too. Your wit and your charm and your grace and your grit and everything that I tried to learn from you, I hope we can sustain even in your absence. You were the first Member that I met outside of Ohio. You taught me so much. I hope that you will still be around to keep us going. So do not be a stranger. Godspeed, Susan Molinari.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my enthusiastic support for this rule and for the Balanced Budget Act, and to point out to the last speaker, and to all the body, that we are already 50 percent fairer than the other party was in their rules in the last time they had control of this House. What is exciting this day, Mr. Speaker, is that today Americans in this country, the earners, the savers, and the taxpayers, the people who play hard, work hard, take a few risks, strive every day to build a better future for their families and communities, are about to realize something for it. For years, their message to us has been crystal clear. They wanted Congress to cut the tax burden on Americans. They wanted us to reduce Government spending and Government size. They wanted us to create new jobs and opportunities. They wanted us to shift power and influence to the States and local communities, where creative local solutions could take the place of broad Federal mandates. Most of all, they wanted us to balance the budget. Finally, the message has sunk in. We are relearning the lessons of the 1980's, when we did cut taxes, when we did restrain Federal regulation and lower Government spending, because when we did those things prosperity made a huge comeback. Jobs were created, income started to rise, and people felt more secure about their economic futures. Today we are about to kickstart that economic revolution again. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, we will actually balance the budget by the year 2002, the first time since 1969. That was the year I graduated from high school. That was the year Neal Armstrong walked on the Moon. That was a long time ago, Mr. Speaker. Not only that, we are extending the life of Medicare for 10 years. We are saving it from bankruptcy, and giving seniors expanded options in meeting their health care needs. At the same time, the Balanced Budget Act makes important investments in people, like the children's health initiative, preventive health programs, and the new welfare to work program to move welfare recipients off the public assistance rolls and into the payrolls. Mr. Speaker, these are just a few of the provisions in this historic legislation, and I commend the bipartisan negotiators who worked hard through many long days and nights to bring us to this conference agreement today. I especially want to recognize my colleague, the gentleman from Columbus, OH, Mr. John Kasich for his steadfast leadership in the fight to achieve a balanced budget over the years. Back in Ohio, we are so doggoned proud of Chairman Kasich that we could bust. Not only him, but all the negotiators that came up with this agreement are national heroes. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today to begin a new chapter in our Nation's history. Let us seize it. Let us grasp this once-in-a- lifetime opportunity. Vote for this rule. Support the conference report.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss] for yielding me this time, and I rise in strong support of this open rule. Providing for the national defense is one of the few Federal duties that is very, very clearly defined in our Constitution. As such, we have the responsibility to ensure that the men and women of our Armed Forces have the training and resources that they need to defend our Nation from the global threats that still remain. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. Despite the end of the cold war, there are many threats still out there that require the United States to be vigilant and ready for conflict in the sad event it should arise. The bill which this open rule makes in order is a sound effort to put balance back into our defense priorities. I commend the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Appropriations for crafting a bill that addresses the many competing challenges facing our military establishment in a very responsible manner. As in the past, this bill focuses on enhancing quality of life, especially for military families, addressing shortfalls in readiness and training, modernizing our fighting force, and downsizing our Armed Forces overall. And it does so while staying true to the bipartisan goal of balancing the Federal budget. Most importantly, H.R. 2266 puts the troops first and recognizes that the heart and soul of our defense is the all-volunteer army. By providing the funding for improved military housing, child development centers and even programs like breast cancer detection and treatment, this bill respects the hard work and sacrifices made by our military personnel and attempts to give them the quality of life and standard of living that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, the safety and prosperity of the American people depend on safeguarding our national security in a changing world. We simply cannot afford to let the gains we have made for freedom and democracy be jeopardized by any insufficient defense strategy. Under this open rule we will have full and fair debate on preparing our military for the next century. I would urge a yes vote on both measures.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Bakersfield, CA [Mr. Thomas], the chairman of the Committee of House Oversight. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution, and that I may be permitted to insert extraneous material into the Record following my remarks.