Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 237 and ask for its immediate consideration. [[Page H 10256]]

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. (Ms. PRYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum].

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], 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 231 is an uncomplicated, but very important rule which provides for the timely consideration of the conference report to accompany H.R. 1977, making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies in fiscal year 1996. Specifically, the resolution waives all points of order against the conference report and against its consideration on the floor today. As a precautionary step, the blanket waiver includes a waiver of clause 2 of rule 20, regarding legislative or unauthorized items, and clause 3 of rule 28, regarding items which go beyond the scope of the conference. The resolution was reported unanimously by the Rules Committee yesterday by voice vote, and I would urge my colleagues to give it their full support. Mr. Speaker, the Interior appropriations bill is certainly no stranger to controversy. When such divergent issues as land use and mining claims are combined with Federal funding for the arts and humanities into a single spending bill, difficulties are bound to arise. Yet, where there are difficulties, there is also potential for bipartisan compromise. I believe the Interior Subcommittee, under the strong leadership of my good friend from Ohio, Chairman Regula, and the members of the conference committee--on both sides of [[Page H 9640]] the aisle--have worked very hard to finalize a balanced, responsible product in the face of competing interests, and limited Federal resources. The American people have charged us with cutting Government spending, and this conference report responds to their calls for a smaller, more efficient Government. The bill is $1.7 billion below the President's budget request and $1.4 billion below the fiscal year 1995 level--a 12- percent savings from the 1995 funding level. The conference report also meets our fundamental goal of reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government. In addition to eliminating certain agencies and programs, and consolidating others within existing Federal departments, almost all agencies covered by the bill are funded below the 1995 level. Mr. Speaker, in recent days we have heard that this conference report has attracted a potential veto threat from the White House. In light of our efforts to resolve funding differences in a bipartisan manner, I believe such a step would be very unfortunate, and even counterproductive as we work to finalize this year's appropriations process. The Senate will soon consider the continuing resolution which the House passed earlier today to ensure that the Federal Government remains open for business as the new fiscal year begins on Sunday. A Presidential veto at this time would just add to the challenges we face in providing the Federal work force with fiscal stability. In closing, Mr. Speaker, we have the responsibility to move this critical process forward and to complete work on each of the 13 regular appropriations bills. House Resolution 231 is a simple and straightforward rule providing for the timely consideration of the fourth conference report to come to the floor of the House. I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable rule and to pass this balanced conference report. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 231 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered. [[Page H 9643]]

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, let us talk about apples and oranges. The Republican Medicare plan will increase funding for each Medicare beneficiary from $4,800 today to $6,700 in 2002. Let us call that fact our apple. House Republicans have also promised to provide tax relief to American families. Let us call that fact our orange. The Democrats are comparing apples and oranges. The point is these two issues have nothing to do with each other. The tax cuts from working families are more than set off by reductions in discretionary spending and program savings. Medicare would still be broke in 2002 even if we did not provide those tax cuts. Why are the Democrats trying to confuse things? To scare the American people. They have no plan, just scare tactics. It is shameful and, as the Washington Post said, it is just plain wrong.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to bring to the floor of the House today a straightforward open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1601, the International Space Station Authorization Act of 1995. The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Science, after which time the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The rule makes in order the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Science, now printed in the bill, as an original bill for the purpose of amendment, and provides that each section shall be considered as read. The rule also accords priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record. Any such amendments shall be considered as read. Finally, the rule permits one motion to recommit the bill, with or without instructions, as is the right of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us makes in order a very important piece of legislation which, by many accounts, could be called the Space Station Stability, Credibility, and Accountability Act. H.R. 1601 restores a sense of stability to the Nation's space program by recommending a full-program, multiyear authorization of all funds needed to complete assembly of the space station by the year 2002. By reducing the need for yearly authorizations, H.R. 1601 signals Congress' strong commitment to completing the international space station on-time and just as importantly, on-budget. H.R. 1601 also restores credibility to the space station program by declaring our Nation's intent to honor commitments to our international partners in this historic joint effort. While the United States has clearly led the effort to design, construct, and operate the space station, this legislation recognizes that the continued support and participation of our international partners is essential to making space station Alpha a success. Finally, the bill brings a welcome degree of accountability to the American people by requiring the Administrator of NASA to certify annually to Congress that the space station is on schedule and capable of staying within its budget. The bill requires NASA to provide Congress each year with a full accounting of all costs associated with the space station, including payments which are made to Russia. In these budget-conscious times, Congress must ensure that the taxpayers are getting their money's worth. Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the space station was significantly redesigned in order to reduce costs and simplify its management structure. H.R. 1601 continues that spirit of fiscal responsibility by capping the funds which may be appropriated in one fiscal year during the multiyear authorization. However, spending on the space station would still be subject to the annual appropriations process--an important point to keep in mind as we further discuss budget priorities. While Americans eagerly await the completion of this historic chapter in human spaceflight, Congress still has the obligation to review and debate the costs involved. H.R. 1601 offers the House a clear-cut, up- or-down vote on whether we will reaffirm our commitment to building the space station or if we will resign ourselves to lesser goals for the future of human space exploration. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Walker and the members of the Science Committee have put together a very responsible bill, and under the open rule, Members will have the opportunity to freely debate the many issues associated with the space station, not the least of which is its pricetag. Although an amendment offered by our colleague from Indiana, Mr. Roemer, to cancel the space station was defeated in the Science Committee, such an amendment can be brought before the entire House under this completely open rule. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that House Resolution 228 is a simple, straightforward open rule. It was approved unanimously by the Rules Committee last week, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give it their full support. Mr. Speaker, I include material compiled by the Committee on Rules for the Record, as follows:

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Utah [Mr. Hansen].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 228 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon], a valuable new Member of the Congress.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, 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, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this [[Page H 9558]] resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. (Mr. PRYCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks and include extraneous material.)

