F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield a quick 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the conference report on H.R. 2215 currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 552, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 2215) to authorize appropriations for the Department of Justice for fiscal year 2002, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a lengthy statement which I plan on putting in the Record, as it is important to this conference report. I know that the Members wish to make plans so that they can get out of here before the last plane leaves, and I would hope that everybody who seeks time will speed it up so that the Members will be accommodated. This conference report represents the first Department of Justice authorization that will be signed into law since 1979. The Department has gone for 23 years without an authorization. This legislation will help the Congress to do better oversight over the Department of Justice and will allow the Department of Justice to do better oversight over itself through improvements in the Inspector General's Office. There are a number of additional judgeships that have been created, largely in the southwestern part of the country, to handle cases that arise from problems along the border. There is an improvement in how the Department administers its grant programs through the Office of Justice programs; and I think probably most importantly, the improvements in the juvenile justice system at the Federal level, jointly within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Education and the Workforce, at long last, will be finding its way into law. All of the conferees signed this legislation. It has significant bipartisan support. I would commend it to the Members' favorable vote. Mr. Speaker, over the last two decades, there have been several unsuccessful attempts by the Committees on the Judiciary of both Houses of Congress to authorize the Department of Justice. If enacted, H.R. 2215 represents the first such authorization of the Department in nearly a quarter century. It reflects the broad bipartisan support of both Houses, and was signed by all of those appointed to the Conference. While some might argue that congressional authorization of federal departments within its jurisdiction is a mere formality, the authorization of executive agencies fulfills Congress' fundamental constitutional obligation to maintain an active and continuing role in organizing the priorities and overseeing the operation of the executive branch. This process also ensures that the authorizing committees' institutional knowledge about the federal agencies they oversee can be imparted in the course of regulation reauthorization. The Department of Justice is one of the most important agencies in the Federal Government and the world's premier law enforcement organization. With an annual budget exceeding 20 billion dollars and a workforce of over 100,000 employees, the Department of Justice is an institution whose mission and values reflect the American people's staunch commitment to fairness and justice. The importance of the Department of Justice has only increased since the tragic events of September 11th, 2001. Last year, I was pleased to introduce and lead congressional passage of the PATRIOT Act, which has strengthened America's security by providing law enforcement with a range of tools to fight and win the war against terrorism. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have continued to help provide the Department with the legislative resources to carry out its crucial mandate. At the same time, I have worked to ensure that the Department's structure, management, and priorities are tailored to best promote the purposes for which it was established. The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act advances this important goal. The title of this measure reflects its broad and ambitious sweep: to focus the priorities of the Department to tackle the challenges of the 21st century. At the same time, its title alone does not fully capture the several individual legislative initiatives contained in its text. Many of these initiatives were reported by the House Judiciary Committee and passed the House of Representatives, only to be diverted from the President's desk by the delay and inaction of the other body. H.R. 2215 fully authorizes the appropriations requested by the President for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. It strengthens oversight of the Department of Justice by bolstering the authority of the Department's Inspector General. It also mandates that one senior official in the Inspector General's office be dedicated to the oversight of the FBI. It also requires the Inspector General to submit an FBI oversight plan to Congress within 30 days of enactment. It also directs the Department to submit a report detailing the operation of the Office of Justice programs, requires the submission of information concerning litigation activities at the Department, and protects civil liberties by requiring the submission of a report on the Department's use of the electronic surveillance system formerly known as ``Project Carnivore.'' H.R. 2215 strengthens the statutory authority of the Attorney General to conduct his official responsibilities, enhances the administration of justice by incorporating long-needed judicial improvements and strengthens judicial disciplinary procedures. It also creates additional judgeships to address the chronic overburdening of America's federal courts, particularly in border states such as Texas, California, and New Mexico, as well as Florida, Nevada, and Alabama. H.R. 2215 also ensures effective market competition by making important improvements to