Deborah Pryce

Ms. PRYCE

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

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 180 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Beilenson], pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, time is of the essence. Once again, that is the basic principle underlying our consideration of legislation to extend the Medicare Select Demonstration Program. In April, the Rules Committee reported a timely rule for H.R. 483. Today, we bring to the floor a rule making in order the conference report accompanying H.R. 483, with only hours to go before this valuable program is set to expire. In 1990, Congress created the 15-State demonstration Medicare Select Program to allow Medicare recipients the opportunity of purchasing a Medigap managed care option. The project in those states is set to expire today,June 30, and unless Congress takes prompt action to renew it, the insurance benefits of nearly half a million senior citizens covered by the Medicare Select Program would be in serious jeopardy. The conference agreement extends the Medicare Select Program for a period of 3 years. It also expands this option to seniors in all 50 States, and puts it on track to finally becoming permanent if the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that the program has met certain conditions. In addition, the conference agreement clarifies that the definition of a State, for the purposes of this bill, includes the District of Columbia and the territories of the United States: Guam, Puerto Rico, the Virgin islands, and American Samoa. In order to expedite consideration of this conference agreement in the House, and to ensure that seniors will have uninterrupted coverage, the Committee on Rules has reported a straightforward and fair rule for this very necessary legislation. Specifically, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate on the conference report, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce. The rule also stipulates that the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the conference report to final adoption without any intervening motion. Under the rule, all points of order against the conference report and its consideration are waived. While the Rules Committee generally prefers to avoid handing out such blanket waivers, this waiver and the rule itself are necessary because of a potential violation of clause 3 of rule XXVIII (28), which prohibits the inclusion of matters in a conference report beyond the scope of matters committed to conference by either Chamber. A question has arisen as to the apparent lack of definition of the term State in either the House or Senate-passed bills. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, the conference report contains a definition of States which includes the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. The waiver granted in the rule is a precautionary step to ensure that passage of this critical legislation is not unnecessarily stalled by this particular provision or by any other unforeseen, yet potential violation contained in the conference report. Members might be interested to know, also that this rule fully complies with the 3-day availability requirement for conference reports, as the report was filed on June 22. Mr. Speaker, the conference agreement provides a reasonable balance to permit a very valuable, and successful program for our senior citizens to continue, while allowing us time to evaluate the program more closely before making it permanent. Our colleagues should keep in mind that the Medicare Select Program provides seniors with another viable option to receive affordable medical care. Premiums under the select option have resulted in savings as high as 37 percent over traditional Medigap policies. By giving older Americans more choices within Medigap, we give them the flexibility to choose plans which meet their own special or individual needs. In closing, I would remind our colleagues that the sponsors of this legislation have made it very clear that the House needs to act on this bill before leaving for the Fourth of July district work period. The Medicare Select Program is only hours away from expiring. More than 450,000 Medicare beneficiaries will be impacted if the Medicare Select Program is not renewed. The Senate adopted the conference report on June 26. This rule will enable the House do to its part for our senior citizens. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 180 is a fair, balanced, and responsible rule. It was approved unanimously by the Rules Committee last night, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to give it their full support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson].

