Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, in many ways foster care has become a black hole for America's most needy and vulnerable and precious children. They get sucked into it through no fault of their own and they end up spending years bouncing from one foster care family to another, with little or no hope of settling down to enjoy a stable, loving home environment. Today we can begin to offer these children a small ray of hope by agreeing to this open rule and by passing the Adoption Promotion Act. Mr. Speaker, we just need to change the model. We do not need the latest poll or focus group to know that it takes a family to build a stronger America. By protecting the safety and well-being of children, we can ensure that the neediest and the most neglected and the most abused foster children are given a real chance, a fighting chance, to enjoy safe and permanent homes. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the thousands of foster kids living in America today, I urge my colleagues to support this fair, open rule and to vote for the Adoption Promotion Act. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Dayton, OH [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw], subcommittee chair of this important legislation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier], my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished vice chairman of the committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier] for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for both this open rule and the Housing Opportunity Responsibility Act. First, I want to commend the chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Lazio], and the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Banking and Financial Services for crafting legislation that follows our basic principles of, No. 1, making the American dream of affordable housing more attainable; No. 2, empowering individuals to improve their lives; No. 3, returning more decisionmaking authority to States and localities where it belongs. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 does all of these things, fundamentally changing the public housing in section 8 rental assistance programs and allowing the Federal Government to support local communities in their decisions. Under this bill, the emphasis is placed on providing the most service for the least cost, and tailoring Federal assistance to fit local needs, so the limited Federal resources are invested in ways that are likely to achieve the greatest return. Fundamental to the bill is the belief that those who receive Federal assistance share a responsibility and an obligation to pursue self- sufficiency. H.R. 2 would remove disincentives to work, while linking continued Federal assistance to a modest amount of community service each month. While I support this legislation, I am concerned that H.R. 2 falls short of fully addressing the issue of national occupancy standards. This year I cosponsored legislation introduced by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum] to give States the authority to set their own occupancy standards. In the absence of State law, it would allow of a standard of two persons per bedroom plus infants. As I understand it, the so-called McCollum language was originally included, but was later scaled back significantly during the markup. In my view, the housing bill offers us the perfect and appropriate opportunity to give States the flexibility and authority to set their own standards and to implement a reasonable standard in their place when States fail to take action. A major housing reform bill like H.R. 2 should take advantage of the experience and expertise of those who deal with these issues on a daily basis. I hope this might be addressed at some point in the process. Mr. Speaker, promoting safe, clean, and healthy housing is central to the American dream, especially for low-income persons. I believe this legislation is critical to reducing the concentration of power at the Federal level that has stifled innovation and kept local housing authorities out of the decisionmaking process. I urge support of the bill and the rule.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to the outstanding philanthropic efforts of the 17 semifinalists for the 1997 J.C. Penney Golden Rule Award. I am proud to represent these people and organizations in Congress, for their commitment and devotion to the central Ohio community is truly exemplary. The Golden Rule Award ceremony publicly honors local volunteer efforts, and is presented in more than 200 markets in 45 States. The 1997 semifinalists have proven themselves to be amply deserving of this recognition, having demonstrated continued, selfless sacrifice to the Columbus, OH, area. They serve as a model to us all. America's generosity both at home and abroad in unsurpassed on this planet. Regrettably, however, the day-to-day volunteer efforts of so many Americans go regularly unnoticed. We take for granted their generous work with the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the neglected. But their unheralded and noble deeds are duly noted by those they help, often providing a bit of hope during times of great distress. At a time when our Nation demands that government become smaller and spend less, the importance of volunteerism and community service grows profoundly. These semifinalists prove once again that the most important work done in our country is not done within the beltway, but within the shelters, pantries, and soup kitchens of our local communities. We must never lose sight of the fact that Americans' innate sense of sacrifice continues regardless of what may transpire in Washington. I proudly salute the following people and organizations for their inspiring work, and join with my colleagues in congratulating them for this most deserving recognition. Ms. Carla L. Bailey; Columbus Firefighters' Local Union No. 67; The Dublin Women's Club; Upper Arlington City School District, Habitat for Humanity; Hospice at Riverside and Grant--Grant Inpatient Volunteers; Lee Ann Igoe; Louverture Jones, Jr.; Al and Betty Justus--Central Ohio Radio Reading Service; Linda Stern Kass--Columbus Montessori Education Center; The Liebert Corp.; Sam Morris; Physicians Free Clinic; Darrell Wayne Scott; Kathleen Straub; Helene F. Thomas; Thompson, Hine & Flory LLP; and Claire L. Waters.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the last few speakers as the hard-working American taxpayers labor about a third of the year just to pay their taxes, they stay up late, rolling up their sleeves, burning the midnight oil over their tax returns, or worse, paying accountants and lawyers thousands and thousands of dollars for the very privilege of paying their taxes, it is our duty, it is our responsibility, to stop, to put on the brakes of this annual travesty. This is the perfect day to provide this legislation. Mr. Speaker, with that I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Barton], the author of this legislation. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 113 and ask for its immediate consolidation.