federal antitrust statues, and establishes a Commission to review the adequacy of existing antitrust laws. It promotes America's economic competitiveness by strengthening protections for intellectual property, modernizing the application process at the Patent and Trademark Office, and ensuring that holders of U.S. trademarks are accorded the full protection of international law. In addition, H.R. 2215 strengthens the integrity of the criminal justice system in several ways. It increases penalties for those who tamper with federal witnesse4s or harm federal judges and law enforcement personnel, authorizes danger pay for federal agents in harm's way overseas, and contains important provisions to reduce illegal drug use. The Report also makes important refinements to address INS administrative processing delays faced by legal immigrants. Of critical importance, this legislation contains a sweeping and ambitious program to protect at-risk kids. It provides continued support for Boys and Girls Clubs, enhances juvenile criminal accountability, and provides states with block grants to curb youth crime. It represents comprehensive bipartisan legislation the House Committees on Judiciary and Education and Workforce have been working on for several years, and I am proud of its inclusion in the Conference Report. Finally, this bill promotes continued support for federal, state, and local coordination of preparedness against terrorist attacks. Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the American people will not have to wait another 23 years for this body to again reauthorize the Department of Justice. Rather, I hope that passage of H.R. 2215 will lead to a period of reinvigorated congressional oversight of the executive branch. Working in concert to identify solutions to the growing challenges faced by federal law enforcement, Congress and The Administration will better provide for the safety and security of American people. H.R. 2215 makes a critical, long-overdue step in this direction, and I urge your support. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on conference report. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) I think was in error when he was saying that all of these people would have avoided billions and billions of dollars of liability. The fact is that this bill does not limit liability for proven economic damages, such as lost wages, lost future wages, rehab expenses, medical expenses and the like by one penny for anybody. The economic damages that are suffered are unlimited under this legislation. What it does limit is noneconomic damages that cannot be quantified. What the gentleman from Michigan says is that we all should pay more in doctors' fees and the taxpayers should pay more in Medicare expenses simply because we do not want to limit noneconomic damages for maybe one plaintiff or a couple of plaintiffs. So here is something where the interests of a few completely wipe away the interests of the greater good, particularly those people in rural areas that are looking for OB-GYNs. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas). (Mr. GEKAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this is a very craftily drafted motion. The effect of its adoption will be to increase health care costs and further restrict availability of health care to people all around the country. First, it will increase health care costs in that patients of HMOs and the employers that sponsor the HMO-type coverage will not be able to benefit from what the Congressional Budget Office estimates will be a reduction of somewhere between 25-30 percent of professional liability insurance. So there will be higher professional liability insurance premiums paid by the doctors who practice in the HMOs which will be passed on to their patients and which will be passed on to their employers. This is an incentive for doctors to leave practicing with HMOs. And as we know, HMOs generally save money. Every Member who gets these statements from our insurance company that says ``This is not a bill'' on it, there are negotiated savings that would not be there if the doctor left the HMO as a result of this motion to recommit passing, and thus qualifying for the lower insurance premiums available, or where the protections of this bill would be available to doctors practicing outside of HMOs. By increasing the cost of HMOs, more and more employers will decide that it is too expensive for them to continue to provide health insurance coverage. So the protections to patients will go down as fewer and fewer employers can afford the coverage through the HMOs. But I think also the availability of quality health care will go down whether one is in an HMO or not in an HMO because the market works. If health care becomes more expensive, then there will be less health care that will be available. I do not think anybody who supports this motion to recommit can ever come to the floor of this House of Representatives with a straight face and sincerely complain about increased health care costs because that is exactly what the motion to recommit will accomplish should it pass. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, a national insurance crisis is ruining the Nation's essential health care system. Medical professional liability insurance rates have soared, causing many insurers to either drop coverage or raise premiums to unaffordable levels. Doctors and other health care providers are being forced to abandon patients and practices, particularly in high-risk specialties such as emergency medicine and obstetrics and gynecology. This trend has had a particularly negative impact upon women, low-income neighborhoods and rural areas, and in medical schools large and small. When California faced a similar crisis over 25 years ago, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, following the recommendation of the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), then chairman of the California Assembly's Select Committee on Medical Malpractice, enacted the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, known as MICRA. MICRA's reforms include a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, limits on the contingency fees lawyers can charge, and provisions that prevent double recoveries. According to the Los Angeles Times, ``Because of the 1975 tort reform, doctors in California are largely unaffected by increasing insurance rates. But the situation is dire in other States.'' Exhaustive research by two Stanford University economists has confirmed that direct medical care litigation reforms, including caps on noneconomic damage awards, generally reduce malpractice claims rates, insurance premiums and other stresses upon doctors that may impair the quality of medical care. The HEALTH Act includes MICRA's reforms, while also creating a fair share rule by which defendants are only liable for the percentage of damages for which they are at fault. Additionally, H.R. 4600 sets reasonable guidelines, but not caps, on punitive damage awards. Under this legislation, a punitive damage award cannot exceed the greater of $250,000, or two times the amount of economic damages that are awarded. The HEALTH Act will accomplish reform without limiting compensation for 100 percent, or all of plaintiffs' economic losses, meaning any loss which can be quantified and to which a receipt can be attached. These include their medical costs, lost wages, future lost wages, rehabilitation costs, and any other economic out-of-pocket loss suffered as a result of a health care injury. Additionally, although this legislation places a cap on noneconomic damages, it also allows deserving victims to keep more of their jury awards by limiting the percentage that lawyers can take. This is accomplished according to a sliding scale that caps legal fees down to 15 percent of awards exceeding $600,000. Without such reforms, lawyers can take their standard one-third to 40 percent cut from whatever victims recover. Enactment of this bill will allow victims to keep roughly 75 percent of awards under $600,000 and 85 percent of awards over that amount. Under the HEALTH Act, the larger the demonstrable, real-life economic damages are, the more the victims will get to keep. A recent survey conducted for the bipartisan legal reform organization Common Good, whose board of advisers includes former Clinton administration Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and former Democratic Senator Paul Simon of Illinois, reveals the dire need for regulating the current medical tort system in America. According to the survey, which was conducted by the reputable Harris organization: First, more than three-fourths of physicians feel that concern about malpractice litigation has hurt their ability to provide quality care in recent years; second, 79 percent of physicians report that fear of malpractice claims causes them to order more tests than they would based only on the professional judgment of what is medically needed. As former Democrat Senator and Presidential candidate George McGovern and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson have written, ``Legal fear drives doctors to prescribe medications and order tests, even invasive procedures, that they feel are unnecessary. Reputable studies estimate that this defensive medicine squanders $50 billion a year. The Common Good survey also asked physicians the following question: Generally speak, how much do you think that fear of liability discourages medical professionals from openly discussing and thinking of ways to reduce medical errors? An astonishing 59 percent of physicians replied ``a lot.'' Americans want to see their friends and loved ones receive the best and most accessible health care available, but, with greater and greater frequency, doctors are not there to deliver it because they have been priced out of the healing profession by unaffordable professional liability insurance rates. Sound policy does not favor supporting one person's abstract ability to sue a doctor for unlimited and unquantifiable damages when doing so means that health care will become less accessible and less affordable to all Americans, particularly to women, to the poor and to those who live in rural areas. The American Bar Association estimates that there are 1 million lawyers in the United States, but all of us, all 287 million Americans, are patients, and as patients and for patients, I urge my colleagues to support the HEALTH Act. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 4600, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 553, I call up the bill (H.R. 4600) to improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) is dead wrong. This bill will not close the courthouse to anybody who has a legitimate claim. It does not restrict anybody's right to sue. What it does do is it puts some sense in the compensation. It puts some sense in the compensation in a manner that allows affordable and accessible health care to be available nationwide. We will not be pricing doctors out of their practice by high professional liability insurance premiums. We will not force maternity wards and trauma centers to close their doors for the same reason. The time has come to put some sense in this system. California did that. They do not have a crisis there because their State legislature did that. We now have to step up to the plate and work for the patients, particularly in the States that are listed in red and in yellow on the map that was referred to by the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart). Pass the bill.