Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens). (Mr. OWENS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 422 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. In closing, I ask my colleagues to look back at the welfare reforms of 1996 and to remind them that we have come a long, long way. Today we will find children and families in each of our districts better off than they were 6 years ago. We have reduced the welfare rolls and helped those who were once down and out to lift themselves up. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4737 builds on these efforts to further protect the children, to further strengthen families, to further increase State flexibility, and to further continue the decline in poverty. It is often said that the best social program is a job. This legislation provides the needed tools for people to move from welfare to work and opens up for them the door of opportunity, pride, and a better future. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter); 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. Early this morning, Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Rules met and passed this resolution waiving clause 6(a) of rule XIII, requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules against certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules. The resolution applies the waiver to a special rule reported on or before the legislative day of Wednesday, May 15, 2002, providing for consideration or disposition of the bill H.R. 4737, the Personal Responsibility, Work, and Family Promotion Act of 2002. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues are aware, this legislation builds on our successes from 1996 to further protect children, strengthen families, increase State flexibility, and continue the decline in poverty. In fact, yesterday the Committee on Rules received testimony on this bill from a number of Members in anticipation of reporting a rule to bring this legislation to the floor. With final negotiations regarding this important legislation now finally complete, adoption of this rule will simply allow us to move forward and consider this important welfare reform proposal today rather than holding up consideration of this bill until tomorrow or even next week. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and allow the House to complete its work on the business at hand. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I do not know that it was a Clinton proposal that came to the Hill. It was a product of the work of this House of Representatives, Republican controlled. At the same time, I would like to add that this rule provides the Democrats two bites of the apple while only affording the Republicans one. We have the base bill which we will be voting on; the Democrats have a substitute and a motion to recommit. That proportion is 2 to 1, and I do not see anything unfair or partisan about that. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 420 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of my colleagues the important and essential role that oncology nurses play in the care of patients diagnosed with cancer. I know first hand the powerful positive impact that oncology nurses have on the provision of quality cancer care and know that cancer patients would be lost without their expertise, care, love, and dedication. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled, kind-hearted angels who provide quality clinical, psychosocial, and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our Nation's cancer care delivery system. Cancer is a complex, multifaceted, and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. This year alone 1,284,900 Americans will hear the words ``You have cancer.'' In addition, 555,500 will lose their battle with this terrible disease. Everyday, oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment. Oncology nurses play a central role in the provision of quality cancer care as they are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side-effects patients may experience. The Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world with more than 30,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. Since 1975, the Oncology Nursing Society has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. To that end, ONS honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocacy for the public good by providing nurses and healthcare professionals with access to the highest quality educational programs, cancer-care resources, research opportunities, and networks for peer support. The ONS has 8 chapters in the great state of Ohio. These chapters located in the Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Toledo, Saint Paris, Zanesville, Lima, and Cuyahoga Falls areas serve the oncology nurses in the state and helps them to continue to provide high quality cancer care to those patients and their families in the state. In particular, I would like to acknowledge three special oncology nurses from my district who will be in Washington this week to participate in the ONS Annual Congress and the ONS inaugural Hill Day-- Deborah Babb and Luana Lamkin from Hilliard, Ohio and their colleague Betty Coffelt from Worthington, Ohio. I am looking forward to the pleasure of meeting with these outstanding women who have dedicated their lives to improving the health and well-being of people affected by cancer. On behalf of all the people with cancer and their families in Ohio's 15th Congressional District, I thank Deborah, Luana, and Betty as well as all of their colleagues in the Oncology Nursing Society for their outstanding contributions to the provision of quality cancer care to those in need. Also, I would like to acknowledge Luana Lamkin for her leadership within the Oncology Nursing Society as she currently serves on the ONS Board of Directors as the Treasurer. I have had the pleasure of working with ONS and Luana over the past few years to advance programs and policies that work to reduce suffering from cancer. Through Luana's and ONS' leadership, our Nation is charting a course that will help us win the war on cancer. As part of the ONS inaugural Hill Day, approximately 550 oncology nurses--representing 48 states--will come to Capitol Hill to discuss issues of great significance to people with cancer and the field of oncology nursing. Specifically, these oncology nurses will call upon us in Congress to move quickly to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of the ``Nurse Reinvestment Act'' and send a comprehensive measure to the President for signature by June 1st so that the measure can be funded fully in FY 2003; reform Medicare to ensure that the program reimburses adequately and accurately for the full-range of services provided by oncology nurses so that Medicare payment policy reflects the real value of oncology nursing and in turn, helps sustain our Nation's system of community-based cancer care for all Medicare beneficiaries; and allocate $27.3 billion to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fulfill the commitment to double the NIH budget over five years, $5.69 billion to the National Cancer Institute (NCI)--the amount the NCI Director deems necessary to take advantage of extraordinary opportunities, $199.6 million for the NIH National Center for Minority Health and Health Disparities--the course necessary to double the Center's budget over the course of three years, and $348 million for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Comprehensive Cancer Control, National Cancer Registries, Prostate Cancer Awareness, National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection, Ovarian Cancer, Skin Cancer, and Colorectal Cancer Screening, Education and Outreach programs--to ensure that all Americans benefit from breakthroughs in cancer research, prevention, early detection, and treatment. I commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 27 years and thank the Society and its members for their ongoing commitment to improving and assuring access to quality cancer care for all cancer patients and their families. I urge all of my colleagues to support them in their important endeavors.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent the week of April 8, 2002, and on April 16 and 17, 2002. Consequently, I missed the following recorded votes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall Nos. 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, and 98, and ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 83, 90, 91, and 96.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the author of this legislation.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind the gentlewoman from California that this House has passed health benefits twice. We have passed unemployment benefits, and it was signed into law actually last weekend; I was at the signing ceremony. This has been done. I do not know where she is coming from. This House has acted responsibly and we will continue to do that. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I have to say that I agree with some of the points made today. I agree with my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), that we should be providing health care for unemployed workers. That is why most people on this side of the aisle voted to do that at least twice over the last few weeks. I also agree that there is a huge vacancy rate on our Federal bench. I urge my friends to urge their friends in the other body to get their work done and act on these nominees. I agree that there was greed at Enron. This makes our point, Mr. Speaker. Together, three top company executives are accused of bilking shareholders of $198 million. Yet, for all the alleged greed, the wrongdoing of these three executives is far outweighed by what the lawyers stand to reap. According to news reports, Arthur Andersen made a preemptive settlement offer to Enron shareholders in the amount of $750 million. At the standard 32 percent contingency fee, this would work out to a $225 million share of that sum going to the lawyers. That truly is bilking the shareholders. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), for all his hard work and dedication to reforming our civil justice system to work for the parties and not for the lawyers. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary, who can get us back on course. This is a bill that is addressing lawsuit reform, not Medicare, not Enron. The gentleman from Texas can help point that out.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman yield to answer the question of whether she voted for extending those health benefits?

