Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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, the Committee on Rules may meet the week of July 14 to grant a rule which could limit the amendment process for floor consideration of H.R. 1950, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. The Committee on International Relations ordered the bill reported on May 8 and filed its report in the House on May 16. The Committee on Armed Services ordered the bill reported on June 26 and filed its report in the House on June 30. The Committee on Energy and Commerce ordered the bill reported today. Any Member wishing to offer an amendment should submit 55 copies of the amendment and one copy of a brief explanation of the amendment to the Committee on Rules in room H-312 of the Capitol by noon, Monday, July 14. Members should draft their amendments to the combined text of the bill as reported by the Committee on International Relations, the Committee on Armed Services, and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which will be available for their review on the Web site of the Committee on Rules. Members should use the Office of Legislative Counsel to ensure that their amendments are drafted in the most appropriate format. Members are also advised to check with the Office of the Parliamentarian to be certain their amendments comply with the rules of the House.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 299 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) for some substantive remarks. Dr. Fletcher is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and also a member of the medical profession, and we look forward to what he has to add to this debate.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. DREIER), my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Rules, who led us through our hearing on this last night to the historic conclusion today on the floor. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I disagree with the gentlewoman's analysis of how it works. There is a provision that will allow physicians to stockpile, if they prefer. But on to another issue, Mr. Speaker. There were statements made earlier that there were no cost savings in this bill, by a former speaker. There are cost savings. There is group purchasing and insurance benefits, a 25 to 30 percent savings. There is a discount card, 15 to 20 percent savings. There is a Medicare best price, $18 billion in savings. Average wholesale price reform, $15 billion in savings. There is Hatch-Waxman reforms and reimportation reforms, all generating savings. And that is how we are able to expand and generate better treatment for seniors through the upcoming years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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 purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 299 is a multi-part rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1, the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003, and H.R. 2596, the Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2003. This rule provides for consideration of H.R. 1 under a modified closed rule, an appropriate rule for such a delicate, complex, and historic piece of legislation. The rule provides for 3 hours of general debate equally divided between the chairmen and ranking minority members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Ways and Means. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of H.R. 1. After general debate it will be in order to consider an amendment printed in the report accompanying this resolution, if offered, by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) or his designee and debatable for 1 hour. All points of order are waived against the amendment. Finally, the rule permits the minority to offer a motion to recommit to H.R. 1 with or without instructions. Section 2 of this rule provides for the consideration of H.R. 2596, the Health Savings and Affordability Act of 2003, either today, the legislative day of June 26, or tomorrow, June 27, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means. All points of order against the consideration of H.R. 2596 are waived. Finally, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. I would like to take a moment to clarify for my colleagues that upon passage of both pieces of legislation, the text of H.R. 2596 shall be added as a new matter at the end of H.R. 1. In simple terms, these two bills will become one. However, this bill does not preclude either bill from moving forward independently. Finally, the remaining sections of this rule provide for some housekeeping provisions and provisions which will allow this body to move forward in the appropriations process. Mr. Speaker, today is a historic day. For years now, seniors across this country have consistently voiced to Congress the same major concerns: the skyrocketing costs of prescription drugs. Their concerns are not perceived; they are very, very real. Each year, a typical senior pays approximately $1,300 on prescription drugs, filling about 22 prescriptions on average. Today, the House will consider a plan to give all seniors a prescription drug benefit through Medicare. In passing this bill, as I believe we will do before this day is over, we will renew America's promise to our seniors, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and revolutionize medicine in the 21st century. I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) for their exemplary cooperation, their remarkable leadership, and inspiring vision they have provided on this complex, yet very much-needed legislation. I would like to take a moment just to give special thanks to them for working so closely with me on a couple of provisions that will greatly benefit cancer patients and hospitals across the country. Included in this legislation is immediate Medicare coverage for oral anticancer drugs through a demonstration project that will offer extraordinary support to seniors who are fighting cancer. It will enable them to afford the newest lifesaving medicines in the comfort of their own homes, rather than be hooked up to chemotherapies by infusions in a hospital or clinical setting. I also commend the chairmen's interest and support in assisting hospitals who serve a disproportionate number of uninsured and indigent populations. Hospitals