Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I am not a Westerner and I have no vested interest in this issue. But last year when this was debated I looked at it closely. Mr. Chairman, I rise again in opposition to the amendment. Last year, we witnessed a devastating fire season with more than six million acres burned by catastrophic wildfire. While fire is an important part of mother nature's cycle, these un-natural, slow-moving, hot-burning fires are the by-product of dense fuel loading in our forests, which often kills healthy trees and sterilizes the soil from future growth. The timber forest road program, which this amendment seeks to reduce, provides important access for our wildlife firefighters in their effort to protect our natural resources. A member of my staff understands this fact first-hand, having spent two weeks last summer fighting fires in the Umatilla National Forest in eastern Oregon. The forest roads provided their sole access over land to get to the fire and, more importantly, a safe means to evacuate personnel when the fire got out of control. But, it's not just access for our wildlife firefighters that is important. These roads also provide important access for resource managers, foresters, hunters, fishermen, campers, hikers, and yes, even those who just want to take a walk in the woods. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to look past the political rhetoric that many groups would have them believe. If you support promoting long-term forest health and sound environmental stewardship, I urge you to support the forest roads program and defeat this amendment.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 262, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' Personal Explanation

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, while liberal Democrats are busier than a White House shredder coming up with excuses why they are against tax cuts, Republicans in Congress remain committed to passing the first tax cuts in 16 years. Let us recall that Congress would not even be talking about tax cuts were it not for the Republicans in control. After all, prior to 1994 the Democrats were in power for decades. They had their chance to give average families tax relief. They chose instead to pass President Clinton's tax increase, the largest tax increase in U.S. history. Now I hear the other side making claims that they really are for tax relief, only they are not for the Republican tax package. With all due respect, those claims are about as credible as the White House claims that no one can remember who hired Craig Livingstone. No, the sad truth is that Democrats have not stood for tax relief since President John F. Kennedy. The proof is in the pudding.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is painfully obvious by now how painful it is for the liberal Democrats to accept tax cuts of any kind. The truth is they simply cannot justify letting Americans keep more of their hard-earned money. In their view, Mr. Speaker, the politicians are doing people a favor by letting them keep what is already theirs. Their idea of fairness is that the people who worked harder, who went to school a little longer, who got up a little earlier, who stayed at the office a little later, who took the risks, who worked harder to come up with better ideas, their idea of fairness means that those same people are somehow not justified in their desire to be rewarded for their efforts. In the commonsense view of fairness, money does not come easily for those who earn it. The tax cuts in this balanced budget amendment honors work. It lets millions of middle-class taxpayers keep more of what they worked so hard to earn.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules for yielding me the time. I rise in strong support of this rule and the reconciliation package and I am very encouraged by the compromise to address the enforcement issue. Mr. Speaker, even without that in this bill, boy, have we come a long way. Mr. Speaker, the growth in the 1980's showed us what can happen when we give the American people the tools that they need to grow and prosper. The same is true today. Government does not create new jobs. Government does not build stable families. Our challenge is to restore growth and opportunity and to sustain it for future generations. This reconciliation package holds the beginning of an answer to that challenge. Nobody calls it perfect, but it is a start and it is sure about time. It combines budget restraint with progrowth tax policy. By preserving and strengthening Medicare, it honors our commitment to older Americans. By including a child tax credit and new savings incentives it will help families to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on things they need most of their lives. This package is an honest bipartisan attempt to help those who will create tomorrow's growth and prosperity, the earners, the savers, the taxpayers who work hard; those people that get up earlier, stay at the office a little later, the ones that play by the rules, take a few risks and strive to build a better future for their families and communities. Mr. Speaker, after years of unbalanced budgets, deficit spending and high taxes, the chance to begin restoring the American dream is finally within our grasp. Let us seize it. Let us not miss this historic opportunity to give our children and grandchildren the bright economic future they deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this fair, this balanced rule and to vote for this reconciliation package.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 225, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.'' personal explanation

