F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, it is with both gratitude and sadness that I rise to honor the Parliamentarian of the House, Charles W. Johnson, on his upcoming retirement. Charlie has long served the House, and he has done so with distinction, integrity, and honor. He has embodied the nonpartisan traditions that make the Parliamentarian's Office one of the most respected institutions in this House. Through our constant debating of matters large and small, Charlie has remained a calm head guiding us through our differences with a quiet grace. His abiding love for the institution and his knowledge of the rules are unparalleled. He will be greatly missed. I deeply appreciate his service and wish him well. As he passes into retirement, we all bid a fond farewell to an unsung hero who kept the great wheels of this democracy turning.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, through the following statement, I am making my financial net worth as of March 31, 2004, a matter of public record. I have filed similar statements for each of the 25 preceding years I have served in the Congress. Assets--Real Property Single family residence at 609 Ft. Williams Parkway, City of Alexandria, Virginia, at assessed valuation. (Assessed at $1,134,600). Ratio of assessed to market value: 100% (Unenc$1,134,600 Condominium at N76 W14726 North Point Drive, Village of Menomonee Falls, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at assessor's estimated market value. (Unencumbered).........................................117,400 Undivided 25/44ths interest in single family residence at N52 W32654 Maple Lane, Village of Chenequa, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, at 25/ 44ths of assessor's estimated market value of $1,072,000...609,090.90

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), who represents Topeka, Kansas, that led the way to get the Brown decision decided by the Supreme Court.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the previous order of the House, I call up the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 414) expressing the sense of the Congress that, as Congress recognizes the 50th anniversary of the Brown v. Board of Education decision, all Americans are encouraged to observe this anniversary with a commitment to continuing and building on the legacy of Brown, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 include extraneous material on House Concurrent Resolution 414, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support today of House Concurrent Resolution 414, which recognizes the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education and calls on Americans to observe this anniversary with a commitment to continuing and building on the legacy of Brown. In 1896, the Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson, which held that separate but equal public facilities were lawful. This decision paved the way for the systematic segregation of America based on race. In the wake of that decision, State legislatures felt vindicated passing a number of laws, including the infamous Jim Crow laws, which ensured that the right to equal protection of the laws was a right in name only for African Americans and other minorities. Many fought for years to try and reverse this pattern of discrimination. Some met with limited success, such as Gonzalo and Felicitas Mendez, who in 1947 prevailed in their efforts to allow students of Mexican ancestry to attend the same California public elementary schools as attended by white children, but it was not until Oliver Brown and his brave fellow plaintiffs from Kansas, Virginia, South Carolina, and Delaware successfully challenged the school segregation policies in those States that this pattern of inequality began to change for all persons. As Chief Justice Earl Warren, who had recently been appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, stated for a unanimous majority, ``We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place.'' In the 50 years since the Brown decision, much has changed in this country. Brown provided the spark for the Eisenhower administration to push through the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts. These acts, in turn, provided the blueprint for the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968. All of these acts served to further dismantle the barriers to equality that African Americans and other members of minority groups had faced in the decades after Plessy. It is for this reason that Congress, and indeed, all Americans, should celebrate the anniversary of Brown and take this opportunity to reflect anew on the importance of equality in society. I would like to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Conyers) for introducing this resolution and would also like to thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Payne), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Ryun), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta Sanchez), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for their own resolution which helped inform the measure we have before us today. I am pleased to note that most of the leadership of both parties have signed on as cosponsors of this resolution, and I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, if one looks back at the history of the consideration of civil rights bills in the Congress, the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Civil Rights Act of 1960, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act 1 year later, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, these were all passed due to bipartisan support on the floor of the House and the Senate and bipartisan cooperation with whichever administration was in office at the time, the Eisenhower administration, the Kennedy administration, or the Johnson administration. This resolution is in the spirit of bipartisanship because there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, historically, as well as today, in their commitment to equal rights for all Americans. The Constitution is color-blind. We should not discriminate based upon race, creed, color, national origin, gender or disability, and those are the types of protections that this Congress, through bipartisan effort, was able to enact into law, but more importantly to get the American public, even those who held out almost to the bitter end, to support today. And that is why America is so much different than countries in the rest of the world, because we faced up to our discriminatory history, and we were able to overcome that first legally, but the hearts of America followed the law in this case. Yes, there is more work to do. Nobody argues that point. But the framework that provided the tremendous progress that has been made in the last 50 years since the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education has been because people of differing political ideologies and people of differing political party affiliations have gotten together. We can make that progress in the next 50 years, like we did in the last, if that type of bipartisan cooperation continues. This is a bipartisan resolution, and I am happy, on behalf of the majority party on the Committee on the Judiciary, to bring this resolution to the floor, a resolution that has been offered by our ranking minority party member. It is a good resolution, and it ought to be approved unanimously.