Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to one of our new colleagues, the distinguished gentleman from Florida [Mr. Foley]. The gentleman from Florida has already proven to be a very active and very effective Member of the House of Representatives, and we are very pleased to have him with us. (Mr. FOLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dreier].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my good friend and colleague, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Hall], 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. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 60 is an open rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 665, a bill designed to ensure that criminals pay full restitution to their victims for all damages caused as a result of the crime committed and to any other persons who are harmed by an offender's unlawful conduct. This legislation is the first in a series of anticrime measures which the House will consider this week. It is only fitting that the first bill, the one dealing most directly with the casualties of crime, the victims themselves, be considered under an open, wide open, rule, because each and every Member here brings to this debate a unique and personal perspective on this issue. For, tragically, crime is so pervasive that no citizen escapes its reach. This rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and makes in order the Committee on the Judiciary amendment in the nature of a substitute as the original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Under this rule, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may give priority and recognition to Members who have printed their amendments in the Congressional Record. Let me just emphasize once again to my colleagues that preprinting of amendments is not mandatory. It is purely optional. Members who have not published their amendments will still be permitted to offer them at the appropriate time. The majority on the Committee on Rules continues to encourage Members to exercise this option in the future not only to receive priority status but also to inform our colleagues in advance of the number and type of amendments they are likely to be offering. Mr. Speaker, throughout my years as a judge and prosecutor, I worked closely with victims of crime, and was very often moved by their plight. These individuals and their families did not ask to be victims, yet after experiencing crime firsthand, they bravely embarked on the process of trying to recover from unexpected, unwanted, and totally undeserved trauma. The committee report accompanying H.R. 665 includes some very sobering statistics. For example, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 1973 to 1991, more than 36 million people in the United States were injured as a result of violent crime. In 1991 alone, crime resulted in an estimated $19.1 billion in losses. Clearly, there are tremendous costs associated with crime--emotional, physical, and financial--all of which must be borne by individuals, families, and ultimately, by this Nation. After years of elevating the rights and needs of criminals, the American public is beginning to recognize that crime victims have very real needs as well. Their voices are finally being given a meaningful role in the public policy process, helping them turn their personal anguish into positive action. Despite this progress, crime victims' rights are still often overlooked, and additional reforms are needed to bring some balance into an often one-sided process. One of those reforms is the right to adequate restitution from the perpetrator for losses incurred as a result of the crime itself. That is the purpose of H.R. 665--to mandate that restitution be awarded by the court in Federal proceedings, and that it also be considered for persons other than the victim who may have been harmed by the criminal's unlawful acts. Although this legislation cannot erase the victims' suffering, it is an important step toward securing justice and ensuring greater accountability on the part of criminals themselves. H.R. 665, would require criminals to come face-to-face with the harm suffered by their victims and also just as important provide the victim with some small sense of satisfaction that the system addresses their needs as well. Only one amendment was offered during the Judiciary Committee's markup of H.R. 665, and it was accepted by voice vote. The bill itself was reported favorably, as was this rule. Should there be any remaining concerns about the legislation, this open rule would give the House ample opportunity to discuss them. Mr. Speaker, crime victims do not ask for our pity and do not ask for our sympathy. They simply ask to be treated with the respect and compassion their circumstances deserve. I strongly support the Victim Restitution Act of 1995, and urge adoption of this very open rule so that we may continue the spirit of openness and deliberation that is needed in the people's House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago in an historic and symbolic gesture the esteemed minority leader from Missouri passed the gavel onto the first Republican Speaker in 40 years announcing: ``Let the great debate begin.'' But a great debate there was not. For it seemed that when the Republicans wanted to change the way Congress works, the Democrats wanted to change the subject. When Republicans wanted to make Government leaner and less intrusive, Democrats seemed intent to use scare tactics and delaying maneuvers. But Mr. Speaker, this past week or two were different and for the third time in about the same period, the American people won. Casting politics aside and placing the American people first, we together have now passed a balanced budget amendment, unfunded mandate reform, and a line-item veto. Mr. Speaker, we are now on a roll. There is a renewed spirit of reform and fiscal restraint in this great body of the people. I look forward to even more bipartisan cooperation in our goal to keep our promises to the American people.

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 Commerce; Committee on Economic and Educational Opportunities; Committee on Government Reform and Oversight; Committee on International Relations; Committee on the Judiciary; Committee on Resources; Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority has been consulted and that there is no objection to these requests. The Speaker pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman from Ohio?