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman], smoke follows fire. The subpoenas follow the trouble. That is why they are directed at the White House. 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, 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, the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight has been compelled by substantial allegations in the media, an accumulating body of evidence and an ensuing public outcry to undertake a thorough investigation of campaign financing improprieties and threats to national security. Because of the serious magnitude of the revelations that continue to surface in this scandal, the Committee on Rules has responded by crafting this very effective, but very limited resolution. So I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it so we can get to the bottom of this complicated and complex affair. Rule 20.--Interrogatories and Depositions The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of interrogatories or depositions, under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena. Such authorization may occur on a case-by-case basis, or by instructions to take a series of interrogatories or depositions. Notices for the taking of depositions shall specify the date, time, and place of examination. Answers to interrogatories shall be answered fully in writing under oath and depositions shall be taken under oath administered by a member or a person otherwise authorized by law to administer oaths. Consultation with the ranking minority member shall include three business day's written notice before any deposition is taken. All members shall also receive three business day's written notice that a deposition has been scheduled. The committee shall not initiate contempt proceedings based on the failure of a witness to appear at a deposition unless the deposition notice was accompanied by a committee subpoena issued by the chairman. Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to advise them of their rights. No one may be present at depositions except members, committee staff designated by the chairman or ranking minority member, an official reporter, the witness, and the witness's counsel. Observers or counsel for other persons or for agencies under investigation may not attend. A deposition shall be conducted by any member or committee staff attorney designated by the chairman or ranking minority member. When depositions are conducted by committee staff attorneys, there shall be no more than two committee staff attorneys of the committee permitted to question a witness per round. One of the committee staff attorneys shall be designated by the chairman and the other shall be designated by the ranking minority member. Other committee staff members designated by the chairman or the ranking minority member may attend, but are not permitted to pose questions to the witness. Questions in the deposition will be propounded in rounds. A round shall include as much time as is necessary to ask all pending questions. In each round, a member or committee staff attorney designated by the chairman shall ask questions first, and the member or committee staff attorney designated by the ranking minority member shall ask questions second. An objection by the witness as to the form of a question shall be noted for the record. If a witness objects to a question and refuses to answer, the member or committee staff attorney may proceed with the deposition, or may obtain, at that time or a subsequent time, a ruling on the objection by telephone or otherwise from the chairman or a member designated chairman. The committee shall not initiate procedures leading to contempt proceedings based on a refusal to answer a question at a deposition unless the witness refuses to testify after an objection of the witness has been overruled and after the witness has been ordered by the chairman or a member designated by the chairman to answer the question. Overruled objections shall be preserved for committee consideration within the meaning of clause 2(k)(8) of House Rule 11. Committee staff shall insure that the testimony is either transcribed or electronically recorded, or both. If a witness's testimony is transcribed, the witness or the witness's counsel shall be afforded an opportunity to review a copy. No later than five days thereafter, the witness may submit suggested changes to the chairman. Committee staff may make any typographical and technical changes requested by the witness. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by the witness must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement of the witness's reasons for each proposed change. A letter requesting any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments must be signed by the witness. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall be included as an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon the witness signing the transcript. The individual administering the oath, if other than a member, shall certify on the transcript that the witness was duly sworn. The transcriber shall certify that the transcript is a true record of the testimony and the transcript shall be filed, together with any electronic recording, with the clerk of the committee in Washington, D.C. Interrogatories and depositions shall be considered to have been taken in Washington, D.C. as well as at the location actually taken once filed there with the clerk of the committee for the committee's use. The chairman and the ranking minority member shall be provided with a copy of the transcripts of the deposition at the same time. All depositions and interrogatories received pursuant to this rule shall be considered as taken in executive session. A witness shall not be required to testify unless the witness has been provided with a copy of the committee's rules. This rule is applicable to the committee's investigation of political fundraising improprieties and possible violations of law, and is effective upon adoption of a resolution, in the House of Representatives, providing the committee with special investigative authorities. Rule 21.--Letters Rogatory and International Government Assistance The chairman, after consultation with the ranking minority member, may obtain testimony and evidence in other countries through letters rogatory and other means of international government cooperation and assistance. This rule is applicable to the committee's investigation of political fundraising improprieties and possible violations of law, and is effective upon adoption of a resolution, in the House of Representatives, providing the committee with special investigative authorities. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California [Mr. Cox], a member of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Gilman]. (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would like to let the gentleman to know it was not Oliver North; it was his attorney who stated he was not a potted plant. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight who has a great job ahead of him to conduct this investigation.