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, during the course of the debate we have heard a string of red herrings from people who do not wish this bill to pass. I would like to rebut those from the study that the General Accounting Office made on the whole topic of our medical liability crisis. First, as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has eloquently stated, patient access to care is being harmed. He recounted the case of a pregnant woman who went to at least two OB/GYN practices to get a doctor to deliver her baby and was told that as a result of the medical liability crisis, they were shutting down the doors to their practice. The GAO confirmed instances in the five States selected for study where actions taken by physicians in response to malpractice pressures have reduced access to services affecting emergency surgery and newborn deliveries. When the baby comes, you cannot wait. When someone has an accident and needs emergency surgery, you cannot wait. And if the malpractice insurance crisis closes down those practices, people are going to be harmed, and they will die, and this bill will stop that. Secondly, doctors do practice defensive medicine. The GAO report found that in response to rising premiums, ``the fear of litigation research indicates that physicians practice defensive medicine in certain clinical situations, thereby contributing to health care costs.'' The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) said that if unnecessary defensive medicine does not have to be practiced by reforming our liability laws, Medicare alone will save $50 billion a year, which is more than enough to pay for the prescription drug benefit, whether it is by the GAO study or the OMB study. Third, insurers are not to blame for skyrocketing premiums. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) seemed to think they are. But the GAO found that insurers are not to blame. The report states that insurer ``profits are not increasing, indicating that insurers are not charging and profiting from excessively high premium rates,'' and that ``in most States the insurance regulators have the authority to deny premium rate increases they deem excessive.'' Fourth, rising litigation awards are the problem, not insurer investments. What did the GAO say? The GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims which make up the largest part of insurers' costs appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run. ``Since 1998, insurers' losses on medical malpractice claims have increased rapidly in some States. However, none of the studied companies experienced a net loss on investments, at least through 2001, the most recent year such data were available. Additionally, almost no medical malpractice insurers overall experienced net investment losses from 1997 to 2001.'' So much for that red herring. Finally, liability reform does have a real impact. The GAO concludes that data indicate that rates of growth in malpractice premiums and claims payments have been slower on average in States that enacted certain caps on damages for pain and suffering, referred to as noneconomic damage caps, than in States with more limited reforms and that average per capita payments for malpractice claims against all physicians tended to be lower on average in States with noneconomic damage caps than in States with limited reforms. This bill is a good one, and it ought to be passed.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, yes, it is time for a change, and it is time for a real change. This motion to recommit does not provide a real change, and it should be defeated. It should be defeated because it contains zero legal protections for doctors beyond current law. Legal reforms are essential to solving the current crisis in the medical professional liability insurance area and increasing access of health care to all. Here is what the president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said: ``To date, insurance regulators have not seen evidence that suggests medical malpractice insurers have engaged or are engaging in price-fixing, bid-rigging, or market allocation. The evidence points to rising loss costs and defense costs associated with litigation as the principal drivers of medical malpractice rates.'' The underlying bill, and not the motion to recommit, is the only proven legislative solution to the current crisis. According to the CBO, under H.R. 4280 ``premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.'' The motion to recommit, on the other hand, besides including zero legal protections for doctors beyond current law, sets up an advisory commission to study a problem that is already patently obvious to the most casual observer and to report back sometime in the future when even more patients will have lost access to essential medical care. Opponents of the bill claim there is no enforcement mechanism to make sure that medical professional liability rates go down. That is completely false. An enforcement mechanism already exists throughout all 50 States, namely, State insurance commissioners who are required by State law to turn down rates that are excessive, unfairly discriminatory, or otherwise unjustified. On the other hand, the motion to recommit creates a system of price controls linked to savings that without the legal protections in this bill will be nonexistent. Without legal reforms, there will be no cost savings, and the motion to recommit contains zero legal protections beyond the current law. Along with creating a commission to further study a problem that is obvious, the motion simply throws more Federal money at it. H.R. 4280, on the other hand, contains solid legal reforms that have been proven successful over 28 years in California and will save billions of dollars in taxpayers' funds, according to the CBO. The choice is clear: oppose the motion to recommit, support H.R. 4280, and let us make sure that doctors are there to care for the 287 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of this motion and passage of the bill.

