Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], who has done a lot of work in this area and can speak to many of the concerns just raised. (Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the State of Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], who has done so much hard work on this issue.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GOSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. By adopting this resolution, we will enable the House to complete the contract's promise to strengthen families and grow the national economy by delivering real tax relief. Today, the average family spends more on taxes than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. Many families now need a second breadwinner just to support the costs of a bloated Federal Government, not to cover the costs of raising a family. After years of struggling to move a pro-family, pro-growth tax plan through Congress, we have the opportunity today to tip the tax scales back in favor of mothers, fathers, grandparents, and children. It reduces the tax burden on families with children, and on two- earner married couples. It creates valuable tax incentives to encourage families to adopt children, and to care for elderly relatives. And, it gives families more reason to save their hard-earned money for the future. In my own State of Ohio, taxes will be reduced by an average of more than $1,400 per person. That's $1,400 more that families can spend as they see fit, on the things they need most, and not as Washington would spend it for them. More importantly, this legislation is fiscally responsible. As we all know, the best hope for tax fairness for America's families lies in our commitment to reducing the deficit and achieving a balanced Federal budget. Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the House will not have the chance to debate the Ganske amendment, but, as the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee has pointed out, it has been customary over the years to consider tax measures under more restrictive procedures, and I will support this rule. It is a balanced and responsible rule. By allowing the Gephardt substitute and the customary motion to recommit, the rule provides the House with two clear opportunities to offer alternative tax proposals. Finally, Mr. Speaker, only long-term expansion of our national economy, and the new jobs it will create, can make the American dream a reality for future generations. That is why it is so important that this Congress not miss this opportunity. Mr. Speaker, we have had a very productive 93 days so far in the 104th Congress. The majority has kept its promise to the American people, and we have made rebuilding and strengthening America's families a top legislative priority. I urge our colleagues to adopt this rule so that we can usher in a new era of growth, productivity, and financial security--for our children and future generations of Americans.

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 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 National Security; Committee on Small Business; Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; and Select Committee on Intelligence. 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, what a difference an election makes. After years of hearing our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about real reform, the 104th Congress, under new leadership, is ready to break the partisan gridlock which has kept term limits off the floor of this House for too long. As part of our ongoing commitment to fulfilling the Contract With America, we bring to the floor today a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of House and Senate Members. And we do so under a fair and balanced rule which recognizes the seriousness of writing term limits into our Constitution. On March 15, the Committee on Rules granted a rule that provides for 3 hours of general debate. Following general debate, four amendments in the nature of a substitute will be considered for 1 hour each under a true ``king- of-the-hill'' process--which means that the amendment receiving the most affirmative votes is considered as adopted and reported back to the House. This is a responsible rule, Mr. Speaker. Debate on the four substitutes, and the customary motion to recommit afforded to the minority, will allow the House to address the major issues associated with term limits, issues such as how many terms are appropriate, should States be permitted to set lower limits, and when should the term limitation take effect. Republicans have not backed away from our promise to the American people to bring the issue of term limits to the floor of the House. The term limits movement is clearly sweeping across the States, winning by impressive margins whenever and wherever it is on the ballot. Today, 22 States have placed term limits on their Federal representatives, including my own home State of Ohio. By adopting this rule, the House will finally have the opportunity to debate an issue which is already the law of the land in almost half of the 50 States. It is my understanding that from 1789 to 1993, 177 proposals were introduced to limit congressional service. Not surprisingly, virtually all of these proposals died in committee. It was not until November 1993, during the historic 103d Congress, that the House held its first hearing ever on the term limits issue. Today, when we pass this rule and begin debate, new history will be made. We are keeping our promise to have the first vote ever on the House floor on this important issue. While some of my closest colleagues in this body have made very articulate arguments against term limits, I remain absolutely convinced that term limits are not just necessary, but essential to making this institution more effective, more productive, and more representative of the American people. Just think of the many positive benefits which would result from term limits: an influx of fresh ideas and motivated people, a Congress closer to the citizens whom we are elected to serve, a greater emphasis on merit rather than seniority, and a better chance to guard against legislative gridlock. Mr. Speaker, limiting congressional terms is the key to genuine congressional reform. But despite the progress we have made on this issue, one of the leading advocates of term limits, the group U.S. Term Limits, has actively criticized many Members of the House for supposedly trying to water-down our contract's commitment to term limits. Nothing could be further from the truth. While each of us may prefer a certain version of term limits, or see one plan as being more practical than the other, we have consistently supported term limits. Mr. Speaker, we have had a very productive 84 days so far in the 104th Congress. The majority has kept its promise to bring the provisions of the contract to a vote on the House floor. And we have made meaningful congressional reform a top legislative priority. I urge my colleagues to adopt this balanced, responsible rule so that we can have fair debate on the revolutionary idea of term limits. Passage of this rule will be an important step toward responding to the voters' call for real change and putting an end to the reign of career politicians.

