Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

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

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

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, just so we are clear about this, the provision to which the gentleman just spoke is not a part of debt ceiling increase. That was on the CR which was the last rule we just voted upon, just so everybody knows to keep those two straight. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I do not know about the gentleman, but when I go home I do not consider it being on vacation. I work in my district. I talk to my constituents. I visit with my veterans. That is not vacationing. That is an important part of this job. Every Member should consider it so. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

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

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, we continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of our time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have enough faith in my President that he will not allow this to happen, and I urge my friends on the other side to encourage the President not to let this happen.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, through the years we have borrowed and borrowed and borrowed. When the Secretary of Treasury calls and says, ``We need more money,'' we pass a two-page debt ceiling extension and we give him more money. The crux of the issue is that unless Washington agrees to balance the budget, we will no longer say yes when the Secretary calls. We will say balance the budget before we give more money. it is as simple as that. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this rule for consideration of the debt limit extension. The provisions of this debt limit increase respond to the very serious fiscal situation facing our Nation today. Along with the short-term continuing resolution passed by the House yesterday, this legislation will restore stability and competence in the U.S. Treasury's ability to meet its most fundamental financial responsibilities. Now, this is not an easy vote for Republicans. We are not used to digging a hole deeper and deeper and deeper, but it is the responsible thing to do and we must do it. So, the self-enactng provisions of this rule will ensure that, as we vote to increase the debt ceiling, we will also be voting to make an important down payment on our plan to balance the Federal budget. We include a provision to commit both the Congress and the President to achieve a balanced budget by the year 2002 before we consider any further increase in the public debt. Now, those who criticize that plan have said that we are trying to blackmail the President into signing the CR and the debt limit. But the truth is, this legislation and the important changes made possible under it simply offer the President an opportunity to join with us in this historic effort to get to a balanced budget in 7 years and limit the size and scope of the Federal Government along the way. So instead of criticism, we offer our friends on the other side a chance to vote for real change and fiscal responsibility. Instead of partisan rhetoric and misinformation, we offer the opportunity to cut spending, to shrink the Federal Government, and to get our fiscal house in order. That is what I believe the American people sent us here to do, and that is what this legislation will accomplish. Mr. Speaker, now is the time for bold action to carry out a vision for a more stable and secure future for our children and grandchildren. I urge my colleagues to support this rule, pass this important legislation, and let us get this country to a point where we can get our budget balanced.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this rule. Once again, this House faces an historic opportunity to choose between the policies of the status quo or to chart a bold new path for the future. The Democrats argue that we are going too far too fast. Yet many on our side of the aisle believe we have not gone nearly far enough. The truth is the Republican Congress has worked long and hard to bring us to this moment in time when we are about to pass legislation to end years of rapidly expanding Government and to start this pendulum swinging the other way. Very simply, the bill before us will shift the focus of Government from quantity to quality and from spending to service. Mr. Speaker, our national debt is nearly $5 trillion. It is very hard for mere mortals to comprehend $5 trillion. So here is an example paraphrased from the Wall Street Journal that can help us understand. Let us say Congress will try to pay the $5 trillion national debt by putting $1 every second into a special account. If 1 million seconds adds up to 12 days, then 1 billion seconds is roughly 32 years. And 1 trillion seconds is nearly 32,000 years. In order to pay off the debt, Congress would have to deposit $1 into the account every second for the next 160,000 years. That is more time than the amount of time that has passed since the Ice Age. As our author of this legislation, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kasich] told the Committee on Rules yesterday, if you had a business which lost a million dollars a day since the time that Christ walked on this earth, your business still would be far better off than this country is now. Mr. Speaker, we have to get this under