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

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the national medical insurance crisis, driven by unlimited lawsuits, is devastating our Nation's health care system to the detriment of patients everywhere. Medical professional liability insurance rates have soared, causing major insurers to either drop coverage or raise premiums to unaffordable levels. Doctors are being forced to abandon patients and practices or to retire early, particularly in high-risk specialties, such as emergency medicine, brain surgery, and obstetrics and gynecology. Women are particularly hard hit, as are low-income and rural neighborhoods. H.R. 4280, the HEALTH Act, is modeled after California's highly successful health care litigation reforms enacted in 1975 and known under the acronym MICRA. California's reforms, which are included in the HEALTH Act, include reasonable limits on unquantifiable damages, limits on the contingency fees lawyers can charge, and authorization for defendants to introduce evidence to prevent double recoveries. The HEALTH Act also includes provisions creating a fair share rule, by which damages are allocated fairly in direct proportion to fault; reasonable guidelines on the award of punitive damages; and a safe harbor from punitive damages for products that meet applicable FDA safety requirements. Information provided by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shows that since 1975, premiums paid outside of California increased at five times the rate they increased in California. The Congressional Budget Office has concluded ``under the HEALTH Act, premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 35 percent below what they would be under current law.'' If California's legal reforms were implemented nationwide, we could spend billions of dollars more annually on patient care, meaning helping sick people get better. We all recognize that injured victims should be adequately compensated for their injuries, but too often in this debate we lose sight of the larger health care picture. This country is blessed with the finest health care technology in the world. It is blessed with the finest doctors in the world. People are smuggled into this country for a chance at life and healing, the best chance that they have in the world. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a report recently that includes the following amazing statistics: during the past half century, death rates among children and adults up to age 24 were cut in half, and the infant mortality rate plummeted 75 percent. Mortality among adults between the ages of 25 and 64 fell nearly as much, and dropped among those 65 years and older by a third. In 2000, Americans enjoyed the longest life expectancy in our history, almost 77 years. These amazing statistics just did not happen. There are faces behind the statistics, and they are our doctors. These statistics happen because America produces the best health care technology and the best doctors to use it. But now there are fewer and fewer doctors to use that miraculous technology or to use that technology where their patients are. We have the best brain scanning and best brain operation devices in history and fewer and fewer neurosurgeons to use them. Unlimited lawsuits are driving doctors out of the healing profession. They are making us all less safe, all in the name of unlimited lawsuits and the personal injury lawyers' lust for their cut of unlimited awards for unquantifiable damages. But when someone gets sick or is bringing a child into the world, and we cannot call the doctor, who will we call? When you pick up the phone and call the hospital because someone you love has suffered a brain injury, and you are told, sorry, lawsuits made it too expensive for brain surgeons to practice here, who will save your loved one? You cannot call a lawyer. A lawyer cannot perform brain surgery. We all need doctors. And we, as our Nation's representatives, have to choose, right here and today. Do we want the abstract ability to sue a doctor for unlimited, unquantifiable jackpot damage awards when doing so means that there will be no doctors to treat ourselves and our loved ones in the first place? Of course not. So on behalf of all 287 million Americans, all of whom are patients, let us pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Crane).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

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 H.R. 4280, currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, what the gentlewoman from Colorado did not tell us is what is not getting media attention, and that is that doctors are closing up their practices. When the Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony on this issue, the wife of a man named Tony Dyess came and spoke. Mr. Dyess was involved in an automobile accident. He had a spinal cord injury, and because there were no neurosurgeons left in southern Mississippi, it took 6 hours to airlift him to a hospital in Louisiana that has some better medical liability laws, and the golden hour for neurosurgery had passed; and as a result Tony Dyess is a quadriplegic simply because malpractice insurance costs chased the neurosurgeons out of southern Mississippi. This is an issue of access to health care, and we cannot have liability insurance costs force doctors to close their practices and not have access to people who need doctors and need them desperately. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that it shall be in order at any time without intervention of any point of order to consider House Concurrent Resolution 414; The concurrent resolution shall be considered as read for amendment; and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the concurrent resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for a division of the question excepted: (1) 30 minutes of debate on the concurrent resolution equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.