Mr. PRYCE

Mr. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to applaud the efforts of our Nation's Girl Scouts and the activities that they took part in as part of Be Your Best Day on March 14, 1995. On this day, Girl Scouts across the country encouraged people of all ages and walks of life to improve themselves, help a friend, or better their community. I would particularly like to submit for the Record the activities of several Girl Scout troops in Columbus, OH: Eighty girls participated in conducting science experiments on the Darby Creek, a National Scenic River, to determine the kinds of service projects they will need to maintain its pristine condition. Approximately 50 girls participated in an I'm Safe, Alert and Alive program that enabled them to take the information and share it with young girls. Brownie Girl Scouts, age 6 to 8, participated in dancercize, an activity that taught them how to remain fit through dancing. Fifty girls participated in a 1-day seminar on health and fitness, focusing on basic nutrition and fitness techniques. Junior Girl Scouts were paired with Brownie Girl Scouts to share the information with them. Two Girl Scouts troops collected food and clothing items and donated them to a social service agency for distribution. Brownie and Junior Girl Scouts participated in a computer basics course to learn more about technology and to encourage them to pursue math and science curricula. Several Girl Scout troops filled out pledge cards to be their best on that day and to emphasize community service throughout the year. Mr. Speaker, as a former Girl Scout myself, I would like to commend these Scouts for their efforts. They are true examples of young women dedicated to improving their own lives and making their communities better places to live.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, help. I have fallen and I cannot get up. For 5 million families, the average length of stay on welfare is 13 years. The Democrats have coated the social safety net with glue and millions of Americans are crying for help to become unstuck. Republicans want the social safety net to be a trampoline off of which people can bounce to new heights. We simply want to return this money to the State level where people can be helped the most. We don't cut it, we send it back. Democrats do not trust the States. But it is these same Democrats who are standing in the doors of the Nations ghettos, refusing to let people out. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, ``Get out of the door. Give people back their dignity by providing them with hope, independence, and opportunity.'' They want these for more than a handout.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my friend, the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], commend her for her efforts, and in strong objection to the fact that there was a statement from the other side that this was the result of a poll. This is the result of mostly hard work, consultation with Governors and working the numbers, as the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson] just alluded to. Mr. Chairman, moving people from welfare to work and toward self- sufficiency is the central goal of welfare reform. But only by removing the barriers to work can we achieve this goal. It is clear that lack of affordable quality child care is a primary obstacle mothers. If we are going to require work, and we should, our Nation's children must not be forgotten. As the work participation requirements under H.R. 4 are phased in, the demand for child care will increase dramatically. Federal child care dollars will need to serve today's working poor, as well as the new welfare families who will be entering the workplace. All Americans have an interest in meaningful welfare reform that encourages work. Our Nation also has an intense interest in ensuring that our children are cared for, especially in their early years so that they can grow into responsible, productive citizens. The investment H.R. 4 makes in child care will contribute to this goal. Young children watching parents go to work every day is a lesson in life that cannot be taught any other way. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Johnson-Pryce-Dunn- Waldholtz amendment to make sure we take care of America's children while their parents experience the dignity of work and move into self- sufficiency.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. This is a fair and responsible rule. It permits the House to debate a significant number of worthwhile amendments on issues such as child support enforcement, stronger work requirements, increasing funding for child care, and adoption assistance, to name just a few. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the rule makes in order two amendments in the nature of a substitute to be offered by our Democrat colleagues together with a motion to recommit. We offer the minority many opportunities to effect significant, substantive changes. Mr. Speaker, a generation ago President Lyndon Johnson launched is much-celebrated War on Poverty. Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are in 1995, 30 years and $5.3 trillion later, ready to launch an entirely new war, only this time the war is against a failed welfare system which has trapped the less fortunate in our society in an endless cycle of poverty and despair. No one disagrees that our present welfare system, no matter how well intentioned, has failed. Seventy-one percent of Americans say that the current systems does more harm than good, but the need for major reform seems obvious to everyone but Washington and the special interests. We are going to hear a lot of complaints in the next couple of days from those who would rather protect the status quo, but make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. We have had enough of the status quo, and we have an entirely, wholly new solution, a solution no less compassionate, only more efficient; no less caring, only more commonsensical. So, Mr. Speaker, this debate really comes down to a very simple choice. Some people want to continue the status quo and keep in place a system that creates more dependence and rewards self-destruction. On the other side are those who recognize that things have to change and that the present system should be replaced with reforms based on the dignity of work, the strength of families, and trust in local government. The minority may try to paint us with black hats. It is great rhetoric, but simply not true, and using, even exploiting, the very children we are trying to desperately help into better futures as pawns in their effort to protect this cruel, hopeless system is nothing short of shameful. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the work product of this Committee on Rules. Let us get on with it. Let us adopt this rule. Let us redirect America's largesse of compassion, redirect it to where it can do more good than harm.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for the important provisions contained in this en bloc amendment offered by Chairman Archer. I commend the chairman for his hard work on this bill and for his willingness to accept amendments that strengthen H.R. 4, the Personal Responsibility Act. Few disagree with the fact that our present welfare system is failing. Our Nation's 30-year-old, $5.3 trillion war on poverty has done little to improve the plight of the poor. America's current welfare system encourages illegitimacy, nonwork, and dependency. Those whom we are fighting to protect have instead been imprisoned in a cycle of poverty that is passed from generation to generation. America's campaign against poverty has claimed many victims--most notably, and tragically, our children have suffered. For this reason, I have joined with my colleague from Indiana, Mr. Burton, in offering a sense-of-Congress resolution regarding the use of funds under the Child Protection Block Grant. Our resolution, which has been included in the chairman's en bloc amendment, encourages States to allocate sufficient funds under their Child Protection Block Grant to promote adoption. I think we can all agree that a loving family is the best social structure in which a child can be raised. As an adoptive mother of a 4-year-old, the issue of adoption is very important to me and has a permanent place in my heart. In the debate about policy, it is sometimes easy to lose sight of those about whom we speak. They are, after all, our children. Today, too many children are abused and neglected in their home environment. Our child welfare systems are charged with the task of protecting these innocent victims and providing them with substitute care when necessary. Ideally, these children would be placed with a family that can provide a stable environment and a consistent caring relationship. Instead, many children end up in the often unstable and lonely foster care system, including group homes and orphanages. The adverse conditions faced by these children in an abusive home and then in institutionalized care hinders their ability to develop positive social skills and succeed in adulthood. There are tens of thousands of children waiting to be embraced into caring families willing to raise them in an atmosphere of love, self-respect, and responsibility. Adoptive families are 100 percent functional, happy, and whole. The Burton-Pryce amendment stresses to States the importance of facilitating the permanent placement of children into loving families, and strongly urges States to devote child protection funds to adoption for that purpose. Specifically, it encourages the facilitated adoption of special-needs children and suggests a tax credit to families to make these adoptions more affordable. I encourage my colleagues to support this sense-of-Congress resolution which seeks to protect our children and provide them with hope for the future by voting in favor of Chairman Archer's en bloc amendment.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership on this rule. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my strong support for this very fair rule. If some here have not figured it out yet, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in a new era of fiscal responsibility. Gone are the days of wrapping up huge bills on the Federal credit card and then passing the check on to our children and grandchildren. It is time to make the tough choices, the tough choices for the future of this country. Thankfully, many of us here are ready to do that. The 104th Congress under new leadership is committed more than ever to requiring the Federal Government to live within its means. That includes paying for supplemental appropriations, even if they are designated emergency spending. How novel. We pay for what we are spending. Now, changing the culture of deficit spending is no easy task. The American people need only look to the debate in the other body to see how hard it was to pass the balanced budget amendment. As hard as we worked, that effort was not successful. Even as we speak, those who have the insatiable thirst for spending are working hard to weaken the line-item veto legislation. This rule provides a reasonable, orderly procedure to consider these hard decisions in a manner that is fiscally responsible. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Committee on Appropriations has taken brave, commendable steps to reduce the size and scope of Government and to put us on a steady course toward providing a more secure financial future for our children. I urge my colleagues to support these bills and to adopt this very fair, reasonable rule. No doubt about it, these are tough choices. But these are tough times, and they require courage. Paint us as black as you will, but I am proud to be a part of the new culture of fiscal responsibility. I urge my colleagues to join me. The alternative, the status quo, is a sin against our children. Vote for this fair rule.