John Conyers

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Anti-Price Gouging Act of 2005, legislation that makes price gouging during a time of a national disaster a Federal crime. I am joined by Representatives Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Linda Sanchez, Jerrold Nadler, Martin Meehan, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Bennie Thompson, William Jefferson, Adam Schiff, Joe Crowley, William Delahunt, Zoe Lofgren, Gene Taylor, Chris Van Hollen, Diane Watson, Bobby Scott, Ed Case, Bernie Sanders, Mike Capuano, Dennis Kucinich, Bob Filner, Dan Boren, Jim McDermott, George Miller, John Larson, Al Green, Julia Carson, Carolyn Kilpatrick, Carolyn Maloney, Emanuel Cleaver, Anthony Weiner, Barbara Lee, Betty McCollum, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Jay Inslee, and Jose Serrano. Every time a major disaster occurs, we are confronted with scarcity of resources that often results in exorbitant prices for necessary resources such as gas, food and water. While some adjustment to prices may be necessary, unconscionable increases in price are unfair and harmful to consumers, who, at a time of national disaster, are already dealing with significant personal losses. It is unconscionable for the same gasoline that sold for $2.50 per gallon on one day, to be marked up to $3.50 on the next day. Similarly, a hotel room that was promised at $80 per night on the phone; should not be raised $200 per night upon arrival. These instances of price gouging have been occurring throughout the country, even in areas far removed from the direct damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Currently, at least 13 States--Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia--have laws that specifically address price gouging in the event of a declared emergency. Unfortunately, there is no Federal statute addressing the issue. When we have unprecedented natural disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina, and price gouging that harms consumers across the Nation, we need Federal law enforcement available to support the States. As a result, the Anti-Price Gouging Act of 2005 would make it a violation of the Antitrust Laws for a supplier to charge unconscionable prices for necessary goods or services once a state of emergency has been declared by the President. This legislation is not only extremely important now, at a time of national disaster, but it is also mindful that we cannot sit around and wait for disaster to strike before putting in place mechanisms that will help consumers in their times of need. I hope the Congress moves quickly to enact the Anti-Price Gouging Act of 2005.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today, I reintroduce the Promoting Responsible Interrogation Standards Enforcement Act. I am disappointed that it is necessary to do so, but over a year after the first pictures of abuse Abu Ghraib were leaked, there has still been no command responsibility for those who condoned the atrocious behavior. And recent news reports tell us that even more pictures of even worse treatment will soon be released. Over the past year, we have come to learn that the abuse of detainees in American custody is not the work of a few bad apples in a single Iraqi prison, but a common occurrence throughout our military controlled detention centers. From Afghanistan to Guantanamo, at our hands or at the hands of well-known sponsors of torture, we have abused, tortured, and even killed those who we have captured or detained in the war on terror. We clearly cannot leave the Administration to its own devices to prevent this abuse from happening again. After ten so-called ``investigations,'' we are no closer to discovering just how high in the Administration the approval of torture tactics went. Every day we learn of more abuse, each allegation more horrific than the next. How much longer can we pretend it was all an accident? That's why I am introducing this bill to clarify that torture at the hands of our personnel, or upon their request, is not allowed under any circumstance. It also clarifies that our responsibilities in the U.N. Convention Against Torture, unlike what the Attorney General is claiming, apply to everyone in our custody, regardless of where they are kept or which country they come from. Intelligence obtained through torture is notoriously unreliable, and is therefore bad policy in the first place. But perhaps most importantly, our use of torture only encourages other nations to torture our own captured personnel. We cannot continue to put our own fighting men and women in danger. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of both this bill, and H.R. 952, Congressman Markey's bill banning the outsourcing torture. Together, they will clarify that this Congress will no longer tolerate the inhumane treatment of those we capture or detain, and will hopefully start our country down the road to repairing its now tarnished reputation as the world's most preeminent human rights leader.

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. CONYERS. I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to know that this bill is based on the California program MICRA, and premiums for medical malpractice insurance grew more quickly between 1991 and 2000 than the national averages. Just remember that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), who serves with distinction on the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Wexler).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a valuable member of the Committee on the Judiciary. request to amend h.r. 5

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would just let the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) know about the General Accounting Office report that found there is no evidence that caps on damages have reduced losses or helped consumers. They found, instead, that the contention that premiums are rising because there is a surge in jury awards is a myth and that while premiums have increased claims payments of insurance companies have remained essentially flat. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), who has followed this subject ever since he has come to Congress.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), a distinguished member of the Committee on Judiciary.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Ms. Herseth).

