Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to open by noting that I am before my colleagues today not only on my behalf, but on behalf of my colleague and neighbor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). The gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton) had planned to offer this amendment on West Valley, which is in his district, but his mother, Laura Houghton, passed away yesterday at the age of 102 years. So he had to go to return to his district and he asked that I introduce this amendment on his behalf. And I am also joined by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), who is also a neighbor. Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses an issue that hits very close to home. The West Valley Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New York, neighbors my hometown of Springville, New York, the very town where I grew up. The facility is the only commercial reprocessor of spent nuclear fuels in the United States. Although commercially operated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Federal Government provided all of the reprocessing technology, and the vast majority of reprocessed fuel came directly from the Federal Government's nuclear weapons reactors. Over 20 years ago, at the direction of Congress and at the urging of the residents of western New York, New York State and the Department of Energy became partners to clean up this site. They were to work cooperatively in cleaning up the site and in deciding its future. New York State even agreed to pay for a portion of the cleanup. To this day, New York State is the only State to contribute to the cleanup of high-level nuclear waste. In fact, New York State has contributed over $250 million to the waste cleanup since its inception. The cleanup of this site has proceeded smoothly and safely for many years. Over the past 3 years, the Department of Energy and New York State have been meeting to plan the future of the West Valley site after the bulk of high-level waste solidification is completed. Unfortunately, this partnership has become strained in recent years, as the Department of Energy has distanced itself from their cleanup responsibilities. New York's repeated attempts to reach an agreement over the future of the site have been rejected or ignored. Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not change existing law; rather, it directs the Department of Energy to once again work cooperatively with New York State at the West Valley site. The amendment provides guidance to the Department of Energy to develop a proposal for the future of the site and report that plan back to Congress. Finally, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Department of Energy fully recognizes its responsibilities at the site for the vast amount of Federal high-level waste at the site and directs the Department of Energy to consult with New York State on this proposal. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Quinn), a neighbor of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor a remarkable and devoted individual. Tomorrow, Edith Palmer will be honored by her community on the occasion of her retirement from the Springville League for the Handicapped and Preschool Learning Center. For 43 years, Edie has been the heart and soul of a facility that has given new hope to parents and new opportunities for the more than 160 preschool children who come through its doors each year. I know that not only because Edie lives in my hometown, but also because I am one of those parents. In May, 1960, Edie answered a newspaper ad calling together parents of disabled children to meet and discuss the special educational needs of their children. These concerned parents first met under a tree on East Avenue, where they planted the seeds for what has become one of the premiere educational facilities for handicapped and learning disabled children in all of New York state. Edie's devotion to the Springville League for the Handicapped began from her own experience as the parent of a hearing disabled son. Like other parents of handicapped children in the 1950's, Edie felt, as she said in her own words, ``adrift on the ocean with no help on the horizon.'' That first day, Edie volunteered to handle all the group's secretarial work, and later that year became Board Secretary for their volunteer board of directors--a post she would hold for 20 years. For its first dozen years, the League provided volunteer help for children, using donated space, volunteer staff and providing help to children at no cost to their parents. Thanks, in part, to Edie's leadership, dedication and passion, the Springville League for the Handicapped and Preschool Center opened the doors of its own facility in 1987; and today employs 95 people, serving 160 disabled preschool children each year. Earlier this year, Edie Palmer was named the Springville Chamber of Commerce ``Citizen of the Year,'' an honor well deserved. Mr. Speaker, I ask that this Congress join me in saluting Edie Palmer for her 43 years of service to the Springville League for the Handicapped and Preschool Learning Center. As a parent, I can personally attest to the tremendous difference that she has made in the lives of children and families in Western New York, and I am proud and grateful to be able to call her my friend.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. I hope my colleagues have had the opportunity to read the heart- wrenching testimony presented by Leanne Dyess earlier this month before the Committee on the Judiciary. I hope their compassion will allow them to consider how it would feel if a similar tragedy befell someone they love simply because doctors had been pushed out of the area; and I hope they can recognize that, today, we have the opportunity to prevent such tragedies from happening to others. The HEALTH Act is about patients getting the best possible care they can when and where they need it. Dollar signs do not cure people; doctors do. Let us make sure doctors and other providers all across the country remain open for business. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying legislation. A ``yes'' vote is a vote for patients.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter). (Mr. PORTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), a member of the Committee on Rules and Chair of the Republican Conference.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who is an expert on the Committee on Energy and Commerce on this issue.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue on the debate of the issue of the day, which is medical liability. I must tell you, while I guess it is important to listen to some of the process, and half of this debate by the leadership of our House is on the process, I am hoping that we can continue to hear the debate that was at least opened by myself and my good friend from Florida who has a different view. I look at it that we need to helm doctors and patients, and to make sure we can control the costs of malpractice insurance. I have listened to some of the debate on the other side that it is the doctors and insurance companies that are at fault. It is an important debate. This is a debate that was heard 7 months ago in both the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Committee on the Judiciary voted by voice vote to put the bill out. Only recently we have had those hearings again in the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary, and, in a bipartisan fashion, it was passed by a voice vote there. Last night we took 2 hours of testimony. The Committee on Rules responded with a 2-hour debate, plus what will be a full hour of the resolution, now going forward here on the rule itself. I look forward to the debate, I look forward to hearing it, and then I look forward to voting up or down on whether we are going to help patients or not. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 139 is a closed rule providing 2 hours of debate for consideration of H.R. 5, Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare Act, more commonly known as the HEALTH Act. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, my home State of New York has been designated by the American Medical Association as one of the 18 crisis States because of the staggering number of physicians that are unable to obtain or afford liability insurance. It is not just physicians that are feeling the crunch; hospitals and other providers have also reached their breaking point. Take, for example, family-run skilled nursing facilities in my district that have not once had a claim brought against them, yet they have seen their liability insurance rates climb over 200 percent during the past 2 years alone. That is 200 percent in the last 2 years alone. According to a study conducted by the American Hospital Association and the American Society of Risk Management, one-third of the hospitals experienced an increase of 100 percent or more in liability insurance premiums in 2002. Meanwhile, patients are the ones losing choices, access, and care. Mr. Speaker, last September I stood on this floor to speak in favor of the HEALTH Act. Since that time, my home community of Erie County, New York, has lost 40 actively practicing physicians. Only 3 months into the current year, they are anticipating a loss of another 20 physicians. If we do not solve the problems facing physicians in this community and so many others across America, who will provide the health care services so vital to all of our constituents? The fact is that physicians are limiting their patients, moving to States with lower insurance rates, or closing their practices altogether. The fact is that astronomical costs and unpredictability in the legal system are causing this alarming trend. The effect? Doctors practice defensive medicine to avoid litigation and think twice about openly discussing and reporting possible errors. A study released by the Department of Health and Human Services last week emphasizes that bolstering predictability in the legal system will dramatically reduce the incentives for unnecessary lawsuits. Those who need care will get it faster and more reliably, and those who may need proper redress will get it faster and more reliably. The HEALTH Act will provide that predictability, while at the same time halting the exodus of providers from the health care industry, stabilizing premiums, limiting astonishing attorney fees, and above all, improving patient care. Just as important is what HEALTH Act will not do. It will not preempt any existing State laws that limit damages at a specific amount, and it will not establish any new causes of action. Also, it will not prevent juries from awarding unlimited economic damages. This means that quantifiable lost wages, medical costs, pain- reducing medications, therapy and lifetime rehabilitation can all be recuperated as tangible economic damages. Patients that have been wrongly injured will not be denied access to substantial amounts in economic damages. The HEALTH Act is modeled after legislation adopted by a Democratic legislature and a Democratic Governor in the State of California nearly 30 years ago. While insurance premiums increased over 500 percent nationwide, California's have risen only a third of that much, by 167 percent. California's insurance market has stabilized, increasing patient access to care and saving more than $1 billion per year in liability premiums. Equally important, California doctors are not leaving the State. By following California's lead to place