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. There is no overriding national need, no overriding public policy purpose, no overriding crisis that requires the Congress to federalize the regulation of the rent-to-own industry. The rent-to-own industry supports this legislation, and it is understandable why they do so. The fiscal note that is contained in the report of the Committee on the Judiciary says that the Federal Trade Commission intends to hire five new attorneys and investigators to investigate and enforce violations of this bill. That is five people nationwide looking into violations of the rent-to-own provisions that are contained in H.R. 1701. That makes enforcement a joke. Because if you only have five cops regulating this pugnacious industry nationwide, you know that the law is not going to be enforced. So we are passing a piece of paper here supposedly in the name of consumer protection that the enforcing agency says that they will be able to enforce with just five people in the entire United States of America. I think that blows the cover on this being consumer protection legislation. Let me tell you what this bill does to the Wisconsin Consumer Act. The Wisconsin Consumer Act by judicial construction has said that a rent-to-own contract is a credit transaction. This bill overrides that definition, and says it is a lease transaction and that eviscerates the enforcement by the Wisconsin attorney general's office of the rent-to- own industry. That is where the preemption is particularly harmful to consumers not only in my State but also in New Jersey, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Vermont. Let us look at what enforcement has done in the States that have this preemption: $16 million worth of recoveries in Wisconsin, $30 million in Minnesota, and $60 million in New Jersey. So the rent-to-own industry knows that it is going to get a get-out-of-jail-free card should this legislation be passed. Furthermore, the Wisconsin legislature has been lobbied incessantly by this industry to pass an exemption, and they got it in as a budget amendment in this last budget cycle. Republican Governor Scott McCallum vetoed this exemption as being special interest legislation. So opposition to moving these transactions from credit to lease transactions in my State is bipartisan. We have done a good job in regulating this industry in our State, and I think that has been the case in most of the other States. We should not do away with this. And if a State has lower consumer protections than this bill provides, then I think it is the business of that State legislature to look at their law and see if it is adequate and to make whatever amendments might be necessary. We should not have a Federal preemption even of a small amount in this legislation. I would urge the legislation to be defeated. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, 9 days ago on this floor I stated we must crack down on the corporate criminals and rebuild America's confidence in our markets. I said the best way to do that is to punish the corporate wrongdoers and to punish them harshly. I am pleased to say that the conference committee report before us today accomplishes that goal. The House members of the conference committee insisted on and prevailed on all of the tougher penalties that were contained in H.R. 5118, the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, which passed the House overwhelmingly by a vote of 391 to 28. Under these penalty provisions, corporate criminals are going to do time; real time, real long time. The report increases the penalties for mail and wire fraud from the current 5 years to 20 years and creates a new securities fraud section that carries a maximum penalty of 25 years. It also strengthens laws that criminalize document shredding and other forms of obstruction of justice and provides a maximum penalty of 20 years for such violation. The legislation punishes top corporate executives that certify the financial statements of the company knowing they are false by subjecting them to fines of up to $5 million and 20 years in prison, or both. The provisions of the conference report also increase the penalty criminal penalties for those who file false statements with the SEC to a maximum penalty of $5 million and 20 years in prison, and, if a corporation files a false statement, then the fines increase up to a maximum of $25 million. Mr. Speaker, the report also contains House language that makes it a crime for someone to knowingly retaliate against a whistle blower and provides a criminal penalty of up to 10 years for such offense. I would also point out that the restitution laws for all criminal activity are in place for these crimes as well, so the court can order restitution for those shareholders and employees who have been defrauded. By passing this conference committee report, America will know that those who abuse the law and tarnish corporate America's reputation will go to jail for a very long time. These are tough penalties that will crack down on the corporate crooks and go a long way to protecting the life savings of many Americans by making the price of such theft too high. I urge my colleagues to support this conference report.