Porter Goss

Mr. GOSS

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg). (Mr. SHADEGG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), a distinguished doctor.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the author on this side.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Coburn).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I am totally ambivalent about the rotation here. We are prepared to go.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the distinguished author of the bill.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hall), 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, this is a fair and appropriately structured rule for debate on this matter. We have made six amendments in order on a bipartisan basis. These amendments cover a full range of topics concerned with the underlying bill. The Committee on Rules has clearly erred on the side of inclusion to ensure a full, yet I believe efficient debate on this very important subject, which has caught the attention of Members. We are here today because doctors have become disillusioned with some aspects of our modern healthcare delivery system. They rightly assert that some HMOs are interfering too much in the doctor-patient relationship undermining their ability to effectively do their job. Their complaints are understandable, and they do need to be addressed. H.R. 1304 seeks to level the playing field between insurers and doctors. While HMOs should not be able to dictate to physicians because of their size, it is equally wrong for doctors to collude and force the hand of insurers and employers. If we get it wrong, the end result could be higher health care prices and more uninsured Americans without improving patient quality of care which concerns all of us. Those are the things we need to avoid, so we have to get it right. We have to find the correct balance, and this rule fairly provides for meaningful debate on how to proceed. H.R. 1304 is a simple, straightforward bill. It proposes to give doctors and other health care professionals a limited exemption from antitrust laws when bargaining with health plans conferring on them the same rights afforded to unions operated under the National Labor Relations Act. But based on testimony from some colleagues, there may be a hitch, unlike traditional unions, these doctor cartels, as they are called, would exist without any real regulatory oversight. Doctors could refuse to negotiate in good faith and even engage in selective boycotts. Obviously, this is a problem that needs a remedy. We all know that Congress does have a role in curtailing HMO abuse. I am very proud to be one of many House Members and Senators who have been serving on the conference, working on a bipartisan basis, to finalize the details of the Patient's Bill of Rights. But while we still have some work to do on it, it is no secret that we are pretty well agreed to the need for an independent, binding review process where doctors' decisions will be evaluated by other physicians. In other words, meaningful and appropriate oversight. We also understand that HMOs should be held accountable when they interfere in the doctor-patient relationship and harm occurs. But as encouraged as I am by this, I have reservations about H.R. 1304. It appears to be a necessary, simple solution to a tough problem, but as a wide range of experts have stated from the Congressional Budget Office to the Federal Trade Commission, the costs could outweigh any potential benefits. In fact, the CBO's projection put the cost at well over $3 billion over 10 years, not an insignificant amount of money, even around here; and that is worrisome to me. I am hopeful that my colleagues will support this rule so that we can get on with deliberation of these and other issues and weigh the potential costs and benefits. That is, after all, why we are here and what a deliberative body does. America's doctors and patients do deserve relief from bad HMOs. Indeed, Congress is addressing HMO reform in a tough and serious manner; I am a firsthand witness to that. The gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and some others urge that H.R. 1304 is the right direction we should pursue as part of congressional consideration. As our colleagues, they deserve respect for bringing this forward, and I urge a yes vote on this fair rule and look forward to a fair exchange on the underlying bill after everybody has the chance to hear all sides. However, we do not get that chance if we do not approve this rule.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 542 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume only to point out to the gentleman that the real purpose of me being here is to pass this rule, and I appreciate his help. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Employer- Employee Relations of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), a highly valued member of the Committee on Rules. We only have highly valued members in the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul). (Mr. PAUL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay on the table the motion to reconsider.

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

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida continues to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOSS

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who will speak to the question of doing the Nation's business on behalf of affordable prescription drugs for our seniors. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote. Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Dreier

Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, they are nearby.