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

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring a motion to recommit that goes to the heart of the medical malpractice crisis. Rather than limiting the rights of legitimate malpractice victims, as the underlying bill actually does, our motion would directly address the problem of frivolous lawsuits and insurance industry abuses. Title I of the substitute addresses the problem of frivolous lawsuits. Among other things, it would require that both an attorney and health care specialist submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted before a malpractice action can be brought, and imposes strict sanctions for attorneys who make any frivolous pleadings. Unlike the majority's bill, our amendment is limited to licensed physicians and health care professionals for malpractice cases only. It does not include lawsuits against HMOs, insurance companies, nursing homes, and drug and device manufacturers. And it sure does not insulate the manufacturer of Vioxx from liability. Title II establishes a national commission to evaluate the rising insurance premiums and to review whether the McCarran-Ferguson antitrust exemption for medical malpractice insurers should be repealed. This is a good motion. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time, the last 2\1/2\ minutes, to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This motion to recommit sets up a limitation on malpractice cases being brought. It requires that there be an attorney and health care specialist to submit an affidavit that the claim is warranted; and then in the second part, we establish a national commission to evaluate the causes of rising health insurance premiums. This motion to recommit protects legitimate victims, limits frivolous lawsuits, and gives us a much-needed opportunity to examine the real causes of the medical malpractice insurance crisis that has this Nation in its grip. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit so that we can deal with medical malpractice insurance as a crisis and not as a giveaway to the companies that have been named throughout this debate. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Now, the reason that many people might support this bill is that they do not know that inside the bill, if they were asked, are you for legislation that makes it harder to sue drug companies and HMOs, I do not think you would get the same polling results. Mr. Speaker, I will insert into the Record after these remarks letters and reports in opposition to H.R. 5 from the American Bar Association, Public Citizen, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Conference of State Legislators. Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. This is a special interest bill before us today. The bill would supersede the law in all States in the Union to cap noneconomic damages, to cap and limit punitive damages, to cap attorneys' fees for poor victims, to shorten the statute of limitations, to eliminate joint and several liability, and to eliminate collateral source. That is a pretty large menu. But, more amazing, this bill comes before us today without the benefit of a committee hearing, or a committee markup, and under a totally closed rule. How do you like that? Rather than helping doctors and victims, this measure pads the pockets of insurance companies, health maintenance organizations, and manufacturers and distributors of defective medical products and pharmaceuticals, and it does so at the expense of innocent victims, particularly women, children, the elderly and the poor. We have a bill today for you. So let us cut the charade and get to the heart of the problem, and the insurance industry is the greatest place to start. This month we found out that the insurance industry has increased premiums by more than 100 percent over the last 5 years, while the claims they have paid out were essentially the same, were flat. This may have something to do with the fact that the insurance industry, which is exempt from antitrust laws, is not immune from collusion, price fixing, and other anticompetitive problems that they would be subject to if they did not have an antitrust exemption. It is also clear that a legislative solution, largely focused on limiting victim rights, available under our State tort system will do little other than increase the incidence of medical malpractice, which is already the third leading cause of preventable death in our Nation. So under the proposal, we here in Congress would be saying to the American people, we do not care if you lose your ability to bear children. We do not care if are you forced to bear excruciating pain for the reminder of your life. We do not care if you are permanently disfigured or crippled. We are going to limit your recovery no matter what. The proposed new statute of limitations in this bill takes absolutely no account of the fact that many injuries caused by malpractice or faulty drugs take years, sometimes decades, to manifest themselves. Under this proposal a patient who is negligently infected with HIV blood and develops AIDS 6 years later would be forever barred from filing a liability claim. The so-called periodic plan provisions are really nothing less than a Federal installment plan for the health maintenance organizations. The measure we have here right now would allow insurance companies teetering on the verge of bankruptcy to delay and then completely avoid future financial obligations. And they would have no obligation to pay interest on the amounts that they owe their victims. And guess who else gets a sweetheart deal under the legislation? The drug companies. The producers of such killer devices like the Dalkon Shield, the Cooper-7 IUD, high-absorbency tampons linked to toxic shock syndrome, and silicone gel implants all would have completely avoided the billions of dollars in damages that they have had to pay had this bill been law. Do you really want to do this today, my colleagues? It would help insulate Vioxx claims for liability, adding insult to injury to hundreds of thousands of individuals and families who suffered heart attacks or lost their life as a result of this dangerous drug. I conclude. Nearly 100,000 people die in this country every year from medical malpractice. And at a time when 5 percent of our health care professionals cause 54 percent of all medical malpractice injuries, just a few, a few doctors causing all of this problem, the last thing we need to do is exacerbate this problem while ignoring the true causes of medical malpractice, the crisis that exists in this country today. My colleagues, I urge you to please do not accept this antipatient, antivictim legislation. Mr. Speaker, the material I referred to previously is as follows: National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, CO, July 26, 2005. Re H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for a unanimous consent request. Request to Offer Amendment

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir. That is correct. (Mr. CONYERS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. CONYERS

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to join Congressman John Lewis in introducing a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. On August 6, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law. This Act is one of the Nation's most important civil rights victories and serves as a tribute to those that marched, struggled, and even died to secure the right to vote for all Americans. Brave Americans of different races, ethnicities, and religions risked their lives to stand up for political equality. Most notably, on March 7, 1965, a day that would come to be known as ``Bloody Sunday,'' nonviolent civil rights activists, like Congressman John Lewis, were brutalized and demeaned in their pursuit of voting rights for all Americans. It took this horrific violence for the Nation to realize it had to own up to the democratic ideals it preached. Eight days later, President Lyndon B. Johnson called for a comprehensive and effective voting rights bill. This call for a voting rights bill was to ensure that this country realized the 15th Amendment of the Constitution, that ``the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' Forty years later, the Act has proven effective in furthering this Constitutional ideal, as it has enhanced political participation and opportunity among racial and ethnic minorities. Today the Voting Rights Act also serves to protect the rights of language minority and disabled voters. Please join us in celebrating this significant progress from 40 years of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.