control. Lately many of my friends on the other side of the aisle have accused Republicans of being heartless, saying our budget is an attack on children. Yet a child born today will have to pay $187,000 in his or her lifetime just to pay the interest on this national debt. So I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is so compassionate about spending money we simply do not have and then saddling our children and grandchildren with this enormous debt? Is it compassionate to condemn our children to a lower standard of living than we enjoy? The answer is clearly no. Further, it simply is arrogant to believe that Washington has a monopoly on compassion, that only Federal solutions can address problems on the State and local level. Our plan, Mr. Speaker, suggests that there is more compassion at the level of local government with our Governors, with our mayors, with our city councils than there is in nameless, faceless Federal bureaucrats. In closing, let me say that House Resolution 245 is a responsible rule. I urge my colleagues to adopt it and the underlying legislation so that we can begin to swing the pendulum back to an era of growth, productivity and financial security for our children and for future generations.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation to move the United States Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Israel is the only country in the world in which the American Embassy is located outside of the host nation's capital. It is time for the United States to show that it supports Jerusalem and its permanent status as the capital of Israel. Much has been said about how this legislation could send the wrong signal at a time when both sides of the conflict in the Middle East are pursuing peace. However, the realities of what we have seen to date in the peace process do not support this argument. Significant progress in the peace process has occurred since the introduction of this legislation in the House and Senate. Just a few weeks ago, Israel and the Palestinians signed the second phase of the Oslo Accords. This agreement came after the Palestinians and the Arab world had time to consider this legislation. This is compelling evidence that the peace process is not impeded by this legislation. Mr. Speaker, the location of our embassies abroad is not a subject in the ongoing peace negotiations. Next year marks the 3,000th anniversary of King David's establishment of Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish kingdom. Now is the time to begin the process of transferring the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, just as our other 183 embassies are located in the capitals of their host nation. I urge support for S. 1322.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, this is a historic day in the House of Representatives, and I am pleased to rise in strong support of this rule for the Medicare Preservation Act. Throughout the past year, we have made every effort to alert the American people, and seniors in particular, that we are facing a serious crisis. Medicare is growing at an unsustainable rate, and retirement of the baby boomers is just around the corner. Unless decisive action is taken now, the Medicare system will collapse. With the health of 34 million senior citizens at stake, we can't delay any longer. The time has come for Congress to act responsibly and courageously, in the face of all the rhetoric and politics as usual. After months of congressional hearings and meetings with senior citizens, doctors, hospitals, and health care experts, Congress has crafted a plan that will prevent Medicare's bankruptcy and give seniors the peace of mind they deserve as they look forward to their retirement years. Our committees have developed a serious response to the Medicare crisis, one which not only promises solvency of the program, but offers seniors the right to choose their health care plan, including the right to stay in the traditional Medicare system. What this plan is about is change, and change long overdue. The current Medicare program is a 1965 Blue Cross/Blue Shield health care plan codified into law. But just like stereos, computers, or cars, health care plans have seen a lot of innovation in the last 30 years. Here and now in 1995, you can still drive a 1965 Chevy, but there are a lot of new models out there with cruise control, air bags, and automatic locks. For the first time in 30 years, this proposal gives seniors the opportunity to choose a newer model, but we're also saying, if you want to keep your 1965 plan, if you want to keep on driving your favorite 1965 Chevy, that's all right--it's now your decision, not the Government's. This plan is honest and sincere. There is no hidden agenda. It's all there, up front, in black and white for the American people to see--no fine print, nothing between the lines. Our plan will simplify and strengthen Medicare, while finally giving seniors the same choices we all have. Saving Medicare is not just a slogan or a political strategy. Rather, it is a moral obligation to our seniors and to future generations. We are committed to this challenge, and with this rule and the bill it makes in order, we are keeping our promise to the American people to put Medicare on a sound financial footing. Mr. Speaker, let us save Medicare. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and to bring this country Medicare that is guaranteed to survive. point of order

