F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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 Resolution 132.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 132) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned, and for other purposes.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Nadler substitute. The Nadler substitute not only makes significant and controversial revisions to H.R. 975, but deletes crucial provisions from the bill, including various provisions intended to provide important consumer protections. Here are just a few examples of the more than 30 provisions that the Nadler substitute deletes from H.R. 975: Section 201, which is intended to protect debtors and to promote alternative dispute resolutions with creditors; section 202, which penalizes creditors who materially violate the discharge injunction; section 203, which requires heightened disclosures in connection with, and scrutiny of, reaffirmation agreements. This provision, by the way, was added at the insistence of Senator Torricelli during the 106th Congress and was fully endorsed by the Clinton administration; section 311, which attempts to strike a balance between the needs of residential landlords dealing with deadbeat tenants who use bankruptcy to avoid paying rent and giving a financial fresh start to tenants who are willing to cure their rent arrears and to be current on their rental payments. This provision, I should note, was thoroughly negotiated during the 107th Congress by Senator Feingold; and, all of title VII, which strengthens the ability of State and local taxing authorities to collect taxes. At a time when the States and localities are in such bad shape financially, I do not think we would want to give a bigger pass to bankrupts to avoid paying the taxes that they had accrued and owed. Worse yet, the Nadler substitute guts the various provisions that were hallmarks of last year's conference report. It replaces H.R. 975's needs-based income expense formula with a completely new, but ill conceived, test that could easily lend itself to manipulation. The Nadler substitute also essentially eliminates the bill's credit counseling provisions and reduces the reach-back period with respect to the cramdown of claims secured by automobiles, a provision that was extensively negotiated with Senate Democrats during the 107th Congress. Finally, the Nadler substitute essentially reinstates the so-called Schumer amendment, which will effectively penalize protestors who engage in civil disobedience. This is an extraneous and controversial provision that makes debts arising from the violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act nondischargeable. Inclusion of this provision will likely kill bankruptcy reform, a fact proven just 4 months ago in the last Congress when a vote on the rule that would have allowed consideration of the bankruptcy conference report which contained a similar provision failed on the floor of the House. Simply put, a vote for the Nadler substitute is a vote to kill bankruptcy reform legislation, and I urge Members to vote against it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, this is a constructive amendment. I urge the committee to adopt it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the summary of the summary from the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler). I do not think anybody who supports this bill is in the mood to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. The city of New York has that as a tremendous asset and ought to keep it that way. Seriously, if we look at the list of groups that support this legislation, practically every State retailer federation is in support of changing the bankruptcy laws. These are not banks, these are not credit card companies, these are the people who represent the mom-and- pop stores on the Main Streets in the cities and towns and villages of the United States of America. They are the ones that have to absorb a lot of the debt that is written off in bankruptcy. That means fewer jobs, it means higher prices, and it means a burden on the people who pay their bills as they have agreed to pay their bills. What this bill does very simply is that for someone who is genuinely down and out and has no chance whatsoever of repaying their debt, it does not change the law at all. They are allowed to go through a Chapter 7 liquidation, get a discharge, and start out afresh. They do get some credit counseling that they do not have under the existing law, and this is counseling that would advise them of the consequences of bankruptcy, as well as advice on how to avoid getting into this pickle again. That credit counseling would go down if the bill goes down. However, where there is a change in the law for personal bankruptcies are for the people who have the potential of repaying at least some of their debt during the next 5 years. I do not see anything wrong with that. If they can repay some of their debt during the next 5 years, that is their obligation. Why should they pass that debt on to people who pay 100 percent of their bills all the time? So this is what the issue is. The substitute should be defeated, the bill should pass, and we should provide the essential reforms that have been negotiated out for the last 6 years on this issue. I urge defeat of the substitute amendment.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am happy to support the gentleman's amendment. I think it makes a useful addition to this legislation. Basically it extends the types of protections that are contained in the bill to credit unions. I think that this plugs a loophole. I hope that his amendment is approved.