across this country, including many of our Nation's children's hospitals, will be better able to serve their patients with over $3 billion in additional funding. Finally, rural hospitals are finally getting their fair share: $27.2 billion. Since 1965, Medicare has provided a guarantee of health care coverage for more than 40 million seniors. Today, our seniors are counting on the stability, longevity, and integrity of this program for their secure retirement. But if we do not act and pass this bill before us today, the future of Medicare will be certain: certain bankruptcy. Our inaction will have sealed the fate for one of our Nation's most trusted programs. So today, we will do two long-overdue things. First, we will modernize Medicare to save it for future seniors; and, second, we will provide the much-needed prescription drug coverage. The prescription drug package the House is considering here today will provide the same universal guaranteed Medicare health services as those that currently exist. If you are 65 or older, you qualify for Medicare, and you qualify for this benefit. It is that simple. And we provide significant and immediate savings for seniors on their medicines. Specifically, this plan provides Medicare beneficiaries with a prescription drug discount card offering over 25 percent in savings, catastrophic protections, giving seniors 100 percent coverage for out- of-control drug costs beyond $3,500 year, and full assistance for our neediest citizens. Equally important, this rule makes in order a provision establishing health savings accounts, a revolutionary tool, so that every American, not just seniors, can set aside savings now for their medical expenses, tax-free. With over 40 million uninsured, this is so important, and the plan provides for a catch-up provision so that seniors can take advantage and set aside more money more quickly. Mr. Speaker, this is a remedy for what ails America's uninsured. Our plan is designed for those people who might be shut out of work-based coverage and offers all Americans, regardless of their income or age, access to health coverage with no bureaucracy or costly mandates. Finally, this package includes chronic care management for all Medicare beneficiaries. Mr. Speaker, one-third of Medicare beneficiaries have one or more chronic illnesses. This provision will help better manage diseases, reduce health care costs, and enhance health and quality of life. So here we are at a major crossroad. Seniors continue to tell us that adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare is not some pie-in-the- sky policy that they would merely prefer become law. No. The majority of seniors are telling us that they cannot go another year without help, without any assistance, without any help with their drug costs, and without access to higher-quality health care. Therefore, some questions need to be asked for those who will come forward in the next few hours and oppose this package. Ask them: How is this package not an improvement for our seniors who have no coverage and are struggling to pay for their medications? And ask them: How is the huge prescription drug savings that will result from this plan not useful to seniors? Ask them: How is bringing Medicare into the 21st century and saving it for future generations not wise for our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren? Now, some of my colleagues will no doubt put forth $1 trillion, pie- in-the-sky plans. These packages would bust any budget, Republican, Democrat, or otherwise. As a matter of fact, the Democrat substitute actually is larger than the sum of two budgets. The Democrat Spratt budget had $528 billion for Medicare, and the Democrat Blue Dog budget had $400 billion dedicated to Medicare. That is a total of $920 billion. But the Democrat substitute that they are offering today is over $1 trillion, more than the combination of those two Democrat budgets. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, the lack of prescription drug coverage under Medicare is exactly what age discrimination looks like in 2003. Seniors are the last group of people who are forced to pay retail costs for their medications and, Mr. Speaker, that should be enough of a violation of civil rights to get even the ACLU involved. I said just a moment ago that today is a historic day, and it is. Today we apply a little common sense by recognizing that health care is simply not what it was 30 years ago, and that Medicare is not what it was 30 years ago. It must change to keep up. Today, we will take the first steps in creating the next generation of quality health care, a new era where prescription drugs make regular doctor visits less frequent, where cutting-edge treatments make hospital stays nearly obsolete in the future, and where lifesaving medications reduce formerly deadly diseases to mere manageable symptoms within longer and healthier lives. Today I urge my colleagues to be bold, to be courageous, to show leadership, and to take America's health care system into a new frontier, a place where it has needed to go for far too long now. Time is precious and so are our seniors. I urge this Congress to pass the underlying rule and approve H.R. 1, the Medicare Improvement and Prescription Drug Act of 2003. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), my distinguished colleague. (Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In response to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who we both share an abiding concern about cancer patients and their treatment, I would just like to set the record straight in that the bill on the floor today increases oncology practice expenses by $190 million. That is 83 percent over their current payment, and it is 50 percent higher than any other specialty. It also includes an average sales price plus 12 percent for 2 years. Now, that is $240 to $250 million on top of a $190 million increase in practice expenses. In addition to that, we have provided for oral cancer therapies, the new, upcoming way to treat cancer, so that chemotherapies are not the only treatment that seniors can get. They can stay home and take a pill in their own surroundings rather than go be hooked up to some infusion device. These are wonderful steps forward for the cancer community.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