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 myself the balance of the time. We have heard some very good arguments on both sides of this issue here this past hour, and under this fair rule the House will have ample opportunity to debate the merits of the tax limitation amendment in much greater depth. Any and all minority amendments can be in included in the substitute and again in the motion to recommit. I would urge my colleagues to consider the tax limitation is working in the States which have adopted supermajority requirements. States have grown more slowly, spending has not increased as fast, economies have expanded faster, and the job base has grown more quickly. The Federal Government and our national economy could surely use the same benefits. We have the opportunity today to adopt a fiscal tool that will help counter what many of my colleagues and I believe is a natural bias in favor of bigger government and higher taxes. Let us not miss this opportunity to strike a blow for fairness for hard-working families. Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Florida, Mr. Goss, said moments ago, there is something wrong when the average worker spends more time working to pay his total tax bill than to provide food, clothing, and shelter for his family, something terribly wrong, and this bill is not even asking or seeking any kind of repeal. That will come later. We are just making it harder, a little harder, to make it any worse on the hard-working American taxpayer. I urge adoption of this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to place extraneous materials in the Record following my remarks on this resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore [Mr. Goodlatte]. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], who authored the amendment that is included in the base legislation. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a valued member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 113 is a straightforward rule providing for consideration in the House of House Joint Resolution 62, the tax limitation constitutional amendment. The rule provides for 3 hours of debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary, modified by the amendment specified in the report, will be considered as the base text for the purpose of amendment. What that means is that the rule enacts a very important amendment sponsored by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], a senior member of the Committee on the Judiciary, which would simply ensure that the tax limitation amendment would not have the unintended consequences of making it harder to reduce taxes in the future, a very important consideration as we move toward the dynamic scoring of major tax relief and economic growth legislation. The rule also provides for the consideration of an amendment if offered by the minority leader or his designee. The amendment shall be considered as read and shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. So under the rule, Mr. Speaker, our friends in the minority will have two different opportunities to amend the legislation in any way they see fit, consistent with the normal rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, it is no coincidence that the House takes up the consideration of a constitutional tax limitation amendment today, April 15, as millions of taxpayers file their Federal income taxes. This is the day in which millions of hard-working Americans and their families are all too sharply reminded that high taxes have become a cruel and harsh fact of life in the United States of America. What many Americans are experiencing today is middle class tax anxiety as they feel that they are working harder than ever but falling further behind. That is why so many constituents tell me that they fear the next generation will not be as fortunate or as prosperous as their generation, and why they believe their children and grandchildren will be worse off financially than they are. It is no wonder that so many families feel this way. The truth is for the past 40 years or so, the size, scope, and tax burden imposed by the Federal Government has grown year in and year out. In 1980, the average tax burden was $2,286 per person. By 1995, that figure had more than doubled to $4,996. Federal, State, and local taxes take more than 38 cents out of every dollar the American family earns, and that estimation is almost as high as 50 cents in some quarters. The Federal tax burden alone is now nearing a record one-fifth of family income. American families deserve better and they should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on things they need like food, clothing, shelter, perhaps a college education or even sometimes a family vacation. They do not need to send more of their tax dollars to Washington to be spent on a larger and larger Federal bureaucracy. Regrettably, the power to lay and collect taxes, which was granted to Congress by the Founding Fathers, has been terribly abused. As ratified, the Constitution did not allow the direct taxation of the income of American citizens. For three-quarters of our history, three- quarters of our history the power of the U.S. Government to tax was carefully constrained by explicit constitutional restraints. For many decades the Federal Government was able to function without a permanent income tax, and it was not until 1913 when the 