John Dingell

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland). (Mr. STRICKLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in the 40-plus years I have served here, I have never seen such a remarkable situation. Last night, we were presented with a piece of legislation that no one had ever seen before. The proponent thereof could not explain it, did not know what is in it. We will see it later today. I hope at that time he has a better appreciation of what his proposal does. It will be offered as an amendment to the bill, H.R. 2563, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. It is my hope that the House will pass this bill, send it to the Senate, and we can afford American patients a decent level of protection. One thing has remained constant: We need strong, enforceable, meaningful patient protections. The base bill is a good bill. It is the right one for millions of Americans who suffer denial, delay, and injuries at the hands of HMOs who are, like foreign diplomats, totally exempt from lawsuits, a unique class in our society. This bill would have seen to it that the rights of Florence Corcoran, who lost her baby due to a bad HMO medical decision, would have had relief. It would have helped Basile Pappas, who was denied proper treatment, and it would have prevented permanent quadriplegia as a result of an HMO's refusal to approve covered treatment. The bill would have helped another gentleman, Mr. Lancaster, who was arbitrarily denied coverage for in-patient psychiatric treatment and instead was sent home, where he committed suicide. None of these protections in the bill means anything without the ability to see to it that they are enforced. Enforcement of rights is everything, and rights without a measure to enforce them are totally meaningless. HMOs that make bad medical decisions should be treated no differently than any other wrongdoer, and when they engage in the practice of medicine, they should be treated the same as doctors. But they seek special treatment, an exemption from meaningful litigation and, indeed, an exemption from responsibility. If the Norwood amendment passes, which we saw for the first time in printed form this morning about 8 o'clock, HMOs would be held to different and looser standards than doctors and hospitals. The so- called ``remedy'' would actually wipe away State laws that protect patients against wrongdoings now and would roll back the law. The Norwood remedy is a sham, because in almost all instances, consumers would never see the State court which is the best place for them to be. Indeed, patient protections now will not work if the flawed Norwood review process is put in place. The Norwood amendment would reduce the role of external reviewers and delay care to patients. This House should pass H.R. 2563 without the cynical protections sought by the White House and Republican leaders and without the budget-breaking tax breaks and without a last-minute rewrite of consumer protections. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the legislation and rejection of the Norwood amendment.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for purposes of concluding the debate on this side.

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, all of that dies, but the preemption clause remains, and, as a result of this, the subscriber to the health care plan is left totally naked and devoid of any protection or any rights to enforce his interests in his policy.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DINGELL

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John). (Mr. JOHN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle). (Mr. DOYLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip and my good friend.

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall). (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Utah (Mr. Matheson).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Luther).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support those portions of H.R. 4 reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In that committee, we had a bipartisan process and a bipartisan vote for passage of 50 to 5. I want to specifically commend my good friend and colleague, the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), and the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), for the way in which our committee addressed these issues. I also want to commend the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for his fine leadership and cooperation in this matter. It is regrettable that some other provisions from other committees have not met the same high standards of work and bipartisanship that were included in the efforts of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The tight deadlines imposed by the leadership, when coupled with lack of specific statutory proposals by the administration, meant that it was much more difficult to accomplish this legislation and that our successes were more limited. Having said this, the Committee on Energy and Commerce has produced proposals well worthy of support in this body. Our bill provided for helpful conservation measures, balanced and targeted hydroelectric licensing reform, important protection of the nuclear waste fund, major incentives for the development and use of clean coal technology, and a needed analysis of the use of boutique fuels, a major problem. And as a result of the bipartisan amendment adopted in the subcommittee by a vote of 29 to 3, the legislation required significant but prudent savings for light trucks and SUVs. I note that this is a floor, leaving the Department of Transportation to determine if higher standards are needed, with the full ability to exercise these powers through proper and careful rulemaking. Virtually all of the committee's provisions in H.R. 4 are worthy of our support. I expect each Member will examine carefully other portions of this legislation, some of which are problematic, and see which amendments are to be adopted, if any, before rendering judgment on the entire matter. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.