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the following committees and their subcommittees be permitted to sit tomorrow while the house is meeting in the Committee of the Whole House under the 5- minute rule: Committee on Agriculture; Committee on Banking and Financial Services; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on Resources; Committee on Science; Committee on Small Business; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and Committee on Veterans' Affairs. 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, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule for H.R. 2274, the National Highway Designation System Act of 1995. As a member of the Committee on Rules, I am very pleased we are bringing to the floor today yet another open rule, one which will permit the House to have a thorough and complete debate on this very important, timely legislation. This resolution honors our commitment to an open amendment process, and by including a preprinting option, the committee continues to encourage Members to make their amendments available for their colleagues to review before debate begins on the House floor. While the focus of this legislation is to designate the National Highway System, it also takes a much-needed step to provide immediate relief from a number of costly Federal mandates or requirements put in place by ISTEA in 1991. I would like to express my thanks to the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [[Page H 9260]] Chairman Shuster, and to other members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, especially my colleague from Mississippi, Mr. Parker, for a thoughtful reconsideration of and for working to include in this bill a provision to repeal the so-called crumb rubber mandate. Well intended, and enacted as an incentive to encourage the use of recycled paving material, the crumb rubber mandate also carried with it a heavy penalty for noncompliance. But the universal application of crumb rubber has, at its best, met with mixed results. For example, what works in warmer climates does not necessarily work in cold. Therefore, many State transportation departments, including the Ohio Department of Transportation, have voiced their strong concerns about this example of overreach by the Federal Government. In Ohio alone, this mandate costs $50 million each year, money that could be used to repave nearly 700 miles of highways, or rehabilitate 137 bridges. Repealing this mandate simply reaffirms that States indeed know how best to build highways in their locales, and it is a very positive step toward allowing the States more freedom and flexibility to make important highway construction decisions. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has reported a very responsible bill, which must be completed before the end of the month in order for valuable highway funds to continue flowing to the States. The rule before us will set the stage for this kind of deliberation that is needed in this body, and I urge my colleagues to support this fair and open rule.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, proponents of the bill's current language claim to protect State's rights, but in the process they are punishing victims of tragic, violent crimes, and they forget that no State is forced to take Medicaid funds, but if they do, human decency dictates that we cover women who are faced with unwanted pregnancies as a result of such heinous, violent crimes. We are talking about poor women who have, by no fault of their own, been brutally victimized. Last Congress, we determined that rape and incest are legitimate exceptions. This is the correct standard and one which should be applied consistently, one that does not further victimize the victims of sexual abuse, and one that innocent victims of our society's most horrible, most terrible, and most degrading of acts should not have to follow. Vote to strike the Istook language.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, today I rise in strong support of the manager's amendment and commend Chairman Lewis for his outstanding leadership, and Mr. Lazio and his Housing Subcommittee staff for their tireless work in bringing about this compromise. This amendment includes funding to provide greatly needed housing for low-income senior citizens, the homeless, and the disabled. Also, included is budget authority to meet current multifamily credit needs to transition FHA's multifamily to a self-sustaining program. Over the past 60 years, FHA multifamily insurance has provided rental homes for more than 10 million hard working families, individuals, and the elderly. In Ohio alone, the FHA multifamily program has helped renovate or build more than 26,000 affordable rental units. Mr. Chairman, the need for affordable rental housing is tremendous, and in setting our priorities with our limited resources, we must not forget our elderly, our vulnerable, our homeless, our disabled, the ill, and those most in need. This is responsible legislation, it's the proper role of government, and I urge my colleagues to support this important perfecting amendment.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, where is the Democrats' plan to save Medicare? They cannot fix it by whining. They cannot solve the crisis by finger-pointing and fear-mongering. And they cannot fool America's seniors with their demagoguery. [[Page H 7561]] This weekend, the Democrats will pose as proud fathers of Medicare on its 30th anniversary. But, when the prodigal son comes home facing imminent bankruptcy and desperately needing help, those proud parents turn their backs, close their minds, and close the door on America's senior citizens. Where it comes to Medicare, the Democrats are deadbeat dads. We urge the Democrats to join us as we work to strengthen Medicare for today's and tomorrow's retired Americans.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ additional minutes to my friend, the gentleman from California.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have had a ruling from the Parliamentarian.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the great State of Ohio [Mr. Regula], my great friend, and distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Interior of the Committee on Appropriations.

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