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

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

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

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), another physician in our conference.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, passing this plan is the right thing to do. It makes the kind of commonsense changes to the health care system in this country that the American public needs. Adding this Medicare benefit will renew our promise to our seniors. It will reduce the cost of prescription drugs, and it will revolutionize medicine for the 21st century. Seniors deserve this assistance now. They deserved it yesterday. They deserved it last week; and actually, they deserved it last year. It is time for this body to act. I urge my colleagues to support this fair rule and pass the needed reform today.

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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 269 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 our committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of the resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only. Mr. Speaker, H. Res. 269 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1115, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2003. 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 the time specified equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment or demand for a division of the question. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the amendment in the nature of a substitute now printed in the bill and waives all points of order against such amendment. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleagues that while this is a structured rule, it is a balanced rule. This rule makes in order four amendments, three Democrat amendments and one bipartisan amendment. In fact, only eight amendments were originally submitted to the Committee on Rules, and two of those amendments were withdrawn from consideration. In a world often frequented with sports analogies, we would say that four for six is pretty good at the plate. Mr. Speaker, the history of our judicial process was purposely and deliberately constructed by our forefathers to be a system that employs fairness and balance in the rendering of justice. One of the many tools of this judicial system is the class action lawsuit. In its ideal form, the class action suit is meant to give many individuals who hold the same claim of wrongdoing against the same defendant an efficient and effective way to have their grievances heard as a unified voice. Essentially, it acts as a pedestal and a megaphone using the collective nature of the many to increase the profile and the potency of the group's accusations of injustice. As used by public interest organizations and truly injured groups of individuals, class action lawsuits have proven effective in restoring justice and righting wrongs. By correcting egregious negligence, curbing dangerous misconduct, or even convincing people in organizations to merely abide by the law, class action suits are an integral part of the American system of justice. However, and very sadly, these suits are also one of the most grossly abused parts of the American system of justice. We have seen a deluge of frivolous lawsuits designed to coerce quick and often unwarranted settlements only to enrich a few. This abuse of the system stunts economic growth and job creation, and it clogs the courtroom and our system, making it more difficult to receive justice in valid lawsuits. In fact, class action filings in State courts have increased 1,000 percent in just 10 years; 1,000 percent in just 10 years. Somebody is catching onto something around here. One wonders how effective local courts and judges can even start to get through their workload when it is increasing so rapidly. Perhaps worst of all is the abusive way in which class action suits enrich a small group of trial attorneys and a very small fraction of plaintiffs while leaving most of the rest of the entire class with little or next to nothing. In one instance, and there are thousands and thousands of these types of stories, but in one instance a State court approved a class action settlement in a case brought by account holders against a bank. The result, the plaintiffs' attorneys received over $8 million in fees and the 700,000 members of the class only received $10 each. Eight million dollars to the trial lawyers, $10 to the plaintiffs. In addition, each class member was stuck holding the remainder of the bank's legal bills, approximately $100 each. These class members had to pay the bank's liabilities, a net loss at the end of the day of $90. How thick the irony, and we want people to respect our system of justice when they see this type of result? This may seem extreme, but it is becoming the norm very, very rapidly. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will dispute these facts. They will allege that the system is fine as it is, and that by passing this plan and working to restore justice to our system, we are robbing consumers of their legal rights. Let me be clear, no one is eliminating or diminishing anybody's rights to sue. No one is taking a wrecking ball to the court system that our forefathers so carefully established, and no one is ignoring legitimate claims of negligence or advocating bad guys being left off the hook. We are not doing that. This bill simply curbs the abuse of class action suits. It curbs the abuses while preserving the rights of the truly injured to bring meritorious claims to court. In addition, this plan would remove large interstate class action lawsuits to Federal court where appropriate. This provision would enable more efficient and effective consolidation of claims. It would also provide greater uniformity in consideration of these cases by requiring the decisions that affect individuals from all across the country be decided by courts that represent the Nation as a whole and not just one State which might have a particular bias for particular parties. As this plan cracks down on the abuses of class action suits, it also protects the legal rights of individuals through a consumer class action bill of rights. This bill of rights requires that the notices sent to class members be simple and intelligible, ensures that victorious plaintiffs do not suffer a net loss because the attorneys took all of the money, it prevents geographic discrimination against certain class members, and it prohibits disproportionate awards from going to some class members at the expense of others. The bottom line is that this plan provides greater judicial scrutiny to make our court system more efficient and effective, while restoring fairness to ensure that truly wronged victims receive their fair share of settlements. Mr. Speaker, as a former judge, I have to say, our court system and the judges and attorneys that serve within it serve nobly by administering and executing true justice when they can. But it is the job of this Congress to make sure that our judicial system is not misused or abused to the point where it cannot perform its very purpose, or it provides the very opposite of justice. The Class Action Fairness Act creates important reforms that will reduce lawsuit abuse and protect individuals. It is as simple as that. I urge support for this legislation and for the fair and balanced rule before us. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. Many of the objections that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) just iterated about the Committee on Rules being unfair about are contained in the Democratic substitute which was allowed by our committee. Retroactivity is specifically addressed there, so there is a chance to debate and vote on that. And it will be a lively debate, I am sure. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my good friend and very distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a member of the Committee on Rules.

Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), my very distinguished colleague and the whip of the Republican majority.