Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Barr] who was very instrumental in the drafting of this legislation.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 405 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Hyde], chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. HYDE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit today while the House is meeting in the Committee on the Whole House under the 5-minute rule: Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Commerce; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on National Security; Committee on Resources; and Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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 the purpose of debate only. general leave

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and that I be permitted to insert extraneous material on House Resolution 380, the resolution now under consideration. THe SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 380 allows for the orderly, but fair, consideration of H.R. 2703, the Effective Death Penalty and Public Safety Act of 1996. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, followed by the consideration of 17 amendments which are specified in the report accompanying this rule. While we could not make in order every amendment submitted to the Rules Committee, the committee has tried to be as fair as possible in crafting this resolution. Amendments are made in order which encompass major areas of controversy surrounding this legislation, including those related to material support for terrorist acts, international counterfeiting, immigration, and death penalty reform, to name just a few. I would also note that several amendments included in this rule have bipartisan sponsorship. So I would just emphasize that the more significant areas of concern to members will have an opportunity to be fully debated. Mr. Speaker, the rule waives all points of order to allow consideration of the amendments listed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments will be considered in the order printed in the report, and will not be subject to further amendment. Debate time for each amendment is also prescribed in the report, with input from the sponsors, so that the House can work its will in a timely manner. In order to expedite consideration of amendments where there is bipartisan agreement, the rule also allows the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary to offer amendments en bloc. The rule permits the original proponent of an amendment included in the en bloc format to insert a statement in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the disposition of the en bloc amendments. Members should also take note that the rule allows the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to postpone and shorten votes during consideration of this bill. While the rule provides for the consideration of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, the rule also includes the customary motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, if the House passes this legislation, the rule provides for the necessary steps to consider the Senate bill. S. 735, and to request a conference. Mr. Speaker, as many of our colleagues know, April 19 marks the 1- year anniversary of the devastating terrorist attack that claimed 168 innocent lives in Oklahoma City. Combined with the nearly 500 people who were injured in that blast, the wanton attack on the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building ranks as the worst terrorist incident ever to take place on U.S. soil. Unfortunately, it was not the first such terrorist act to take place here in the United States. The bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in February 1993 catapulted the threat of domestic terrorism to the forefront of American consciousness, as our citizens slowly began to realize that terrorism is not confined to foreign countries. Up until that time, most Americans saw terrorism in an international light, brought to life by such events as the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, the murder of American tourist on the Achille Lauro, the downing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and more recently, the string of terrible bombings that has disrupted the flow of daily life in Israel. These latest attacks on the Israeli people make it clear that terrorism remains a serious threat worldwide. But, in the wake of the bombings which shook New York and Oklahoma City, we are faced with the sobering prospect that terrorists are at work right here in the United States. In the months which have followed these tragic events, this Congress, and this House in particular, have faced the challenge of defining the appropriate Federal response to the threat of domestic terrorism. As one member put it yesterday in the Rules Committee, in the fight against terrorism, government must balance the need for public safety and security with individual rights and liberties. Ideally, what keeps us safe from violent crimes, such as terrorism, should not negate those constitutional restraints which also keep us free. It is vitally important that our citizens have complete confidence in law enforcement's ability to do its job without trampling on any constitutional restraints. To help address these concerns, the rule makers in order the Bartlett amendment, to evaluate the current state of Federal law enforcement and its impact on public confidence. In my view, this bill represents a serious, bipartisan attempt to protect American citizens against terrorism, while also protecting their fundamental constitutional rights. I commend Chairman Hyde and Representative Barr for working together in recent weeks to address a number of concerns about the constitutional boundaries to giving law enforcement the enhanced capability to deter and punish terrorist acts. H.R. 2703 contains a variety of tools designed to strengthen law enforcement's hand against terrorists, including, but not limited to: Expanded investigative methods for combatting terrorism; special procedures for removing aliens suspected of terrorist activity; and important reforms to curb the abuse of habeas corpus by convicted criminals. In addition, H.R. 2703 contains a provision that supports the growing national concern for innocent victims of all forms of crime. Specifically, it includes the language of H.R. 665, the Victim Restitution Act, which the House passed last February as part of the Contract With America's anti-crime package. Mr. Speaker, throughout my years as a judge and prosecutor. I worked closely with victims of crime whose courage and strength in the face of adversity and personal loss was both moving and uplifting. Like the families of those who lost their lives in Oklahoma City and elsewhere at the hands of terrorists, these individuals did not ask to be victims. But after experiencing crime firsthand they bravely began the process of recovering from their unwanted and undeserved trauma. After years of elevating the rights of criminals, society has begun to recognize that crime victims have equally important rights. Increasingly, their voices are being given a more meaningful role in developing public policy, helping them turn their personal anguish into positive action, but additional reforms are needed to bring some balance, to a process that often seems especially to them, one-sided. Crime victims clearly should not have to suffer twice--first at the hands of the criminals, and then by an inadequate justice system. One of those reforms, which is included in section 806 of the bill, is the right to adequate restitution from the perpetrator for losses incurred as a result of the crime itself. While restitution can never erase a victim's suffering, it can provide victims and their families with a small measure of satisfaction that our criminal justice system cares about their needs, too. Mr. Speaker, this debate is not about who, or which political party, is more committed to fighting terrorism. I think we would all agree that keeping America safe and secure is not a partisan issue--it is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. Sadly, domestic terrorism has emerged as a new threat to the safety and security of our cities and communities. In response to that threat, we need a tough, no-nonsense policy that gives law enforcement reasonable and legitimate tools to prevent and punish terrorist acts, and a policy that puts our sympathy with the victims of crime, not with the criminals. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would say to my colleagues that this rule provides a fair way to consider a very complex piece of legislation. It will provide the House ample opportunity to debate a number of important issues related to the basic question of what constitutes the appropriate Federal response to combatting terrorism. The Rules Committee voted unanimously last night to approve this rule, and I urge its adoption by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to my friend, the gentlewoman from Florida [Ms. Ros-Lehtinen].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 376, providing for consideration of H.R. 2703, which was a general debate rule only, be laid on the table. This has been cleared with the minority.