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it is with mixed emotion that I say goodbye to my dear friend and colleague, Tony Hall. Anyone who knows Tony, knows him to be one of the most considerate, and kindest gentlemen ever to grace this House with his presence. There is a reason why he has been nominated three times for the Nobel Peace Prize, where most of us would be honored just to be considered once. Tony's commitment to the survival of children, particularly in poor countries, along with his support of development assistance programs in the world's neediest countries, makes him eminently qualified to represent the United States to the United Nations food and agriculture agencies in Rome. Tony's work and dedication in promoting hunger relief programs and improving international human rights conditions is legendary. I still remember when, nine years ago, in an effort to draw attention to the plight of hungry people in the US and around the world, he fasted for three weeks in response to the abolishment of the Hunger Committee. Mr. Speaker, it's this dedication and compassion that will make Tony an excellent Ambassador. While the House will lose a dear and respected friend once he is confirmed by the Senate, the United Nations will gain a fair and principled man who, I am certain, will do wonders for the poor and needy of the world. Though I am sad to see Tony leave, I am happy for him, and for all the good work that lies ahead of him.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Jeff Miller).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. It is an important debate because it puts before Congress and, thus, the American people whether or not there should be a line drawn and whether there should be any meaningful and effective restrictions on abortion. The partial-birth abortion procedure is barbaric and grotesque, and most medical societies, including those that generally oppose restrictions on physicians being able to practice any type of medicine, have said that there are other types of abortion procedures that would be more proper than a partial-birth abortion. Let me quote from the committee report. It says, ``The absence of any basis upon which to conclude that partial-birth abortions are safe has not gone unnoticed by the American Medical Association, which has stated that partial-birth abortion is `not an accepted medical practice,' '' not an accepted medical practice, and that ``it has never been subjected to even a minimal amount of the normal medical practice development; that the relative advantages and disadvantages of the procedure and specific circumstances remain unknown.'' The AMA says it is an experimental procedure and that there is no consensus among obstetricians about its use. The AMA has further noted that ``Partial-birth abortion is broadly disfavored by both medical experts and the public, is ethically wrong,'' and I repeat, is ethically wrong, ``and is never the only appropriate procedure.'' Thus, a select panel convened by the AMA could not find any identified circumstance where the partial-birth abortion was the only appropriate alternative. So, if my colleagues want to do away with partial-birth abortions but are talking about a woman's right to choose, there are other alternatives, according to the AMA. Now, I grant that the AMA does not support the criminal sanctions that are contained in this bill against physicians who perform partial- birth abortions in violation of the law, but they still condemn the partial-birth abortion procedure in their statements that they issued several years ago when Congress first took this issue up. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is an organization that has consistently opposed legal restrictions on abortions, including the partial-birth abortion ban, has reported a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this, meaning the D&X procedure, would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman. Now, former Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, whom I am sure was very strongly supported politically by my colleague from New York, and who never voted for restrictions on abortion during his long and distinguished career in the other body, said that partial-birth abortion is very close to infanticide. I would strike very close. It is infanticide, because the difference between a legal partial-birth abortion and first degree murder is three inches. Three inches. The size of the head, which has not been delivered, where the scissors are inserted into the back of the baby's head and the brains are sucked out. This is what we want to ban. And this, I think, is supported by the vast majority of the American people. Now, we have also heard a lot from people who are opposed to this legislation; that this always should be something that is in the professional opinion of a physician. Well, many of the physicians whose professional opinion is requested have an inherent conflict of interest because they will charge a fee and make money by saying that this is a proper procedure, even though the vast majority of their colleagues say it is never a proper procedure and other alternatives are available. Finally, we have heard a lot about the Stenberg decision. This is a different bill than the law from the Nebraska case that was struck down by the Supreme Court. It contains extensive findings by the Congress of the United States, which is our right as a legislative body to make. It is up to the court to determine whether or not the findings that are made by the Congress are valid when it considers the constitutionality of this bill, should it be enacted into law, just like it was in the province of the court to consider the findings of the district court when it struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg decision. The doctrine of separation of powers gives us the right to make those findings. Those findings are all medically supported by the testimony that the Committee on the Judiciary has received since 1995. I believe this bill is constitutional. I believe this bill is good public policy. But, most importantly, I believe it is our right and our duty to stop this grotesque procedure, which is three inches away from infanticide.