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Mica].

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn].

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Diaz-Balart].

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 167 is a straightforward resolution designed to provide special investigative authorities for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight. In most cases, the standing rules of the House provide committees with the tools they need to carry out formal investigations, including the power to issue subpoenas. But in circumstances such as this, the complexity and scope of congressional inquiry require that special authorities be granted to ensure that investigations are conducted thoroughly and that they are not unduly prolonged. This resolution applies only to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight's current investigation of political fund-raising abuses and possible violations of Federal law, and it is divided into three basic parts: First, the resolution states that information obtained under its authority shall be considered as taken by the committee in the District of Columbia and that the information shall be considered as taken in executive session of the committee. Second, the resolution authorizes the chairman, after consultation with the ranking minority member, to order the taking of depositions or interrogatories anywhere within the United States, under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena, and to designate a member of the committee or staff attorney to conduct any such proceeding. Finally, because it may be necessary to seek evidence beyond our borders, the resolution authorizes the chairman, again after consultation with the ranking minority member, to order the taking of depositions and other testimony, under oath, anywhere outside the United States, and to make application for issuance of letters rogatory, and to request, through the appropriate channels, other means of international assistance. In the view of the Committee on Rules, the need for deposition authority in this case is clearly justified. The investigation concerns a series of complex matters that necessitate the taking of testimony of numerous key witnesses under oath. For major wide-ranging investigations such as this, the House has historically provided deposition authority in order to facilitate the fact-finding process. Because of the potentially hundreds of witnesses who will need to be deposed, it would not only be impractical but physically impossible for Members to be present at every step and to engage in time-consuming depositions. In this way, staff depositions will allow the committee to obtain sworn testimony quickly and confidently without the need for lengthy and possibly unfocused hearings. The Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at the present time is deeply involved in a massive investigation focused on the use of illegal foreign contributions to influence American policy, which also includes matters relating to potential illegal or improper political fund-raising, related activities involving the White House and other Federal agencies, the improper use of official resources, potential interference with Government investigation, and many other related matters. As the principal investigatory body of the House, this is the committee's statutory obligation. As our colleagues know, serious questions of national policy and national security have arisen as daily revelations disclose more troubling facts about the unusual access that questionable individuals had to high-ranking White House and administration officials. The threats to national security are a very troubling matter, Mr. Speaker, and I know the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon] will have more to say about that in just a few minutes. These disturbing questions and allegations clearly point to the need for the resolution that is now before us. Due to the sheer magnitude and severity of the revelations from the executive branch, and the need to bolster the ability of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to properly investigate this matter, the Committee on Rules is compelled to bring this resolution today. Mr. Speaker, when the Committee on Rules marked up this resolution yesterday, our colleagues in the minority raised several concerns, and I recognize their sincerity; but I would hasten to add this resolution is not only backed by ample precedent, it is also justifiably warranted given the enormous amount of ground that the Burton investigation must cover. We owe it to the integrity of Congress' investigatory process to make certain that the investigation is conducted as officially as possible and in a manner that will guard against any dilatory tactics that may be employed by those who oppose this investigation. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, I recognize the importance of basing our actions on past precedent, and our committee staff has worked diligently to ensure that this resolution is in keeping with previous House practice. As our committee report points out, there have been many cases where special investigative authorities were granted. Since 1974, there have been at least 10 major investigations undertaken by the House where the membership determined that additional authorities beyond those provided in House rules were needed to ensure a thorough and complete inquiry. In at least six major investigations since 1975, the House concluded that the need to gather evidentiary information from abroad justified granting special authorities to the investigating committee. In just the last Congress, staff deposition authority and the ability to gather evidence abroad were granted for the Bosnia select subcommittee, investigating the White House Travel Office matter, for the Senate Whitewater investigation, and the list goes on. Like so many Americans, we on the Committee on Rules are very concerned about the numerous allegations that lay at the heart of this investigation, and we are equally alarmed that our national security may have been severely compromised in this affair. As a result, the Committee on Rules has responded with a fair, responsible resolution that, No. 1, conforms with the investigating committee's own rules; No. 2, does not depart in any significant way from previous House practice; and, No. 3, that is designed to assist the investigating committee in finding answers to these and other troubling questions. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support this straightforward resolution. It is an honest attempt to balance efficiency, expediency and fairness without trampling on the rules of the House or on the basic rights of the minority. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this very important resolution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 H. Res. 167, and that I may be permitted to insert extraneous materials in the Record following my remarks.