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

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I believe this is also a constructive amendment and would hope that the committee would approve it. It increases a wage priority. It strengthens the law to make voidable fraudulent transfers and excessive compensation and also provides better protection for employee health care benefits. All three of these I believe are very good ideas, and I would urge that the amendment be approved.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This amendment undoes a carefully crafted compromise that was done during conference with the other body. I want to see a bill passed. Most of the people in this House who voted on this issue want to see a bill passed. I will say very practically that the adoption of the Sherman amendment will make it more difficult for a bill to be passed and signed into law by the President of the United States. On the merits, there are two reasons why we do not have need to have a change in the venue laws. First of all, title XXVIII, which I referred to during the general debate, gives the district court the opportunity to approve a change of venue to another jurisdiction for the convenience of the parties and the people who have business before the court. This is not a bankruptcy judge that is interested in fees. This is a Federal district judge who is able to order a change in venue. So it is out of the bankruptcy court, and it is into the district court. The second reason why this amendment is not good policy on the merits is the fact that there are certain jurisdictions where the bankruptcy courts are overloaded. One of the things that people who file for Chapter 11 or Chapter 13 want to see happen is they want to see their reorganizations to be approved quickly so that they could get out of bankruptcy and thus continue on with their business; and if there is a huge backlog in the court, that is going to be delayed and perhaps delayed an inordinate amount of time before the court can get to approving reorganization plans to get the corporation out of bankruptcy. So I think from a practical standpoint, corporations that want to get to Chapter 11 quickly will not go to the overloaded courts. The current venue statute gives them the flexibility of choosing where they are going to file. It ought to be maintained. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, this motion is offered by people who have historically been in opposition to bankruptcy reform. What this bill does is it increases the priority for unpaid child support from seventh priority to first priority, and if the other side of the aisle gets their way and this bill goes down, unpaid child support stays at seventh priority, and that ought to be one reason and one reason alone to vote down this motion to recommit. The National Child Support Enforcement Association says that these reforms are crucial to the collection of child support during bankruptcy. The motion to recommit creates a major loophole with respect to antifraud provisions. Section 310, which this motion modifies, deals with debtors who are on the eve of filing for bankruptcy who acquire luxury goods and cash advances. Under this proposal, a debtor could avoid section 310 by asserting that it would impair the debtor's ability to pay a domestic support obligation. The President of the National Child Support Enforcement Association, in dealing with an identical provision in last year's bankruptcy bill, said, ``H.R. 333 would provide these children with first priority in the collection of support debt, allow the enforcement of medical support obligations, prevent any interruption in the otherwise efficient process of withholding earnings in the payment of child support, and ensure that during the course of a consumer bankruptcy, all support owed to the family would be paid and would be paid timely, and would allow State court actions involving custody and visitation, dissolution of marriage and domestic violence to proceed without interference from bankruptcy court litigation.'' Vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit. A ``no'' vote is for the protection of children. A ``no'' vote is for better enforcement of support obligations, and vote ``yes'' on the bill which increases the priority for unpaid support in bankruptcy to go from seventh priority to first priority.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my good friend and former colleague, Former Majority Leader Richard K. Armey. Representative Armey recently retired following 18 years of distinguished service in the House of Representatives, including eight years as the Majority Leader. From his humble roots in Cando, North Dakota, to his rise in Washington, Dick Armey never drifted from his principles of honesty and integrity. He made life better not only for his constituents in Texas, but for Americans all across this great land. His work in Congress saved taxpayers millions of dollars annually. His sound conservative values renewed America's commitment to the principles of personal freedom and limited government. As a loyal and dedicated conservative, Dick Armey advocated welfare reform, personal retirement accounts for Social Security, and fundamental reform of the tax code. He specifically supported implementing a flat tax. His persistence to this cause gave it a national platform. This cause continues in his new career at Citizens for a Sound Economy as its Co-Chairman. It has been a great honor to spend most of my tenure in Congress working with Representative Armey, a fine Southern gentleman and true fiscal conservative. The naming of Room 236 in the U.S. Capitol as the Richard K. Armey room is a deserving tribute for a committed public servant. I will miss my good friend Grumpy, and I wish him and his wife Susan all the best in the future.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) displayed a chart that indicated that 61 percent of the malpractice cases were either settled or dropped, and she insinuated that that was for free. It is not for free. It costs money to defend those suits, to go to court, to file answers, to do whatever discovery is necessary in order to convince the plaintiff that they do not have a case, and those costs get folded into the liability premiums that the physicians have to pay. Who gets off free? It is the plaintiff that gets off free because the plaintiff is on a contingency fee and if there is no recovery then the plaintiff does not have any lawyer fees at all. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening intently to this debate. Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle apparently have not been listening at all to the debate, and I just want to rebut a couple of their points. First, they say this will not reduce insurance premiums. They were right in that it will not reduce insurance premiums by law, but the CBO says that overall insurance premiums will be reduced by 25 to 30 percent and more in States where there is a greater problem. That is the market working. That is the economics working on it. But those premiums are not going to be reduced if the current law stays where it is. Then we have heard time and time again about $250,000 in noneconomic damages. This bill gives each State the right to adjust that amount to a greater or a lesser amount. So the State legislatures can make a determination on whether $250,000 is proper or not. If they fail to do so, then the $250,000 in the HEALTH Act is the law for that State. Finally, we have heard ``Physician, heal thyself,'' and that a small number of physicians are responsible for the vast majority of malpractice claims. Let me say that the current tort liability system provides a huge disincentive for doctors to talk about problems amongst themselves and to get the collective benefit of a number of doctors' opinions on how to treat a patient. There has been a study that asked, ``Generally speaking, how much do you think the fear of liability discourages medical professionals from openly discussing and thinking about ways to reduce medical errors?'' Mr. Speaker, 59 percent of the physicians replied, ``A lot.'' If we pass this law, we will be seeing more collectively doctors' brains put together to deal with difficult cases, to talk about mistakes and make sure they do not happen again. This bill should be passed. I urge an aye vote on the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, our Nation is facing a health care crisis driven by uncontrolled litigation. Medical professional liability insurance rates have soared, causing major insurers to either drop coverage or to 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 being particularly hard hit, as are low income and rural neighborhoods. H.R. 5, 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 a $250,000 cap on noneconomic 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 for punitive damages for products that meet applicable FDA safety requirements. It is important to note that nothing in the HEALTH Act limits in any way the award of economic damages from anyone responsible for harm. Economic damages include anything to which a value can be attached, including lost wages, lost services provided, medical costs, the cost of pain-reducing drugs, and lifetime rehabilitation care, and anything else to which a receipt can be attached. Because of this, the reforms in the HEALTH Act still allow for very large, multi-million dollar awards to deserving victims, including homemakers and children, as the experience in California has shown. Still, the California reforms have been successful. Information provided by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shows that since 1975, premiums paid in California increased by 167 percent while premiums paid in the rest of the country increased by 505 percent. As Cruz Reynoso, the Democratic Vice Chairman of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times, ``What is obvious about MICRA is that it works and it works well. Our California doctors and hospitals pay significantly less for liability protection today than their counterparts in States without MICRA-type reforms.'' The Congressional Budget Office has concluded that ``under the HEALTH Act, premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 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. Reform at the Federal level is necessary because the current crisis is national in scope. According to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services, ``The cost of these awards for noneconomic damages is paid by all other Americans through higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher taxes, reduced access to quality care, and threats to quality of care. The system permits a few plaintiffs and their lawyers to impose what is in effect a tax on the rest of the country to reward a very small number of patients.'' Congress must act to let doctors treat patients wherever they are and to reduce health care costs for all Americans. H.R. 5 will also save the Federal taxpayers billions of dollars. Former Democratic Senator George McGovern has written in the Wall Street Journal, ``Legal fear drives doctors to prescribe medicines and order tests, even invasive procedures, that they feel are unnecessary. Reputable studies estimate that this `defensive medicine' squanders $50 billion a year, enough to provide medical care to millions of uninsured Americans.'' According to the Department of Health and Human Services, ``If reasonable limits were placed on noneconomic damages to reduce defensive medicine, it would reduce the amount of taxpayers' money the Federal Government spends by $25.3-44.3 billion per year.'' Furthermore, despite accusations from the other side of the aisle, this is not a crisis caused by insurance companies. The President of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners wrote last month that ``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 preliminary evidence points to rising loss costs and defense costs associated with litigation as the principal drivers of medical malpractice prices.'' 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. We are blessed with the finest doctors in the world. People are smuggled into this country for a chance at life and healing, the best chance they have in the world. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a report recently that included the following amazing statistics. During the last half century, death rates of children and adults up to age 24 were cut in half and infant mortality rates have 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 American history, almost 77 years. These amazing statistics just did not happen. They happened 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 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 reversing the clock; and they are making us all less safe, all in the name of unlimited lawsuits and 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 a doctor, who will we call, a lawyer? As a Nation today, we have to choose. Do we want the abstract ability to sue a doctor for unlimited, unquantifiable damages when doing so means that there will be no doctors to treat ourselves and our loved ones in the first place? On behalf of all 287 million Americans, all of us who are patients, let us say yes to reasonable health care litigation management and pass 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 include extraneous material on H.R. 5, the bill under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 139, I call up the bill (H.R. 5) 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, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).