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum], the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Shaw].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Baker].

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 237 provides for the orderly and expedited consideration of H.R. 2259, legislation reported from the Judiciary Committee to disapprove certain sentencing guidelines proposed by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Specifically, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. The rule waives clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI, which requires the inclusion in committee reports of rollcall votes, against consideration of the bill. It also provides for the adoption in the House and in the Committee of the Whole of an amendment in the nature of a substitute, consisting of the text of the Senate-passed bill, S. 1254. The rule provides that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of amendment, and shall be considered as read. The rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute which may be offered by Representative Conyers or his designee. That amendment, if offered, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 1 hour, and shall not be subject to amendment. As is the right of the minority, the rule also permits one motion to recommit the bill, with or without instructions. The rule further provides that after passage of the House bill, it will be in order to consider the Senate bill, and all points of order against the Senate bill, and all points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. Under the rule, it will be in order to move to strike the text of the Senate bill and insert the House-passed text, and all points of order against such a motion are waived. Finally, the rule provides that if the motion is adopted and the Senate bill is passed, then it will be in order to move that the House request a conference with the Senate. Mr. Speaker, the underlying legislation which this rule makes in order, H.R. 2259, responds to the strong opposition expressed by America's law enforcement community to recent recommendations made by the U.S. Sentencing Commission which would result in reduced sentences for certain crack cocaine-related and money laundering offenses. The House is compelled to act on this disapproval measure in a timely manner because the Commission's recommendations in these two areas will take effect automatically unless Congress intervenes before November 1. The other body has already passed substantially similar legislation. Under this structured rule, the House will still have the opportunity to debate outstanding concerns about this legislation, while also minimizing the need for the lengthy conference process. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge and prosecutor, I witnessed firsthand many cases which involved drug-related offenses. More than I would like to remember. I certainly sympathize with the concerns expressed by Representative Conyers, and others who testified before the Rules Committee yesterday, about the disparity in sentences involving different forms of cocaine and its relationship to the African-American community. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree with one of my Rules Committee colleagues who commented yesterday that neither the status quo, nor the proposed solution, is acceptable. I am confident, however, that this legislation moves the debate in the right direction by giving the Commission time to consider other sentencing options for cocaine-related offenses, while signalling our firm resolve that drug-related and money laundering offenses will not go unpunished. The war on drugs is clearly far from over. We owe it to our citizens and especially to our young people, whether they live in the inner cities or in more affluent suburban neighborhoods, to teach them that drug use is a certain path to self-destruction. As the committee report on H.R. 2259 points out, witnesses at the Crime Subcommittee's hearing on crack cocaine acknowledged important differences between crack and powder cocaine. For example, crack is more addictive than powder cocaine; it accounts for more emergency room visits; it is more popular among juveniles; it has a greater likelihood of being associated with violence; crack dealers have more extensive criminal records than other drug dealers and they tend to use young people to distribute the drug at a greater rate. In short, the hearing evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated significant distinctions between crack and powder cocaine. While the evidence clearly indicates the differences between crack and powder cocaine which may warrant differences in sentences, the committee notes that the current 100-to-1 quantity ratio used to evaluate the severity of crimes involving either powder or crack cocaine is not the appropriate ratio. I agree that the goal must ultimately be to ensure that the uniquely harmful nature of crack is reflected in sentencing policy, while also upholding the basic principles of equity in our criminal code. Our colleagues should also note that if the Commission's guidelines were to go into effect without Congress lowering the current statutory mandatory minimums, it would create gross sentencing disparities. Sentences just below the statutory minimum would be drastically reduced, but mandatory minimums would remain much higher. For example, an offender convicted of distributing 5 grams of crack would, under the statutory mandatory minimum penalty, face a mandatory prison term of 5 years. However, an offender convicted of distributing 4.9 grams of crack could, under the Commission's guidelines, receive a sentence within a range of 0 to 6 months of imprisonment. Just traces, [[Page H 10257]] means the difference between days of incarceration and years of incarceration. I am also pleased to note that the administration supports the bill's intent with regard to penalties for trafficking, as well as the section related to money laundering offenses. The Commission's money laundering amendment would deprive prosecutors of an important law enforcement tool used in attacking criminal enterprises that engage in a wide variety of illegal activities, and whose very existence depends on their ability to deposit and launder the proceeds from these activities. Stiff sentences, which treat the act of money laundering itself as a serious offense, should be preserved. In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me reassure Members that the debate on how best to close the sentencing disparity in cocaine-related cases will not come to an end with passage of this legislation. In fact, the debate is certain to continue as the Commission fulfills the mandate included in H.R. 2259 too examine additional alternatives to current proposals. This is a fair and balanced rule, Mr. Speaker, which will allow Members to debate the basic question of whether the distinction between different forms of cocaine and their impact on society should warrant differing sentences. It also provides the minority with two separate opportunities to amend the base legislation. First, through a complete substitute, if offered by Representative Conyers or a designee; and second, through a motion to recommit which, if offered with instructions, can include almost any amendment as long as it is consistent with the rules of the House. Mr. Speaker, this rule was reported by the Rules Committee by voice vote, as was the underlying legislation, and I strongly urge its adoption by the House today. Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this rule will allow Members, as they have been doing for the last hour, to debate the basic question of whether the distinction between different forms of cocaine and their impact on society should warrant different sentences. I urge passage of this rule. It will allow Members of different opinions on this very important issue to debate them fully. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.