Ms. PRYCE. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just assert that this is a very fair way to consider a very complex piece of legislation. It will provide the House ample opportunity to debate a number of very important issues to the basic question of what constitutes our appropriate Federal response to combating terrorism. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a report of the amendment process under special rules reported by the Committee on Rules, 103d Congress versus 104th Congress.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this rule, and H.R. 3019, the second installment in our downpayment toward a balanced Federal budget. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may argue against this rule, I believe this is a fair and reasonable rule given the situation we are in. The current CR will expire in just over a week, and Federal employees are once again left to wonder if another Government shutdown will take place. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would say to those Federal workers in my district and around the country whose jobs may be at stake that President Clinton could end the speculation very quickly by agreeing to the responsible spending priorities contained in this legislation. This second balanced budget downpayment reflects our continued commitment to real deficit reduction. The bill, if enacted, will fund the four remaining unsigned spending bills at levels which keep us on the glidepath to a balanced budget. Even the emergency funds that are included for disaster relief and continued activities in Bosnia are actually paid for, and not simply taken off-budget to hide their true costs or their impact on the budget deficit. And, in keeping with our goal of reducing the size and scope of Government, the bill eliminates some 175 different Federal programs. While we in the Congress are making the real cuts necessary to keep us on track to balance the Federal budget, the Clinton administration sadly continues to threaten a veto of this important legislation unless additional spending is made available to fund their priorities. I am amazed that the same President who came to this Chamber 2 months ago and declared that the era of big Government is over, is now asking for upwards of $8 billion in additional spending. Agreeing to that request would be irresponsible without a firm commitment on the part of the administration to pay for these additional Government programs with offsetting cuts in spending. Mr. Chairman, I commend Chairman Livingston for trying to respond to the administration's concerns in a way that maintains our commitment to a balanced budget. I urge my colleagues to support the contingency title in this legislation to ensure that funding for these extra priorities is not used unless Congress and the President agree to separate legislation that actually pays for them. We can never hope to achieve a balanced budget in our lifetime if we subscribe to the convenient policy of buy now, pay later. If we do, then our children and grandchildren will surely pay a much higher price for our lack of spending discipline. Mr. Chairman, despite the administration's threatened veto, I am hopeful that the approach this legislation takes will send a clear signal to our constituents and to our friends in the White House that we are serious about getting Government spending under control. In the next week, I am sure we will all see just how serious the President is about bringing the era of big Government to a close. I urge my colleagues to support this fair and balanced rule, and to pass this responsible continuing resolution. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on the table.

Ms. PRYCE

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that I am sure the gentleman unintentionally misspoke when he said we have not passed a budget, because this body has passed a budget, and the other body has passed a budget. We sent that budget to the President, and the President chose to veto that budget and he has yet to produce one in its stead. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Bartlett].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from the State of California [Mr. Bono], a distinguished freshman Member. (Mr. BONO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that this body has done its part and will do its part later on this afternoon to end this shutdown, the Senate has pledged to do its part later on this afternoon to end this shutdown, and then America must look to the President to see if he does his part to end this shutdown. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that if we think today's budget decisions are difficult, we just have to wait until our Nation sees the year 2030. If we do nothing, either all Federal taxes would have to be increased by 85 percent or all Federal spending programs would have to be cut by 50 percent. Mr. Speaker, this is our last, best chance. We must balance the budget, and the President must do his part. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to predict what will happen between the leadership of the Congress and the White House. The purpose of this resolution is to give the House some flexibility in responding to whatever progress is made over the next few weeks and to respond quickly. It is hard to accept change. It is hard to depart from the status quo. It is hard to keep promises. But I will say again, this is our last, best chance to balance the budget of our country for our children's future. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a valued member of the Committee on Rules.

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 330 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, today it is time to finally ease the pain of our Federal employees and to quit blurring the picture. The focus needs to be on the President's failure to negotiate in good faith and not on the unfortunate people that he has put in the middle of this. I deeply regret that our Federal workers have been placed in the middle of this debate, and I know that they have experienced hardship and uncertainty over the last 21 days. I understand their frustration and anger over a situation over which they have no control. They do not deserve it. Mr. Speaker, today we are acting in good faith, and it is time for the President to do the same. Franklin Roosevelt once said it is the duty of the President to propose and the duty of the Congress to dispose. The President needs to propose a balanced budget, just as he agreed to, just as he signed into law weeks ago that he would do, and he needs to do it now. We cannot negotiate if one side will not even give us their position. That is what is happening at the White House day after day as our people go down there to try to balance the budget. The President will not tell them where he is coming from. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. It is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been asking for for weeks. I urge the White House to join in and finally offer a balanced budget that will leave nothing left to be said. They will get their CR, the full CR. Everything will be up and running. So I encourage my colleagues, tell the President to do the right thing finally. Give us a balanced budget.