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, let me first express my strong support for this very straightforward rule and acknowledge the hard work and dedication of Chairman Solomon in pursuing relentlessly this concept. Second, I would like to commend my good friend and colleague from Ohio, John Kasich, the distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, for his hard work and dedication in this effort. Like so many other pursuits, Chairman Kasich approaches the budget debate with passion and dogged determination. He is guided by a clear sense of doing what is right for the American people, even if it means challenging the status quo with ideas or policies which some around here might consider politically unthinkable. But doing the unthinkable, the politically difficult, is precisely what this budget debate is all about, Mr. Speaker. After years of unbalanced budgets and reckless spending, we have the opportunity today, by adopting this conference agreement, to set a bold new course toward balancing the budget, limiting the size and scope of Government, and creating a meaningful future for all Americans. [[Page H 6565]] Now, we have all heard the criticisms aimed at this very responsible budget plan. We have seen actual spending increases being called cuts, and the Budget Committee's good-faith efforts being portrayed as attacks on senior citizens and children. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this budget agreement offers solutions no more complicated or profound than those offered by responsible American families who, everyday, play by the rules, pay the bills, and make ends meet. So, this debate really comes down to a simple choice. Do we continue following the old ways of doing business and piling up more debt? Or do we recognize that things have to change, and that the status quo is simply unacceptable if America expects to have any future. I believe the will of the American people is clear: They want us to be bold, and to have the courage to make the difficult choices so that future generations of Americans will enjoy the good fortune and prosperity they deserve. Mr. Speaker, the time has come to reassure the American people that this Congress is serious about reducing the deficit and cutting spending. I urge my colleagues to adopt this responsible rule, and to pass this bold plan for securing America's future.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, when will it stop? Today we have another heart-wrenching front page story of an adoption gone awry. Nineteen months ago Jim and Colette Rost of Columbus, OH, adopted twin baby girls and have cared for them every day of their young lives. Yesterday, a judge in California took these girls away from the only family they have ever known and awarded custody to a perfect stranger, the birth grandmother. The only reason for this is that the girls are \1/32\ Pomo Indian and the judge ruled that the Indian Child Welfare Act applies to these children and that tribal rights supercede all other interests. Mr. Speaker, when are we going to come to our senses? As an adoptive mother, I can tell you these rulings will have a chilling effect on couples wishing to provide good homes to children through adoption. Who will want to risk the potential heartache and the terrifying prospect that your child might have some far-removed native American heritage and be taken away? Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation to amend the ICWA to prevent these injustices in the future. I welcome input and advice of the native American community and I ask the support of my colleagues for H.R. 1448, so that future tragedies such as this can be avoided. Mr. Speaker, I include the following materials: February 7, 1995. Dear Representative Pryce: I'm writing to you as a mother looking for help. My family is being threatened by an ``adoption gone bad.'' My husband and I took immediate custody of twin baby girls in California in November of 1993. We were involved in an open adoption where we met the birth mother and birth father. These unmarried birth parents were 20 years old and they already had 2 boys. They made a decision to allow the twins to be adopted because they couldn't give them the attention and care they deserved. Moreover, they felt it would be unfair to their 2 sons that they already had. The birth father at that time did not disclose his Native American background (which turns out to be only \1/16\ making the twins \1/32\ and had chosen not to tell his parents about the adoption. In February of 1994, when the twins were 3 months old, he broke up with the birth mother, went home to his parents and told them about the adoption. The birth father's mother contacted a tribe in California (that she was not registered with until April 1994) who then contacted the attorney who arranged the adoptions demanding the return of the twins. This was the first time we knew of his Native American Heritage. Since that time we have been involved in a fight to keep our babies. The twins, Lucy and Bridget are now 15 months old and have been with us since their discharge from the hospital. We have brought them into our family where they have bonded with their big sister Hannah [[Page H6024]] (age 7\1/2\), grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins on both sides. They are so precious to us and we live in terror of losing them because of the Indian Child Welfare Act; an act that does not take into consideration the best interest of the child and more or less gives the tribe absolute power. Please help us in any way you can. We can't become another adoption ``fatality.'' These little girls would go back to a pathological family situation and they would be robbed of the love we would give them. Sincerely, Colette Rost.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of this rule. By adopting this rule, we will debate and then pass a plan to balance the Federal budget within 7 years. That statement could not have been made in this Chamber a year ago. But things have changed, and after the November elections there should be no question about the will of the American people. They expect us to be courageous enough to make the difficult choices that some naysayers in this body have been avoiding for decades now. But thinking in terms of the future is not always easy. There is comfort in the status quo and there are those who will use almost any tactic to preserve it. We have already seen this morning the Committee on the Budget's good work portrayed as attacks on seniors and children. We have heard actual increases in spending being called cuts. But despite these scare tactics and blatant misuse of the English language, I am confident that our seniors will appreciate the steps we are taking to preserve and protect and improve Medicare, a program which would be bankrupt in 7 short years if we do not act. The plan crafted by the Committee on the Budget offers solutions no more complicated or profound than those employed every day by hard working, responsible families who play by the rules, pay the bills and make ends meet. This is a fair and balanced rule. It calls for honest debate on four very different proposals to bring the budget into balance. Two Democratic ones and two Republican ones, and we are still holding things open for the President's plan. I hope we see it. But I encourage every Member to watch this debate closely. Substitutes will be considered under the regular order of the House. Nothing fancy, nothing tricky. This rule was not designed to give political cover. Every vote counts. So, Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, I urge my colleagues to adopt this reasonable rule and get on with the task ahead. Anything less would deprive America's children of their potential, the kind of safe and prosperous future they deserve.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, in the early 1990's, a study was completed by political scientist James L. Payne. Mr. Payne tabulated the witnesses who appeared before congressional hearings. The findings are astonishing. He found that 95.7 percent of those who appeared came to urge more spending. Only 0.7 percent came to urge against more spending. Washington has created a culture of spending. People come to Washington, perhaps with good intentions, and are sucked into this philanthropic swirl, where problems somehow go away if more tax dollars are spent. Well, the game is up. Last November, the American people said ``enough'' and put Republicans in charge of Congress to put an end to the 40-year-long philanthropic tendencies of our friends on the other side. If spending tax money truly solves problems, America would be the most trouble free society in the world. But we're not. Today, America is facing a $4 trillion national debt in the face of some of the worst societal conditions we have ever witnessed. It's time to break Washington's spending culture. Philanthropy is a wonderful thing, but not with tax dollars.