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], my good friend and the distinguished ranking minority 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. General Leave

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 167 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Westchester, OH [Mr. Boehner].

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in strong support of the rule and the resolution of the Committee on the Budget. After years of deficit spending, we can begin laying the groundwork today for an honest balanced budget, while at the same time providing permanent tax relief, reforming Medicare, achieving significant entitlement savings, investing in domestic priorities, and making sure that the Government lives within its means. Unlike the budgets of the past, this resolution is based on steadily declining deficits every year until 2002, when we can expect a budget surplus. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker, a surplus is actually within reach. I know it is hard to believe, especially when we consider that the Federal Government has not balanced the budget in nearly a generation. That is simply a crime, Mr. Speaker, a crime against our children and our grandchildren who deserve a sound financial future. We have to stop robbing them of the opportunities and prosperity that they deserve. Mr. Speaker, I have been an advocate for victims of crime almost my entire professional life. I think it is time to consider another kind of victims' rights, the right of future generations who will be crippled by higher taxes and a crushing debt unless we commit ourselves today to a balanced budget. Getting to where we are has not been easy. The political rhetoric and demagoguing has been almost overwhelming at times. But we listened to the American people and we persevered. I congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. John Kasich, for his years and years of hard work, for his commitment to the good of the country, and for his determination in working to make this a bipartisan agreement. Nobody would say that this is perfect. All of us could improve upon it. However, it gives us so much. So, to paraphrase an old friend of all of ours, Bob Michel, let us not kill this good product with 1,000 points of spite. Let us not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. Under the terms of this fair and balanced rule we will debate a variety of budget proposals, each reflecting its own goals and spending priorities. The different sponsors deserve credit for their hard work, but let me caution the Members, under this rule there are no free votes. There is no room for political cover. Every vote counts, because whichever measure passes here will be the one we must all live with. Let us not undermine the hard work of the House and the Senate and the administration, the weeks of negotiation that have produced this very delicate win-win agreement. The country deserves no less. I urge my colleagues to adopt this responsible rule. They should make their vote count today and support the fine work of the Committee on the Budget. Let us give the next generation of Americans the kind of future they deserve.

Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio

Mrs. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague from Virginia, Congressman Moran, to introduce the Multifamily Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997. Since the 1970's, section 8 rental assistance contracts have helped provide private, low cost housing to low income residents. Unfortunately, these contracts have begun to expire, and Congress must act now to ensure that federally-assisted housing will be available and affordable for our citizens with the greatest need. The cost of renewing the section 8 contracts is skyrocketing; in fiscal year 1998 it will exceed $11 billion, or over one third of HUD's entire budget. The legislation that we are introducing brings section 8 spending under control while preserving this country's low income housing. This bill also sends the power to address this problem back to where it belongs--to the States and local communities directly affected by low income housing. My own State of Ohio has the second highest number of expiring section 8 contracts in the Nation. Without reform of the program, thousands of Ohio residents and millions of people across the country face fear and uncertainty as their section 8 contracts begin to expire. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to guarantee our citizens access to affordable housing.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. The Committee on Rules may meet early next week to grant a rule which may limit the amendments to be offered to H.R. 3, the Juvenile Crime Control Act of 1997. Subject to the approval of the Committee on Rules, this rule may include a provision limiting amendments to those specified in the rule. Any Member who desires to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies and a brief explanation of the amendment by noon on Monday, May 5, to the Committee on Rules at room H-312 in the Capitol. Amendments should be drafted to the text of the bill as reported from the Committee on the Judiciary. The bill and report are to be filed today, and until such time as the text is available in the document room it will be available in the Committee on the Judiciary. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure 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.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 134 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 867, the Adoption Promotion Act of 1997. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute from the Committee on Ways and Means as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, modified as specified in the report accompanying this rule. The modification simply amends the committee's bill so as to avoid including appropriations language in an authorizing bill. The rule also provides a limited but very necessary number of waivers to facilitate the orderly consideration of the bill. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record prior to their consideration, and such amendments shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, let me stress for our colleagues that this is more than just an open rule. In fact it is a wide-open rule. Any Member can be heard on any germane amendment to the bill at the appropriate time as long as it is consistent with the normal rules of the House. The bipartisan support this bill enjoys is clear evidence that building stable families by promoting adoption is a goal that both political parties can and should agree upon. Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise to my colleagues that the issue of adoption is very special to me. As an adoptive parent myself, I know firsthand that adopting a child can be one of life's most fulfilling experiences. Every child in America deserves a family and a home filled with love and security, free from abuse or neglect or the threat of violence. The sad truth is that today many children do not enjoy that basic human right, and I am afraid it is these very children who are paying a very dear price, victimized by a foster care system that was enacted with the best of intentions but which is failing to look out for their best interests. Why are a child's early years so important? New research tells us that the first years of life are critical to a child's development. We know that 90 percent of the brain's growth takes place during the first 3 years. So science is revealing what mothers have known always from the beginning of time, that early life experiences help determine the way a child thinks, learns and behaves for the rest of his or her life. That is why it is so crucial for parents and care givers to raise children in a healthy, happy environment. The first years of life do indeed last forever. So here we are today, Mr. Speaker, determined to change the rules of the game so that more children will have a better start. One way we can accomplish that aim is to speed up the adoption process, especially for foster children who have been abused or neglected. While Government cannot legislate love and compassion, it can provide the leadership and the tools necessary to encourage the development of healthy, nurturing families. For example, last year Congress enacted legislation that created valuable new tax incentives designed to foster and facilitate adoptions. In many respects, H.R. 867 addresses what might be referred to as the other side of the adoption coin. With last year's legislation we tried to ease the financial strain for hopeful parents. This bill addresses the frustrating problem of how to promote adoption of foster children who through no fault of their own are unable to return to their natural parents and who have languished for far too long in the foster care system. It is time to stop the revolving door of foster care that sends children from home to home to home with little or no hope that they will live with the same families from one month to another. Mr. Speaker, the most important change we can make is to elevate the rights of children because too often a foster child's best interests are abandoned while courts and welfare agencies drag their feet. To correct this injustice, H.R. 867 places the safety and well-being of children above efforts by the State to reunite them with biological parents who have abused or neglected them. As the legislation itself clearly spells out, a foster child's health and safety shall be of paramount concern in any effort by the State to preserve or reunify a child's family. Under current law, there are no financial incentives to move children from foster care to adoption, so States continue to receive Federal subsidies as long as children stay in foster care. This is crazy, Mr. Speaker. We have created a system that in effect pays States to keep kids locked in foster care at the expense of adoption. It is too bad that we have to use cash as an incentive. We would think the joy of giving a foster child a permanent home would be incentive enough. But this bill will establish a positive incentive to reduce the foster care case load. Mr. Speaker, the facts support the need for this legislation. Of the nearly half million kids in foster care, only 17,000 entered permanent adoptive homes. What is more astonishing is that during each of past 10 years more children have entered the foster care system than have left it. This is simply not acceptable, and we need to take action today to change it. The changes called for in H.R. 867 offer workable solutions to some of the most pressing concerns, and I applaud the work of my colleagues, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Kennelly]. I also want to commend the many, many conscientious foster care parents who have opened their doors and their hearts to foster children. I am hopeful that many of those responsible couples will have a chance to make their love permanent as a result of this legislation. As I said before, Congress and the Federal Government cannot legislate compassion and love for all of the Nation's children, but we can take reasonable steps to promote family stability and give children, especially foster children, a fighting chance to see the loving homes that they deserve. Children simply deserve better than a here today, gone tomorrow life in multiple foster homes. In the last Congress we reformed welfare so that low income mothers and their families would not be trapped in the never-ending cycle of dependency. We need to do the same thing with the foster care program that keeps thousands of innocent children trapped in a broken system that too often places their young lives in danger of repeated neglect and abuse. Mr. Speaker, this legislation enjoys strong bipartisan support. Like the rule before us, it was reported without any amendment by voice vote. Since being reported, several worthwhile amendments have come up and this open rule will certainly allow the House to discuss any concerns or improvements that Members may wish to discuss. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the rule and 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 134 and ask for its immediate consideration.