16th amendment to the Constitution was ratified that Congress was given specific authority to collect income taxes, and the Constitution's careful balance with respect to taxes was swept away. As recently as 1940, Federal taxes were only 6.7 percent of the gross domestic product. Since the late 1960's, Federal taxes have approached 20 percent of GDP. Under our current system, it is simply too easy to add to the already onerous tax burden that Congress has placed on the American people. Mr. Speaker, while many worthwhile arguments have been made against this constitutional amendment, the time has now come when we must return some fiscal discipline to the Federal Government where much of the discipline imposed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution no longer exists. That is exactly what this legislation seeks to do, to make it more difficult for Congresses in the future to raise taxes. The amendment will force Congress to focus on options other than raising taxes as a means of balancing the Federal budget. It does not mean, as some opponents have claimed, that taxes cannot be raised at all somewhere down the road. It merely requires a broader political consensus to achieve that goal. And the requirement can be waived temporarily, whenever a declaration of war is in effect or when the United States faces an imminent serious threat to its national security. While we try to make it harder to raise taxes at the Federal level, several States have already taken a step to incorporate this fiscal discipline in their own constitutions. For example, 14 States already require a supermajority to raise taxes in one form or another, including high- growth States like California and Florida. Mr. Speaker, the need for this amendment is clear. By raising the bar on tax increases, we put the focus where it should be, on cutting spending first. Unlike the many special interests that benefit from Federal spending, the American taxpayers do not have a paid voice looking out for their interests when appropriation season comes along. It is time for Congress to play that role more effectively, and passing this tax limitation amendment will do a lot to give the American people the voice they deserve in the fight to control spending and to protect family incomes. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying legislation. This is a balanced rule that will enable the House to have a full and fair discussion of the merits of this constitutional amendment, and I recommend its swift adoption. 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 in which to revise and extend their remarks on this resolution.

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], 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. General Leave

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of House Joint Resolution 62, pursuant to House Resolution 113, notwithstanding the order of the previous question, it may be in order at any time for the Chair to postpone further consideration of the joint resolution until a time designated by the Speaker after disposition of any motions to suspend the rules on which proceedings were proposed earlier in the day.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger], who has worked so hard on this initiative.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the very distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 99 is a fair and balanced rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1, the Working Families Flexibility Act, also known as the comp time bill. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute from the Committee on Education and the Workforce now printed in the bill as original text for amendment purposes. The rule first makes in order those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution. Briefly, they include a set of amendments to be offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Goodling], the chairman, or a designee that would, among other changes, sunset the entire bill after 5 years. The Goodling amendment would also require an employee to have worked at least 1,000 hours in a period of continuous employment for a specific employer in the 12 months prior to the time when the employee agrees to a comptime arrangement. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important addition to the bill that I believe carefully addresses concerns that have been voiced by those in the construction and seasonal industries. I strongly urge its support on the floor later today. There is also an amendment by the gentleman from New York [Mr. Owens] which would exempt certain lower wage workers from the bill and an amendment in the nature of a substitute to be offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Miller]. Under the rule, these amendments shall be considered in the order specified, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to further amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. Debate time for each amendment is also prescribed in the report so that the House can work its will in a timely and responsible manner. Last week, the chairman of the Committee on Rules [Mr. Solomon] sent a ``Dear Colleague'' letter explaining the amendment process for this legislation. Members who wished to offer an amendment to H.R. 1 were to submit their proposals to the Committee on Rules for our review by noon on Monday, a reasonable request given the complexity of the underlying issue. A total of six amendments were filed, and every last one of them has been made in order under this rule. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions which will give the minority one final chance to offer any amendment that complies with the standing rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is probably one of the most family friendly and employee friendly bills to come to the floor of the House in a long, long time. It is timely, commonsense legislation designed to give working families a much-needed option in balancing their busy work and family schedules, and I am pleased that our leadership has made passage of this a high priority. As our colleagues know, the bill would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to allow that but not require an employer to offer employees the option of choosing overtime pay in the form of compensatory time off rather than cash wages. Employees of State and local governments have enjoyed this option for more than a decade, and H.R. 1 would simply extend this option to the private sector. Offering the choice between taking overtime pay or compensatory time off will afford working families the added flexibility they often need to meet the increasingly competing demands of the home and the workplace. For many employees with families, enactment of this legislation will mean a parent can leave work a little earlier to attend a child's school play or a son or daughter can take time off from work to care for an elderly parent. It does not mean, as some opponents of the bill would have us believe, that employers can legally force workers to choose one option over the other against their will or as a condition of employment. The legislation includes protections to ensure that employees' choice and use of compensatory time off is completely voluntary. Under the legislation an employee may withdraw or cash out from a comptime arrangement at any time. H.R. 1 clearly provides for serious penalties against any employer who attempts to coerce or intimidate an employee into taking or not taking the comptime option. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that the only limitations that the bill places on the use of comptime is that the employee's request be made under provisions that are very similar to the standard already in effect under the Family and Medical Leave Act passed in 1993. Mr. Speaker, another reason to support H.R. 1 is that it will give the Nation's body of laws a much-needed boost toward the 21st century. When the Fair Labor Standards Act was written way back in 1938, almost 60 years ago, the landscape of the American work force was very, very different. For one thing, at that time legislation was written with an almost all-male work force in mind. Today that landscape is very different, with nearly 70 percent of all women with children under the age of 18 taking part in the work force. This dramatic change in demographics underscores just how important it is for our Nation's labor laws to catch up with the times and to better reflect the changing needs of the modern workplace. As a working mother myself, I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of this legislation. As many of my constituents have told me, it is a challenge to be a good worker and still be a good parent. It is not surprising then that a recent public opinion poll found that nearly 75 percent of Americans favor giving workers the choice between receiving paid time off or cash wages for overtime. Unfortunately, critics of H.R. 1 have chosen to put politics above sound policy. It is a shame because in my view it shows just how out of touch some folks are when it comes to policies that will benefit families, strengthen our economy, and help workers and employers alike. After decades of progress in labor relations, it is time we stopped automatically thinking of employer/employee relations in such adversarial terms. The bottom line is that with H.R. 1 employers and employees can work together to meet each other's needs. With H.R. 1 at least the choice will be theirs, not Washington's. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 offers the private sector a reasonable commonsense solution to the ongoing tug of war between families and the workplace. Millions of parents strive hard each day to meet these competing demands. If we can make life a little easier on the working families of this country, then we should take action today to help those families successfully balance work and family responsibilities. This is not the first time the House has considered a comptime bill. A very similar bill was passed by the House last July after numerous changes were made to it, mostly at the request of the minority. Republicans and many Democrats voted for the bill. I encourage all of my colleagues to give it their full support again today. In closing I would emphasize that this rule will allow us to have a full and fair debate on this legislation and its implications for the modern workplace. I urge my colleagues to adopt this balanced rule and to pass the Working Families Flexibility Act without any further delay. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Ballenger].

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg].

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

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