Ms. PRYCE

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished Chair of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of the Committee on Commerce, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis].

Ms. PRYCE. We would like to get this to the Senate as soon as possible. Their pace is much different than ours. They are coming back a week before we are, so they can get a jump on it and get moving on it. This does expire in June, and we would like to see this extended.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Moakley], 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, time is of the essence. That is the basic principle underlying our consideration of this legislation today. In 1990, Congress created the Medicare Select Program to allow Medicare recipients the option of purchasing a MediGap managed care option. This 15-State demonstration project is set to expire on June 30, a date that is not so far away when you consider that we are about to begin a 3-week district work period. Unless Congress takes prompt action to renew this program, the insurance benefits of nearly half a million senior citizens covered by the Medicare Select Program would be in jeopardy. Failure to extend the program's authority would most likely lead to higher premiums for current enrollees, presenting a new burden for senior citizens who live on fixed incomes. The legislation before us, crafted by the distinguished gentlewoman from Connecticut [Mrs. Johnson], expands this option now being tried successfully in 15 States to seniors in all 50 States, extends the program for a minimum of 5 additional years, and puts it on track to becoming permanent if the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that certain conditions have been met. In order to expedite consideration of this bill in the House, and to ensure that the Senate, will have ample time to debate this issue, the Committee on Rules has reported a fair and balanced rule for this very necessary legislation. Only the rule will be considered by the House today. Mr. Speaker, the rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Commerce, after which time the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The rule makes in order as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 1391. This bill reflects a consensus position reached by the two committees of jurisdiction in this matter: The Committee on Commerce, and the Committee on Ways and Means. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order, except one further amendment in the nature of a substitute which may be offered only by Representative Dingell or his designee. The amendment shall not be subject to further amendment, and is debatable for an hour, which shall be equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. Finally, the minority is provided with one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, health care reform dominated much of the time and attention of the 103d Congress. This year, work has already begun to explore new and innovative ways to make health care more available and affordable for our citizens, especially for older Americans. As Chairman Bliley stated before the Committee on Rules last evening, this legislation provides a reasonable balance to permit a very valuable, and arguably successful, program for our senior citizens to continue, while allowing us time to evaluate the program more closely before making it permanent. Select Program provides senior citizens with another viable option to receive affordable medical care. Premiums under the select option have resulted in savings as high as 37 percent over traditional MediGap products. By giving older Americans more choices within MediGap, we give them the flexibility to choose plans which meet their special, individual needs. Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of this legislation have made it very clear that the House needs to act on this bill before leaving for the upcoming district work period. More than 450,000 Medicare beneficiaries will be impacted if the Medicare Select Demonstration Program is not expanded. Mr. Speaker, this is a fair, balanced, and responsible rule. It provides the minority with two distinct opportunities to offer alternative proposals. These proposals may contain whatever germane amendments the minority leadership considers most important, as long as they are consistent with the standing rules of the House. In the Rules Committee hearing, we discussed a number of substantive amendments which were offered during the separate committee markup process, all of which were defeated at the committee level. While these proposals do have merit, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee majority strongly believes that they should be brought up when the House considers legislation specifically addressing reform of Medicare and MediGap programs. It would seem unfair to single out one program for reform at this time when all MediGap policies together should be examined at the proper time. Once again, Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize that it is imperative that the House complete its consideration of this legislation and forward it to the Senate, which we all know operates at a much different pace than the House. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this fair, balanced, and very reasonable rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Bilbray], a distinguished new Member who has much experience.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, the words proposed to be inserted were inadvertently deleted from the text of the rule, even though it is clear from the motion made in committee that those included words were to be reported.

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

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that House Resolution 130 be amended on page 2, line 3, by inserting after ``bill'' the words ``for failure to comply with clause (2)(1)(6) of rule XI.''

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 130 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, It is my understanding we are protecting the rights of the minority.

Ms. PRYCE. Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the gentleman. There are two opportunities.

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