modest limits on unreasonable economic damage awards, an estimated $60 billion to $108 billion could be saved in health care costs each year. The Congressional Budget Office calculated that medical liability insurance premiums would be lowered an average 25 to 30 percent from what they are now under current law. And CBO also predicts that reducing the occurrence of defensive medicine would save anywhere from $25 billion to $44 billion per year of taxpayers' money. I want to thank the leadership of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary for working so expeditiously to bring this important measure back to the floor and focusing our attention on health care, particularly for coupling the HEALTH Act this week with patient safety legislation. Physicians need an environment where they can both share and learn, while at the same time practicing medicine without the fear of burgeoning liability rates and unnecessary lawsuits. Mr. Speaker, spiraling medical liability insurance rates have hemorrhaged in recent years. Today we have an opportunity to stop the bleeding and maximize healthy patient outcomes. I urge Congress to support this rule and the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the debate has begun. We are going to have an hour on this rule. I believe after that we are going to have 2 hours of general debate. It really cuts right down through the center. As I talked about excessive court trial damage driving up the cost of patient health care, I listened to the other side say it is the insurance companies and the doctors that are the cause of so much of this. It will be a good debate. It will be a full hour here on this rule and it will be 2 hours of general debate, and then we are going to have an up or down on the HEALTH Act and we are going to find out whether it is passed and sent to the other body. But I must say that over 60 percent of the doctors in the United States are insured by insurance companies that are owned and operated by other doctors and which operate primarily for their benefit. The idea that those companies would price-gouge the very physicians who own them, I think, is absurd. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller). (Mr. KELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 139 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have only served under the distinguished chairmanship of Chairman Dreier, but I am always pleased that in each rule that we make there is always a recommit. Looking back at history, one of the people that I think was a distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, Joe Moakley, I am not sure he always had a recommit in the legislation. I am not sure that former Speaker Tip O'Neill when he was a member of the Committee on Rules always voted that there would be a recommit. But I do believe that there has been a recommit in here. More importantly, I think it is important that this legislation was thoroughly vetted in two committees, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on the Judiciary, and even passed by voice vote in the Committee on the Judiciary. Just weeks ago these same committees once again took testimony and the bill passed through the Committee on Energy and Commerce by voice vote. The Committee on Rules last night took testimony for over 2 hours and reasonably provided 2 hours of general debate, in addition to the standard motion to recommit, and I believe we will have a full hour on this rule today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher). The gentleman, a doctor, is an expert in this legislation.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. I thank the chairman for yielding me this time and for his leadership on the Iraq issue. Mr. Speaker, today we begin an important and serious debate. The decision of whether we commit America's military and America's servicemen and women to a confrontation with a sovereign nation is not something to be taken lightly. I applaud our President and this Congress for ensuring that we begin this debate well-informed and well- prepared. As the President has said in his radio address to the Nation on Saturday, ``The United States does not desire military conflict because we know the awful nature of war.'' But ``If the Iraqi regime persists in its defiance, the use of force may become unavoidable.'' Mr. Speaker, 16 times the world has come together to stop Saddam Hussein from threatening our peace, stability, and security; and 16 times this madman and murderer has ignored the will of that world, continuing to develop weapons of mass destruction that have no valid defensive purpose. They have only one purpose: to wreak as much havoc and to murder as many people as possible. Saddam Hussein has already used such weapons on his own people. Each day he comes closer to developing even deadlier weapons and more effective and longer-range delivery systems. Do we really want to see what these weapons are capable of before we force their destruction? Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Saddam Hussein to open his borders for inspection anytime, anywhere. It is time for Iraq and its regime to destroy those weapons of mass destruction. ``Delay, indecision, and inaction,'' as President Bush said, ``are not options for America.'' I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying resolution.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the speakers tonight and many members of the New York delegation, on both sides of the aisle. The ranking member has yielded his time. I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), in salute to him, the dean of our delegation, and his wife, Georgia, who is in the balcony, for his closing remarks. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Syracuse, New York (Mr. Walsh).