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, House Resolution 197 makes in order the bill H.R. 2209, the fiscal year 1998 legislative branch appropriations bill, under a modified closed rule. At the outset I would like to commend the chairman, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Walsh, and the ranking member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jose Serrano, and the rest of my colleagues on the Subcommittee on Legislative of the Committee on Appropriations for their hard work in bringing what has historically been a difficult bill to the floor. During this year's bill, we will not be free of controversy, I am afraid. I am sure we will hear from our friends in the minority about their concerns. Unfortunately, the bill has been hampered by issues that are outside the control of the Committee on Rules. But given that there may be some folks who would go so far as to recommend zero funding for the legislative branch and send us all home to get jobs in the real world, I believe this is a very responsible rule for a responsible bill. As the Reading Clerk has described for us, the rule waives a limited number of points of order against the consideration of the bill to permit timely consideration and to address some technical requirements with regard to the Congressional Budget Act, and transfers of funds within the bill. The rule makes in order four amendments printed in the Committee on Rules' report to accompany this resolution, to be offered only in the order printed in the report, by the Member specified, and debatable for the time specified in the report. The amendments are to be considered as read and are not subject to amendment or to a demand for a division of the question in either the House or in the Committee of the Whole. In addition, all points of order against the amendments are waived. Furthermore, the rule provides that the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone recorded votes on any amendment and that the Chairman may reduce voting time on a postponed question to 5 minutes, provided that the vote immediately follows another recorded vote, and that the voting time on the first in a series of votes is not less than 15 minutes. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Madam Speaker, while the annual funding bill for the operations of the House, the Senate, and various congressional agencies is often a lightning rod for partisan conflict, we should not forget that the legislative branch appropriations bill has also been a prime vehicle for reforming this institution from within to make it more open, more effective, and more accountable to the people we serve. By adopting this fair rule, we continue those important reforms while further streamlining and updating the operations of this unique and historic institution. As most of my colleagues know, this Congress has consistently emphasized the need to have a balanced Federal budget, and I am pleased to note that under this year's legislation funding for congressional operations will be $10 million less than last year's enacted level. Now, that may not be a great amount of money, but it is important for our constituents back home to know that we are taking the task of cutting government very seriously here. We are looking at our own backyard. We are doing our part to contribute to the larger deficit reduction effort, and we have saved nearly $400 million since fiscal year 1996, the first year of the Republican majority. This year, for example, H.R. 2209 cuts a total of 316 positions throughout the legislative branch, and since 1994 nearly 4,000 positions have been cut. The bill saves $1.6 million in House Information Resources by cutting funding for 20 unused positions, reducing costs for equipment replacement and generating greater savings from increased competition for telecommunications services. It also funds the Joint Committee on Taxation at a level lower than was originally requested. I am also pleased to note that this year's bill includes funding for a modest cost-of-living increase for congressional staff. I commend the subcommittee for including this COLA, because in so many ways we are indebted to the hard work, dedication, and commitment of our staffs, who are dedicated public servants. Finally, let me say a word or two about the amending process of this bill. The rule makes in order four amendments, two by Republican sponsors and two by Democrat sponsors. In addition to considering those amendments, any Member who is still opposed to the bill can offer a final amendment through the customary motion to recommit with instructions. Madam Speaker, this resolution is the traditional structured rule that we have used in the past to debate funding for the legislative branch. We should keep in mind that the bill which this rule makes in order is about more than just appropriations. It is also about protecting the integrity of this institution, ensuring that we have the proper resources to legislate responsibly and efficiently, and to preserve the Capitol and its grounds for Americans and visitors to see and to enjoy. Summer is the time when the Capitol Building plays host to thousands of vacation visitors who have come to see firsthand this hallowed shrine of history, democracy, and freedom. Throughout the year, these Halls of democracy echo with the sounds of adults, children, and youth alike who want nothing more than a front row seat to watch the democratic process in action. It is for their sake and for future generations of Americans who will want to experience their democratic heritage that we are considering this very important funding legislation today. While a completely open rule may seem appealing, the operations of the Congress and the organizations that support our work are extremely vital, Madam Speaker. We should consider floor amendments in a very, very careful, measured way, something which is less likely to happen under an open rule. In other words, I believe it is beneficial to ourselves and to the people who sent us here to consider this bill in a disciplined manner. Madam Speaker, this is a responsible rule for a very responsible and reasonable legislative branch spending bill that maintains our commitment to fiscal responsibility and to doing more with less. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume the distinguished gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], the subcommittee chairman.

