Rob Andrews

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), one of the leaders throughout this effort, a real expert on this matter.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), a strong voice against special interest legislation.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), another Texan who does not want his State law repealed by the Norwood amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, the American Medical Association, health care providers across the country, want the Norwood amendment defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Capps), a representative of the nursing profession before she came here.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, we hear often about the benefits of the Texas patients' bill of rights, which will be repealed as a result of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bentsen).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), one of our advocates for a strong and forceful patients' bill of rights.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) to comment on the bill that is before us rather than the one he wishes was before us.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), one of the two principal authors of this bill.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), a Member who understands the flaws of writing a complicated bill overnight.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, let me begin by expressing my appreciation to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), whom I admire so much; to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske); and to all those involved. The vote we are about to take is not about the good intentions of good and decent people, because there are many in this debate. It is about making a good choice for the people of our country, the people who are sitting in a hospital waiting-room tonight with their stomachs and their hearts in their throats, not just because they are worried about whether their loved one is going to recover, but whether they are going to have a hassle over who pays the bill. That is who we have to think about here tonight. I respect those who are here tonight to try to help the President. I am here to try to help the patients of the United States of America here tonight. To understand why I oppose this flawed amendment, Members need to understand the following situation. A person goes to her primary care provider. The primary care provider says, You really ought to see a specialist. She does not get the right to see the specialist because the HMO says no. Because of the time delay, she develops a malignant tumor. She is in the hospital. She dies as a result of the malignant tumor. But before she dies, the wrong medications are administered to her wrongly by an employee of the hospital. Her estate sues the hospital and sues the HMO, not because they want to recover a lot of money, but because they have been wronged. The way I read this bill, there is one word that denies that family's claim. Because despite whatever good intentions there might be, the law is about words, not good intentions. The words in this bill say that the actions of the HMO have to be the proximate cause of the injury. And a good lawyer, and, boy, the HMOs have really good lawyers, is going to figure out in a heartbeat how to beat that case. Because he or she is going to say the death here was not ``the'' proximate cause by the HMO, it was ``a'' proximate cause. So the claim gets tossed out. This is not just about words, it is about values. If we want to hold the HMOs of this country accountable, this is the vote. There will not be another one. I do not think so. If my colleagues want to hold them accountable, they should come to floor, take out their card, and vote for the patients of this country. Vote ``no'' on the Norwood amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I appreciate the fact that the gentleman from Georgia's intent is not to preempt these claims; but with all due respect, that is not what his language says. On page 15, line 16, delivery of medical care claims are preserved but everything else is not. Is not. I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, this with all due respect is what happens when you start drafting a bill at midnight and finish at 7 o'clock in the morning. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Brown), a fighter for working families in Florida and throughout the United States.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I agree with my friend from Arizona that doctors should be the decisionmakers, which is why the AMA today said, ``Representative Norwood made a sincere effort to find a workable compromise, but the resulting effort is seriously flawed, and we oppose it. It helps HMOs more than it helps patients.'' Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), who joins with the health care providers and families of America.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member of the full committee. (Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), who joins with the American Medical Association in opposition to the Norwood amendment.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from Connecticut is exactly right: Putting decisions back in the hands of doctors is what we are trying to do, which is why the American Medical Association strongly opposes the Norwood amendment and supports the underlying bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney), a small business owner.

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Speaker, a person goes to her primary care provider, and the primary care provider notices a lesion on the patient's skin. She says that she thinks that the patient ought to see a specialist to see what the lesion is. Her managed care plan says, no, we do not want you to do that because it does not fit our model of what ought to happen. The patient does not see the specialist. It turns out the lesion is malignant and becomes metastatic cancer. The patient dies. The patient's estate sues the HMO under the laws of New Jersey or one of the other progressive States that has adopted patients' rights legislation. Understand this: Under the Norwood amendment that will be coming forward in a few minutes, that claim is barred. Wiped out. No more. The Norwood amendment is a step backward. It does not intend to be, but it is, make no mistake about it. Rights that the various States have given to consumers in the last few years are repealed. Whether it is by intent or sloppy drafting, they are repealed. If Members believe in states' rights and the right of States to make decisions that affect their own communities, then Members should not federalize health care law. Then we should have not have one national decision that governs what ought to happen here. Members should reject the Norwood amendment, as the New Jersey Medical Society does for that reason, and Members should vote for the underlying base bill.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment. In the new century the front line of America's defense is not the battlefields of Europe or the high seas around the globe or even the skies above us. The front line is the domestic battle against terrorism. The first line of defense in that battle is the fire fighters, EMS, and public safety personnel of our country. They certainly deserve the amount that is suggested by this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for making sure that $100 million is already in this bill. I know we can all work together in the conference with the other body to try to increase that amount to $150 million by trying to find the appropriate place in the bill from which the money may be taken. We are going to spend $300 billion on defending this country by the Armed Services this year. I support that. This is a small fraction and an important element of our fight or national defense. I enthusiastically support this amendment. I thank its authors.

Mr. ANDREWS

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend and congratulate the hard work and effort of the Pennsauken High School Jazz Band. The Band has performed at the Inauguration of Christine Whiteman, Penns Landing in Philadelphia, Lincoln Center in New York City and various colleges and universities. They have won the Dixie Classics Championship and several other distinguished honors such as Best Rhythm Section, Best Trumpet Section, Best Trombone Section, outstanding soloist awards and many overall outstanding band awards. The Pennsauken Jazz Band secured 2nd place in the New Jersey State Finals, along with awards for the best trumpet section and rhythm section in the State. Additionally, the band has received a Superior Rating at every festival they have performed in. The members of the Spring 2000 Jazz band are: Zachary Andrews; Frank Cuccio; Kristin Cuccio; Julia DePasquale; Anthony DiDomenico; Steven Engel; Eli Ferrer; Steven Forrest; Tim Gerard; Rob Hill; Christine Hinton; Rich Johnson; Ken Juray; Brian Kilpatrick; Nathan Kranefeld; Joe Lucidi; Jim MacKenzie; Ben Markowitz; Corey Mossop; Louis Muzyczek; Dominic Natale; Jeff Rivera, Rich Slack; Ernest Stuart; Perry Sutton; Vincent Williams. I wish you all the best and continued success in your endeavors.