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I was just curious as to whether the gentlewoman was in favor of her constituents and voted as such when she had the opportunity.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 367 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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 367 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 2341, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2002. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment. The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution. Each amendment may be offered only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and waives all points of order against such amendments. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that while this is a structured rule, our committee, the Committee on Rules, did make in order every amendment submitted to us on this legislation. The rule simply incorporates some time confines, equally applied to all the amendments, in order to provide some level of certainty and order during consideration of this legislation on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, the history of the judicial process has established it as a system that, in most instances, employs fairness and balance in the rendering of justice. As one of the many tools of the judicial system, the class action lawsuit, in its ideal form, shares these characteristics. The class action suit is meant to give the many who may have the same claim against the same defendant an efficient way to have their grievances consolidated into a unified and magnified voice. Mr. Speaker, as used by public interest organizations and truly interested groups of individuals, class action lawsuits can be effective in remedying wrongs, curbing dangerous misconduct, or encouraging better enforcement of laws. However, the reality of the class action lawsuit is far, far from the ideal. Today, this procedural device is often employed in frivolous suits designed to force businesses into quick and often unwarranted settlements while denying those truly wronged of any meaningful recourse. This abuse can stunt economic growth. It can stunt job creation. And, ironically, these frivolous suits can clog the very courts that they are being heard in, making it more difficult to bring the valid litigation that the class action tools are meant to facilitate. Perhaps worst of all, the abuse of class actions often rewards attorneys and certain plaintiffs while leaving larger segments of the class with little real remedy. In one instance, a State court approved a class action settlement in a case brought by account holders against a bank in which the plaintiffs' attorneys received over $8 million in fees while 700,000 class members, the plaintiffs, only received about $10 each. Even worse, those 700,000 class members each had up to $100 deducted from their accounts to pay the legal fees owed by the bank under the settlement. As a result, most of the class members ended up with a net loss as a result of litigation designed to protect their interest. In another class action filed against General Mills, an additive was added to Cheerios, a very popular cereal. The settlement directed $2 million to the lawyers, while the class members each received coupons for free boxes of cereal. Now, while these examples may seem extreme, and they are extreme, they are sadly and rapidly becoming the normal. This is an aspect of our civil justice system that is in very sore need of reform. Class action filings in State courts have increased 1,000 percent over the past 10 years. That is an incredible jump. As noted in an editorial in The Washington Post, way last August, ``We must inject the world of class actions with more accountability to real clients and with some consequence to lawyers who file frivolous claims.'' This bill does just that by curbing the abuse of class actions while preserving the right of the truly injured to bring meritorious class action suits. Specifically, this legislation would preserve the intent of article III of our constitution by allowing large, interstate class actions to be removed to Federal Court when appropriate, thereby creating greater uniformity in considering these cases and allowing greater consolidation of claims. Importantly, this would mean those cases that affect individuals across the Nation could be decided by courts that represent the Nation as a whole and not just one particular State picked by a trial lawyer. At the same time, this legislation protects individuals in class actions through the Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights. This bill of rights requires that notices sent to class members be simple and intelligible. It also ensures that victorious plaintiffs do not suffer a net loss because of attorneys fees. It prevents geographic discrimination against certain class members, and it prohibits disproportionate awards from going to classes' representatives. Mr. Speaker, our judicial system and the judges and attorneys that serve within it do noble and important work. I am a past attorney and a past judge, so I can say that with some assurance. But it is the job of this Congress to make sure that the procedural tools given to those in the judicial system are not misused to the point that they frustrate their very purpose. This bill creates important reforms that will reduce abuse and protect individuals. I urge support for this legislation and for this fair and balanced rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I must say that this bill was discussed at length in the Committee on Rules yesterday, and I am not sure, maybe my friend from Texas was not present, but I believe he was, because it is incredible to me that he is making these statements. It was pointed out at great length that the Enron case is already in Federal court. This has nothing to do with Enron. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, securities litigation is carved out entirely by this legislation. It would not cover Enron. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the author of this legislation, to further bring some light to this subject.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to remind my colleagues that this body has done its job. It has looked for consensus, and it has found a solution. This motion to help unemployed workers as they look for jobs will give a boost to them and also a small boost to the businesses that can help create those jobs. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying motion so that it can be sent finally to the President for his signature. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.