Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me thank my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for his statement and strong support of this legislation. More importantly, I thank him for his excellent cooperation on this and so many pieces of legislation that we have worked together on in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. You are indeed, sir, a great public servant. I want to thank you for that. Let me also clarify something: This bill amends the FTC statutes to deal with fraud and scam artists. It does not affect the issue that was heard before our committee just recently on the question of what is being done with the funds raised by legitimate charities, such as the United Way and Red Cross. This does not deal with that. I do not want this bill confused with those good charities who do such good work around our country. On the other hand, I want to use this opportunity to urge the American Red Cross, who I understand will be here tomorrow for a press conference on the issue raised at our hearings, I think just last week on the subject matter, I want to urge the American Red Cross to reconsider its position. Americans all over this land, in small towns and hamlets and in rural settings, rose to the call of the Red Cross to donate money to the victims and their families in New York and here in Washington and the families in Pennsylvania who suffered on September 11, and raised the unprecedented, I think, $547 million for the Red Cross for that special purpose. To divert those funds to some other purpose, I believe, in my humble opinion, would not be consistent with honoring the donations of these many millions of Americans to the families who suffered so horribly on September 11. Those donations were made not to the Red Cross, but through the Red Cross to those families. I think the more the Red Cross does, the more the United Way does and the other charities do to get that money to those families, the more the American public will appreciate it, and I think even be more generous to the Red Cross and the United Way and other charities when they are called upon again to respond for whatever tragedies we may suffer, tornadoes or earthquake disasters this country may face in the future. I understand the Red Cross may tomorrow simply say, if you do not like what we are doing with the money, call us and we will refund it. That is not a good answer. That is a terrible answer. Americans do not want a refund. They want the money they donated for those families to go to those families and they want the Red Cross and other charities to honor those donations. So again as a friend of the Red Cross, as a supporter of the Red Cross, as a great supporter of the United Way, this Congress has always supported those institutions, I want to urge the Red Cross again to reconsider their position. Those monies were not donated for a reserve account, they were donated through you to the families who suffered on September 11. You ought to have the decency to make sure those families get that money as quickly as you can, because doggone it, that is what Americans intended when they sent that money into you in such record amounts.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, September 11 brought this country face-to-face with what was once thought to be an unimaginable series of events. However, these cowardly acts of terrorism sparked in this country an unprecedented level of generosity, an outpouring of spirit, of patriotism, but also of dollars. Immediately, from every corner of this country, charities were inundated with money, with food, with clothing. Hospitals saw long lines of people offering to donate blood. Here in this Capitol complex Members and wives and husbands and staff lined up to donate blood. Shelters for the injured and homeless sprang up out of office buildings, restaurants and small businesses. Financial donations alone exceeded $1 billion. If there is ever any silver lining in this national tragedy that this awful atrocity created upon the people of this land, it is this: We saw the incarnation of the American spirit again, the true strength of our country, the true, indeed, the blessed meaning of the United States of America. But as with this and any disaster, there are unscrupulous people who will take advantage of that generosity. Unfortunately, this national emergency was no different. On the heels of the September 11 atrocities, we heard stories of scam telemarketers and scam charities trying to collect for ``disaster relief'' and crooks appearing to be affiliated with fire department fund-raising groups going door-to-door asking for funds. H.R. 2985 is aimed directly at these scam artists. The American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act declares frauds during these times to be different. H.R. 2985 allows the Federal Trade Commission to increase civil penalties for unfair and deceptive acts or practices that exploit this Nation's reaction to a national emergency or a national disaster. With this bill, the FTC can collect up to $22,000 in civil penalties for each and every violation. This will send a strong and unequivocal message to criminals hoping to prey on the kindness of strangers, ``You will pay.'' I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal) and the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), the original sponsors of the American Spirit Fraud Prevention Act. This is an excellent bill. I strongly urge its passage. I hope those who would scam the generosity of Americans in this tragic time will pay attention tonight, because, if they do not, the FTC will see you in court. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. 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. 2985.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2985) to amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to increase civil penalties for violations involving certain proscribed acts or practices that exploit popular reaction to an emergency or major disaster declared by the President, and to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to seek civil penalties for such violations in actions brought under section 13 of that Act.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2887) to amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to improve the safety and efficacy of pharmaceuticals for children, as amended.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 2887, the bill under consideration.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), the co-sponsor of this important legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Greenwood-Eshoo Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act, and I urge swift passage of this bipartisan bill. For years, drugs used in children were not tested for children. To address this situation, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) worked together in 1997 to provide manufacturers with an incentive to test these drugs in children. The incentive adopted then was an additional 6 months of exclusivity to be added to existing exclusivity or patent protection for testing drugs at the request of the FDA. No one denies that this incentive has worked. According to the FDA, the pediatric exclusivity provision has done more to generate clinical studies and useful prescribing information for the pediatric population of our country than any regulatory or legislative process to date. Put another way, this bill, this act, has done more to test drugs for children in America than any other legislative initiative in the history of this Congress. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the incentive has advanced therapeutics for infants, children, and adolescents in ways that were not possible in the several decades prior to the passage of the law. Every children's group in America supports this reauthorization. Without this reauthorization, the law expires. Every children's group is urging us to adopt this bill and to reauthorize this good law. That is why the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the bill by a strong 41 to six bipartisan vote. In fact, at the Committee on Energy and Commerce we have the support of Members, such as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), the gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel), the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush); and the list goes on. While some may object to this bill today, this is a matter that was so bipartisan that it has already passed the Senate with unanimous consent. A handful of Members oppose this reauthorization by saying that pediatric exclusivity has provided a windfall to the industry that has increased costs to consumers. Here are the facts: while some companies have benefited financially for testing their drugs in children, the GAO notes that while there has been some concern that exclusivity may be sought and granted primarily for drugs that generate substantial revenue, most of the drugs studied are not the top sellers. In fact, 20 of the 37 drugs which have been granted exclusivity for performing these tests in children, at the request of the FDA, 20 of the 37 drugs fall outside the top 200 in terms of drug sale revenue. Further, the FDA estimates that the cost of this provision adds about one-half of one percent to the Nation's pharmaceutical bill; but according to Tufts University, it saves us $7 billion in medical costs because we now know what levels to prescribe drugs for children and what children can take what drugs and which children cannot, depending on the weight and age and many other factors. Another argument against the bill is that it costs too much. Frankly, I, too, was surprised by the CBO score on this bill. While the CBO estimates that the bill will result in direct savings and revenue increases over the next 5 years, they also estimate that it will result in increased discretionary spending over this period. The flaw in the CBO score is that they assume that the new public fund for the study of generic drugs will study 165 drugs over the next 5 years. That is simply unrealistic. The American Academy of Pediatrics has told our committee that only 30 to 50 generic drugs will need to be studied under this program, not the 165 that was identified by the CBO; and assuming that the experts in pediatric medicine are correct, rather than CBO, this reduces the score by more than $400 million. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the Coalition for Children'S Health, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation are all telling us to please pass the Greenwood-Eshoo legislation now. If the program is not reauthorized this year, it expires. So I urge my colleagues, please pass this legislation. I commend the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) for her diligent work on this and the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) for their leadership in getting this legislation to the floor. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to respond to the gentleman from Michigan. First of all, the gentleman knows that he offered three amendments to the committee, two of which were accepted; and the gentleman voted for the bill in committee. On the last part, I want to make it clear to the House that current law section 502(n) and 301(z) in the regulations that interpret that law prohibit the marketing of exclusivity until the pediatric indication is on the label. That is the law today. What we do in this bill is go further. We make it a priority review on the pediatric indication, and we put a time certain after which it is misbranding if the pediatric indication is not on the label. The point I am making is that the problem the gentleman is concerned about is already covered in the law as a violation. A pharmaceutical company is prohibited under the law today to market a drug's exclusivity without the pediatric indication being on the label. That is, under current law, prohibited. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns) for whom all of us share great sympathy and concern tonight as New York again experiences another tragedy.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, in 1984, Congress passed the Cable Act, which contained Section 631 to provide for the protection of cable subscriber privacy. Section 631 includes specific protection against the disclosure of personally identifiable information concerning a cable subscriber to law enforcement, by the cable operator, without the subscriber's notification. However, changes in technology that have occurred over the last seventeen years require that section 631 be clarified. Specifically, cable television companies now often provide Internet access and telephone service, in addition to traditional television programming. Confusion over whether section 631 of the Communications Act or the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) applies to cable operator disclosures of information about their subscribers to government entities could hamper or delay government investigations. In the wake of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, we as policymakers have examined ways in which to improve law enforcement's ability to trace, intercept, and obtain records of the communications of terrorists and other criminals with great speed, regardless of the mode of transmission. Clarifying which law applies when will greatly assist law enforcement in their antiterrorism, investigative efforts. Therefore, as the committee of jurisdiction over this issue, the Energy and Commerce Committee worked with the Department of Justice, and the Senate Commerce Committee, to arrive at language now found in section 211 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, that clarifies that cable television subscribers continue to enjoy certain privacy protections, while also ensuring that law enforcement officials have the same ability to gain access to cable subscriber Internet and telephony information as they do with conventional telephone service. The drafters of this language intend the phrase ``records revealing cable subscriber selection of video programming from a cable operator'' to mean information about which video programming service or services a cable subscriber has purchased from a cable company. It does not include information such as a cable subscriber's name, address, or the means of payment. Importantly, this language does not impose any new requirements on cable companies to maintain or collect additional records containing subscriber information. ``Video programming'' is intended to