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Goss]. Mr. Speaker, another important plank in the Republican Contract With America, the line-item veto, comes to the floor of the House today under a wide open rule, allowing any Member of this body to offer a germane amendment. This is the third contract item to hit the floor since the 104th Congress began just 4 weeks ago, following on the heels of the balanced budget amendment and the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. As in the case of the mandate relief bill, this open rule gives priority recognition to Members who have published their amendments in the Congressional Record. I would emphasize that this is not a preprinting requirement. As has been mentioned already, printing of amendments in the Record is purely optional. Members who do not preprint amendments will not be prohibited from offering their proposals, but many of us who serve on the Rules Committee encourage Members to exercise this option in the future, not only to receive priority recognition but, more importantly, to inform our colleagues in advance of amendments that are likely to be offered so that we can reduce time-consuming discussion on overlapping amendments and have more meaningful informed debate. With all due respect to my friend, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, this makes an overall better legislative process. Supporting this rule, Mr. Speaker, will mean full debate on bipartisan legislation specifically designed to help restore fiscal discipline to the budget process. H.R. 2 will help Congress and the executive branch identify and remove unnecessary and wasteful spending without unduly tying the hands of either branch of Government. Of all the issues raised during the most recent elections, I believe the American people were most concerned about Federal spending and the need to avoid saddling future generations of Americans with an increasingly large debt burden. Last week we passed a constitutional balanced budget amendment to respond to those concerns. Today under this open process we will consider adding yet another weapon in the fight against wasteful government spending. Public opinion strongly supports the line-item veto. Forty-three of the Nation's Governors hold the line-item veto, and just last week President Clinton stood in this very Chamber and asked the Congress to give him that authority. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from Michigan and congratulate him on his strong statement.

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

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Clinger].

Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, No. 106 as printed in the Congressional Record.

Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Ms. PRYCE. I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois [Mrs. Collins].