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware [Mr. Castle].

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I continue to 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, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Walsh], chairman of the subcommittee.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. I think we only have two speakers remaining.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier]. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Frost], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. General Leave

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules I call up House Resolution 197 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about tax fairness. I do not think that it is fair that the Government waste so much of our money. I do not think it is fair that people have to pay between a quarter and a half of all the money that they earn to the Government, the same government that turns around and wastes it on massive programs that barely work. I also do not think it is fair when I think about how much prior generations paid in taxes compared to how much we have to pay in taxes. Back in 1950, the average family paid less than 5 percent of its income in taxes to the Federal Government. Now that same family pays over a quarter of everything that it earns. When we add up all the State taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, all the other taxes, families are paying nearly half of what they earn to the Government. It just seems like the Government is not doing much with it. We are becoming less and less accountable every year. I just do not think it is fair. We are going to change it. Support tax relief for American families.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], for yielding me the time, and I rise in opposition to the Porter-Kennedy amendment. This amendment eliminates funding allocated to the forest road program. But this program builds, improves, and maintains forest roads. Those who support the amendment argue that the forest road program provides a subsidy. I respectfully disagree. I would like to take this opportunity to commend to my colleagues this piece of literature prepared by Price Waterhouse that says ``the forest roads program does not contain a subsidy for timber purchasers and provides an efficient and effective mechanism for financing road construction and reconstruction.'' These roads are an important tool used to manage the resources in our national forests. Just last August, a staffer of mine spent 14 days fighting wildfires in Oregon. It was the forest roads that provided him and other fire-fighters with their sole access over land to the safety of their fire camp 6 miles away. Without such roads, access over land would have been next to impossible, causing a great loss of both time and energy. But it is not just access for our wildland firefighters that is important, these roads also provide access for our resource managers and foresters, hunters, fishermen, and those who just want to take a walk in the woods. I urge Members to look past the political rhetoric that many groups would have them believe. If you support promoting forest health and sound environmental stewardship, I urge you to support the forest roads program and defeat the amendment.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of this fair rule. This is about the NEA, but it is only a small part of this legislation. This appropriations bill is also about preserving our Nation's rich heritage, our natural resources like our national forests and parks; our human resources, like improving native American education and the many museums and cultural centers all around the country. This bill is about keeping our history and heritage alive for people of all ages and all walks of life to see and to enjoy. What we do today in this bill will not just preserve our past for the record books, it will also enable us to educate our children and grandchildren about who we are and where we came from and the events that shaped our Nation's history. By caring for these precious resources, we honor the legacy of our land and the struggles and the accomplishments of those who came before us. Mr. Speaker, summer is a time when many of our constituents pack up the family and head off to vacation, maybe to the Nation's Capital to take advantage of the diverse cultural institutions that Washington has to offer. I am pleased to note that the bill provides priority funding for the Smithsonian Institution, the National Gallery of Art, the John F. Kennedy Center and the National Holocaust Museum. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules worked very hard to find a way to resolve the controversies surrounding the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts. This has been a difficult emotional issue for Members on both sides of the debate, and many thoughtful arguments have been made for why the NEA should or should not continue as it is today. I believe this rule offers a very fair approach to debating the question of whether the Federal Government should be engaged in promoting the arts in America and to what degree. This rule permits the House to debate an amendment which will transform the current NEA to a block grant program funded at $80 million, to be administered by the States. This may not be the preferred option for those who strongly support the NEA, but in my view it is an honest, good faith attempt to resolve this difficult situation and to maintain an appropriate Federal commitment to promoting the arts and the culture in American society. Mr. Speaker, in closing let me say that I deeply appreciate the hard work of my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula]. We all recognize the tight constraints of the Federal budget and the contentiousness of many of these issues. He has crafted a bill that balances good government choices with a paramount need to restore, preserve, and protect our Nation's natural and cultural resources. This is a responsible bill. And under this rule we will have a chance for an open debate. I urge my colleagues in the strongest possible terms to vote for this fair and open rule and to support the Interior appropriations bill that it supports.