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this rule, and to compliment my friend from Georgia, Mr. Linder, for his excellent description of this legislation. This is a fair and responsible rule, Mr. Speaker, because it permits the House to consider 15 separate amendments reflecting a wide range of issues which are central to the product liability reform debate. Of those 15 amendments made in order, 8 are sponsored by Democrats, 6 by Republicans, and 1 is offered with bipartisan sponsorship. This rule should be even more palatable to many in this body due to the floor manager, Mr. Linder's amendment to impose the caps on noneconomic damages to medical malpractice cases only. On Tuesday, the Committee on Rules sat for nearly 7 hours to hear testimony from Members on a variety of amendments--83 in all--affecting many aspects of the bill, including economic and noneconomic losses, punitive damages, and joint and several liability, to name just a few. Under this rule, Mr. Speaker, we have attempted to give ample time to the minority, and quite frankly, to the entire House, to discuss all of these critical areas, while eliminating overlapping or duplicative amendments. Mr. Speaker, not every amendment I supported and fought for was adopted, but I believe that, all in all, the rule is fair. Mr. Speaker, for nearly two decades Congress has grappled with the issue of products liability reform. Some say we are going too fast and we are going too far, but what we went too fast and too far on are the horrendous unchecked abuses over the past decade. Having been a jurist in my previous life, I can say without hesitation that there is room for commonsense legal reform in our system, especially in the area of product liability law. This bill seeks to restore common sense and fairness to product liability litigation by establishing uniform national standards in place of the patchwork system currently compromise of 50 separate State product liability laws. Given the significant impact that product liability has upon interstate commerce, competitiveness, insurance cost and the lives of each and every American, the provisions in this legislation and the Federal action it endorses are not only warranted, but also very sound. My colleagues need look no further than the Constitution to see that action taken by this body to regulate interstate commerce is well within Congress' assigned duties. Mr. Speaker, by adopting this fair and responsible rule, we can continue this week's process of enacting meaningful and reasonable changes to our civil justice system. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this fair and reasonable rule.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day, a day in which women around the world are commemorating their struggles and victories. One of the most important ways to ensure the safety and success of women throughout the world is to provide them with economic stability. This is especially true in America, and is center to the debate taking place in this body over welfare reform. The current welfare system locks women into dependency and destroys their futures. It does not provide the incentives to obtain job skills or an education. It is a system that encourages teenage mothers to leave their parents' home and take a premature step into life's troubles. In short, not only does the current welfare system fail to help women, it suppresses women and destroys chances for their futures and those of their children. We have to create a welfare system that encourages responsibility; one that provides women with opportunities to become self-sufficient and to provide for their families. Economic stability allows women to take charge of their lives and not live as victims of government dependency. In the spirit of International Women's Day, I urge my colleagues to support America's women through meaningful welfare reform--we all should be able to live the American Dream.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I rise in support of the Goodlatte amendment and in support of the provisions on attorney's fees and costs which have been included in H.R. 988 and to commend my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Goodlatte], for his hard work on this very fair legislation. During consideration of H.R. 988 by the Committee on the Judiciary an amendment was adopted by a vote of 27 to 7. The amendment substantially modified the language governing awards of costs and attorneys' fees in Federal civil diversity litigation from a strict and onerous loser pays formula to a fairer, yet much needed, version. The Goodlatte amendment is designed to encourage settlement of legal disputes, to reduce the burden of frivolous claims on the Federal courts, and to provide full recovery to the prevailing party. It will not impose a barrier to filing of meritorious lawsuits, but will simply require plaintiffs to engage in thoughtful and deliberate consideration of the substance of their claims before proceeding with costly, time-consuming litigation. As a former judge, I saw my fair share of frivolous lawsuits, and I also saw my fair share of the collection of a good number of nuisance claims, and I know from years of impartial observation in courtrooms that this provision is evenhanded, fair, and will do the job. I am pleased that the language has been included to provide the courts with latitude in determining awards of attorneys' fees and cost. Specifically, the bill stipulates that the court may decline to grant an award where the payment of such costs and expenses would be ``manifestly unjust.'' In addition, the court is not required to make an award in cases involving a claim for equitable relief or in cases where the court finds that the claim presents a novel and important question of law or fact that substantially effects nonparties. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 988 will encourage settlement of disputed claims, allows cases with merit to proceed more rapidly through the judicial process, and assures that plaintiffs' concerns are addressed appropriately. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation. In it are properties that will go far in addressing abuses we all know exist and that I have seen firsthand, yet it stops short of denying access to fair-minded litigants. I urge adoption.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. Mr. Speaker, as my distinguished colleague from Utah ably explained in her opening remarks, this rule provides for the fair and orderly consideration of one of the most significant regulatory reform proposals to be debated on the House floor in recent memory, and that is the fundamental idea of compensating private property owners when the use of their property is limited by over-reaching Federal regulations. This is a very complex issue, Mr. Speaker, and the legislation before us has understandably prompted legitimate concerns about the future of Federal rulemaking. To afford Members amply opportunity to discuss changes in the bill, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, followed by up to 12 hours of amendment under the 5-minute rule. While I know the minority would prefer to have unlimited debate on this legislation, I am confident that the rule provides the minority with an ample block of time to manage as they see fit in order to organize and prioritize amendments they would bring to the House floor. The rule also enables the House to consider two very important amendments. First, in the rule makes in order a substitute to be offered by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Canady]. This substitute, which requires only a single waiver of House rules, pursues essentially the same goals as the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee, but it links compensation for property owners to the availability of appropriations. The rule also allows the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Tauzin] to amend the Canady substitute by narrowing the scope of the legislation to apply only to the Endangered Species Act, wetlands regulations, water rights, and parts of the 1981 Food Security Act. These amendments reflect bipartisan efforts to reach a compromise, and I urge my colleagues to consider them very carefully. The notion of protecting private property rights is not a new concept. It has its roots in our Nation's most sacred document, our Constitution. But those rights have steadily been eroded by excessive regulations which force farmers, ranchers, and other property owners to bear the full burden of the law, which the public receives the benefits and pays none of the costs. If the fifth amendment is going to be worth more than the paper it is written on, then private property protection must be strengthened. A strong system of property rights in America is an essential means of protecting individual liberty, and the bill before us provides the appropriate balance between the power of government, the rights of individuals, and the betterment of our society. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, to listen to the Democrats speak, one would think the Republicans are ogres, taking food out of the mouths of babes. They have called us cruel; they have called us despicable. Mr. Speaker, what is despicable is their tactics. They are deceiving the American people, and they know it. There are absolutely no cuts in the School Lunch Program under the Republican welfare plan. Let me say that again. Thee will be no cuts in the School Lunch Program. As a matter of fact, the funding for the program will actually increase by $203 million, an increase of 4.5 percent. Furthermore, the Republican plan guarantees that 80 percent of the funds will actually go to feed hungry children, while 2 percent can be spent on administrative costs. Our proposal will make sure that the money will go where it is needed, into Democrats seem more concerned about feeding bureaucrats than feeding children. Mr. Speaker, the debate should not involve using scare tactics to defend the status quo. Our children are more important than that.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open rule providing for consideration of H.R. 450. As the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], my friend, described in his opening statement, this is a very fair rule. Whether you want to buy into the debate whether this is an open rule, a wide open rule, or a modified open rule, I think we are never going to decide on these semantics between the two sides of the aisle. So let us just call this a fair rule because this is what it is. When the Committee on Rules met yesterday morning, there was some thoughtful discussion on the pros and cons of limiting this debate on the amendment process to 10 hours. Let me say that I understand and appreciate the concerns that were raised. But there is nothing wrong with trying to impose a better sense of organization and time management on the overall amendment process that we have here in the House of Representatives. Since few Republican amendments are expected, the 10-hour time limit affords the Democratic leadership an opportunity to prioritize their Members' amendments as much as possible and to utilize an en bloc format whenever it is practical. There is no excuse for time to run out if time is properly managed. In the 8 days we spent debating unfunded mandates, it taught us that discussing duplicative and overlapping amendments is not the most productive use of this House's time. In addition to supporting the rule, Mr. Speaker, I also support the underlying legislation. Too often the debate over economic growth focuses only on the size of the deficit or on taxes. Escalating regulatory costs are often left out of this discussion. But make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, excessive Federal regulations have a tremendous impact on economic growth and the heavy burden of increasing regulation is ever present in our society. Job loss, reduced competitiveness and the diminished productivity are the real costs associated with runaway Government regulations. The mayor of my hometown, Columbus, OH, recently observed that unless Federal regulations are cut back and based on common sense and measured risk, the waste of billions of dollars of misguided, one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington will cause a public backlash against legitimate Federal regulation. I wholeheartedly agree. I commend the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, in moving this bill forward, in keeping with our contract and its commitment to easing Federal regulatory burdens. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule so that the House can move one step forward to substantive regulatory reform.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself our final 2\1/2\ minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this open and fair rule for the consideration of the National Security Revitalization Act. And I appreciate the statements of my friend from California, but I must disagree. This is a fair rule and a responsible rule. And when the gentleman was at the Committee on Rules, we were close to an agreement as to the time for this debate. And I must commend the gentleman from New York, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Solomon, for explaining just why this is an open and fair rule, and the role of the minority leadership in limiting this time. Many of our Members do not realize that their failure to negotiate and their failure to agree to begin work early each morning helped decide the time lines for this rule. More time had been offered but no agreement could be made because no one would negotiate on the other side of the aisle. And so, my friends, under this rule we have up to 10 hours to debate amendments, on top of the 2 hours set aside for general debate. We have not had this much concentrated debate in recent history, 40 years I might suggest under an open rule on these matters, and because this is an open rule, any Member can offer a germane amendment to the bill and those who have preprinted in the Record will be given priority. Since the 104th Congress began a few weeks ago our attention has been focused primarily on the domestic side of the American agenda. We tackled such issues as how to cut such spending, and chief among those was balanced budgets and fighting crime, but now by adopting this rule today, Mr. Speaker we can begin debate on the very important question of how the United States will respond to the emerging security challenges of the next century. As the United States adjusts to the post-cold-war era we must remain focused, strong, and vigilant. Yet many serious questions have been raised about the status of our present defense strategy, the state of military readiness, and the adequacy of defense spending. Congress must find the answers to these questions, and the bill before us will take us one step closer to constructively addressing these and many other fundamental issues affecting Americans' national security policy. And despite partisan complaints which I have heard about this legislation, enhancing national security should not be a Democrat or Republican issue. It should be a bipartisan issue, and I am pleased to note that the National Security Committee reported H.R. 7 out with strong bipartisan support. cooperation will enable us to adopt this fair rule and begin consideration of a very forward-looking proposal to reshape our future national security. In closing, I would just like to congratulate my chairman, the gentleman from New York [Mr. Solomon], for his outspoken leadership, unfailing commitment to maintaining a strong defense, his arduous attempts to negotiate, and I urge the adoption of this fair rule. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good friend from the other side of the aisle and from Youngstown, OH, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant]. (Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, today, I join with my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] to introduce the Child Care Availability Incentive Act, a bill that will increase access to affordable, quality child care for America's working families. Today, few parents have the luxury of foregoing an income to stay at home with their children. There has been a dramatic rise in single- parent households, and dual-income families have become the norm. Unfortunately, the supply of child care has not kept up with the demand, and the care that is available is often inadequate. Our bill addresses this crisis by offering tax incentives to businesses to provide licensed, on-site or site-adjacent care to their employees. Both the employer and the employee benefit from this approach. Child care convenient to the workplace increases productivity, improves worker morale, and cuts down on absenteeism and provides for better overall employment relations. The Child Care Availability Incentive Act does not create another Government program or offer a new Federal mandate. Instead, it provides a simple way Government can encourage business to address a growing societal need. I invite my colleagues to cosponsor this urgently needed legislation.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 60 and ask for its immediate consideration. The clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 60 Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 665) to control crime by mandatory victim restitution. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instruction.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss], our very able chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Process of the Committee on Rules. extend his remarks.)

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.