Ms. PRYCE. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I am offering, along with my friend, the gentleman from California [Mr. Condit], is designed very simply to strengthen regulatory accountability and improve congressional oversight of executive branch agencies. To insure that Federal agencies are not skirting the intent of this legislation, our amendment would require the Office of Management and Budget to provide Congress with annual written statements detailing each Federal agency's compliance with the requirements set forth in title II. Our proposal would allow the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and its sister committee in the Senate to conduct greater oversight of Federal agencies. The amendment is not meant as a substitute for judicial review, nor is it incompatible therewith. Our amendment would merely give Congress a reliable status check on how well agencies are complying and whether any modifications are needed. Without this amendment, I fear agencies may regard these requirements merely as obstacles to overcome, rather than a standard to be diligently applied. This amendment provides real teeth go into title II of this legislation. Accountability should be part and parcel of the work that every Federal agency performs. Too often, bureaucracies take on a life of their own, and in the process they lose sight of the original intent of the legislation. We have all heard the horror stories about regulatory abuses by overzealous bureaucrats. This amendment would help ensure that State and local governments and the private sector are protected from future abuses. They help carry out the purposes of many Federal laws, and their perspectives should be invited and heard. This legislation and our amendment would force Federal agencies to recognize that mandates impose real costs on taxpayers and consumers alike. If for some reason agencies choose to ignore the requirements in title II and avoid coming to this realization, then they will have to justify their actions before this Congress. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my friend from California for his strong support for this common sense, good government amendment. I urge its adoption.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Claremont, CA [Mr. Dreier], a member of the committee. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes. Madam Speaker, today marks another historic day in the life of the 104th Congress as the new Republican majority continues working to fulfill its promises to the American people. On opening day, we adopted a sweeping set of congressional reforms to make the House more open, efficient, and accountable. Last week, we overwhelmingly approved a long-overdue measure to bring this institution into compliance with the same laws it imposes on the rest of society. Last Thursday, as part of our plan to reduce the burden of Federal regulations, we began debate on discouraging the practice of imposing costly, unfunded, Federal mandates on States, local governments, and the private sector. And today, as we proudly begin debate on this historic rule, the House moves one step closer toward adopting a constitutional balanced budget amendment, the very cornerstone of our contract's plan to restore fiscal sanity to the congressional budget process. Madam Speaker, Congress can and should balance the budget without being forced to do so. But the fact remains, it hasn't. And with a Federal debt nearing $5 trillion and budget deficits in 33 of the past 34 years, it is clear that Congress is unable to solve the Nation's fiscal crisis entirely on its own. Some Members just don't have the stomach or the desire to make the tough decisions. The time has finally come to give constitutional expression to a policy practiced by thousands of families and businesses across America every day: learning to live within our means. Without constitutional constraints to deficit spending, future generations of Americans will be forced to bear the costs of our excesses. We should be ashamed to leave this legacy to our children and grandchildren. Madam Speaker, let me say that I fully appreciate the seriousness of this legislation. And the rule which we have recommended is abundantly fair as it allows the House to consider six different versions of the balanced budget amendment, four sponsored by Democrat Members, one by Republicans, and one bipartisan proposal. The fact that the House will soon consider a balanced budget amendment just 3 weeks after opening day is proof positive that the new Republican majority is serious about keeping its promises to the American people. I congratulate Chairman Solomon and the leadership for bringing this fair rule to the floor today. In terms of fairness it is light years ahead of what we've seen in Congresses past. I strongly urge its adoption by the House.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 5, the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995. Eight years ago, Gov. George Voinovich of the State of Ohio spelled out exactly why this legislation is so necessary. He said: Over the past 20 years, we have seen the expansion of the Federal Government into new, nontraditional domestic policy areas. We have experienced a tremendous increase in the proclivity of Washington both to preempt State and local authority and to mandate actions on State and local governments. The cumulative effect of a series of actions by the Congress, the Executive Branch, and the U.S. Supreme Court have caused some legal scholars to observe that while constitutional federalism is alive in scholarly treaties, it has expired as a practical political reality. I support H.R. 5, Mr. Chairman, because it restores balance to the Federal, State, and local relationship envisioned by the Framers of the 10th amendment. Under the current system of mandating, State and local leaders are forced to cut vital services and raise taxes. But worse yet, mandates deprive citizens and their elected representatives of one of the most fundamental responsibilities of good government: the ability to prioritize government services. The public is not well-served when Congress arrogantly passes on new mandates that force mayors to think twice about putting new police officers on the street or Governors to delay implementing needed reforms in education. Without effective relief from unfunded mandates, Washington will soon bankrupt State and local governments. The State of Ohio has estimated that unfunded Federal mandates will cost the State more than $1.74 billion between 1992 and 1995. The city of Columbus, in my district, estimated that its total spending on 14 major mandates would be $1.6 billion between 1991 and the year 2000. By the year 2000, each Columbus family's share would be $850 per year. These costs have a tremendous impact. In the past 5 years, education in Ohio has declined as a share of State spending nationally at a time when improving education is one of this country's highest priorities. While many mandates are well-intentioned, they can also do more harm than good and have unintended results. A good example is the most recent Federal highway law which forces States to use scrap tires in highway pavement. No State transportation agency supported this idea, and many experts have serious concerns about the potentially harmful environmental effects of using scrap tires in pavement, but that did not deter Congress from passing the mandate. The legislation before us reminds us of the two basic questions for all public officials: What should government do, and what level of government should do it? Since no level of government--Federal, State, or local--has the luxury of unlimited financial resources, we should not judge public officials by how much they spend on solving a problem. They should be judged on their initiative and resourcefulness, and on what they can accomplish within their means. H.R. 5 is a long overdue step toward correcting an abuse of power by Big Government in Washington and revitalizing the Federal-State-local partnership which forms the basis of our society. As a cosponsor of the bill, I urge its adoption without any weakening amendments.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this wide-open rule for the consideration of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act. An open rule for a bill as significant as H.R. 5 is a welcome change around here. In recent years, the House has increasingly operated under restrictive procedures which have prevented Members on both sides of the aisle from offering legitimate amendments. As Chairman Solomon has eloquently stated before, 70 percent of the rules granted by the Rules Committee during the 103d Congress were restrictive. Under the new Republican majority, and Mr. Solomon's able leadership, we will work to restore free and open debate to this institution. As the November elections showed us, the American people want real reform. They want to see honesty and accountability return to this legislative process. By adopting an open rule for H.R. 5, we send a clear message that deliberative democracy is about to wake up in America after a long, long sleep and that we welcome differing points of view. The time has come for Congress to take financial responsibility for the laws and rules it passes. Our current system of mandating is nothing less than an abuse of power by big Government--the ultimate arrogance in Washington DC. Governors and mayors across the Nation are pleading with Congress to stop passing the buck when it comes to passing new Federal mandates. H.R. 5 is a reasonable, long-overdue response to the plight of State and local dealers who are forced to pay for expensive, one-size-fits- all Federal solutions to what are most often local problems in search of local solutions. Mr. Speaker, I applaud the leadership for making unfunded mandate relief a top legislative priority in the 104th Congress. I support this bipartisan legislation and urge the House to adopt this wide-open rule.