refer to traditional video programming services comparable to broadcast television, see 47 U.S.C. 522 (20), as opposed to the emerging types of video programming services that enable subscribers to communicate with other viewers or subscribers. Nor does ``video programming'' include streaming of content over the Internet. Moreover, to the extent a cable company enables its subscribers to communicate with other persons through the provision of telephone service or Internet access service, it must comply with the same laws, found in title 18, governing the interception and disclosure of wire and electronic communications that apply to any other telephone company or Internet service provider. In these instances, Section 631 simply would not apply. Under Title 18, providers of these interactive services are not required to provide notice to their subscribers when disclosing information to a governmental entity, and in certain cases may disclose information without a court order. With this clarification, cable companies will be in a better position to assist law enforcement with their anti-terrorism, investigative efforts without fear of violating other provisions of the law. Thank you.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge the passage by the House of a critically important piece of legislation that was reported out of our committee in the wake of the horrific events of September 11, this bill, the Bioterrorism Enforcement Act of 2001. While the weapons of choice on that day were airliners full of innocent passengers, rather than the deadly biological agents that we have now come to recognize as parts of this war, the most recent anthrax cases in Florida, New York, Washington, D.C. and elsewhere around the country confirm that this Congress and our Nation ignore the real threat of bioterrorism at our own peril. Unfortunately, for too long we have simply done that. I imagine it would come as quite a shock to most Americans to learn that even in the midst of the evolving and unprecedented series of anthrax attacks, there are currently no Federal laws or regulations governing who may possess such deadly biological agents and under what conditions they may possess them and for what purposes. For example, under current law, anyone including convicted felons, foreign nationals from terrorist-sponsoring states, can lawfully possess anthrax or other dangerous bacteria or viruses. They do not have to report such possession. They do not have to seek governmental approval. They do not even have to be legitimate scientists and working in secure laboratories. We have tighter control on the sale of guns in this country than we do on the weapons of mass destruction. We have to change that today. Mr. Speaker, the only current regulations on the books are those relating to the shipping and transfer of certain biological agents which suffer from poor compliance, and they are very difficult laws to enforce. Indeed, under current Federal law, if the FBI or the local police discover that a suspected terrorist is in possession of anthrax or the plague, for example, the Government can do nothing about it unless it can prove a specific intent to use a biological agent as a weapon, which often is very hard to do before the fact. Our bill will change that and will give law enforcement the tools that it needs to help prevent further acts of this kind of bioterrorism. First, the bill will prohibit certain classes of individuals, such as felons, illegal aliens, fugitives and other individuals with questionable backgrounds, from possessing these deadly agents for any reason, with violations punishable as a felony. Second, it will require that all legitimate researchers who work with such agents obtain a registration from the Health and Human Services Department, which is authorized by this bill to impose and enforce requirements relating to the possession, the use, the handling, the storage and disposal of these agents. This will help to prevent access to them by criminal and terrorist elements. Third, it will make the unregistered possession of such agents a Federal felony, without requiring law enforcement to prove intent to use the agent as a weapon, and will increase the current penalty for making an unauthorized transfer of such agents from a Federal misdemeanor to a felony. Third, this bill will make it a Federal crime to knowingly possess, use or exercise control over one of these deadly agents in a manner that constitutes a reckless disregard of the public health and safety, with increased penalties should actual harm occur from such contact. Mr. Speaker, all of these provisions are good. They are common sense for deadly and infectious substances, and they are clearly overdue. This bill is crafted on a bipartisan basis and with the input of the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Health and Human Services, and many other interested parties over a long period of time predating September 11. It recently passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce unanimously, with the strong support of the ranking member and cosponsor, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and all of my colleagues on the committee for their support and all of their efforts in this area. I urge the entire House to vote quickly to approve this important measure. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3160.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to thank my friend again for the extraordinary cooperation across the aisle that we received on this and so many important pieces of legislation that the Committee on Energy and Commerce produces for this country. I want to thank him again for that excellent cooperation.

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before I yield to the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, who has done enormously valuable work on this and other areas of bioterrorism concern, I wanted to comment briefly with my friend the gentleman from Michigan's comments in mind. The first is that while Congress may not have been in session this weekend, that we nevertheless were at work. Members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce led by the vice chairman, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), visited the CDC this weekend and are issuing a report that I hope all Members of Congress will pay close attention to. We have learned that the Centers for Disease Control is woefully inadequate in terms of its current capabilities to do its work, it is living in 1950s barracks, and we really need to do some work to enhance and improve their capability of protecting the citizenry of this country, particularly as we come to understand this new threat against our people. We are going to at the Committee on Energy and Commerce very shortly bring to the Congress an authorization hopefully to bring the CDC up to date, modernize it and equip it properly to make sure that it can, in fact, assist our country in this time of need. In light of that, I am about to recognize the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who very coincidentally had scheduled a hearing on bioterrorism for September 11 of this year and who canceled that hearing, of course, as those events of that day unfolded. He has since held those hearings and this bill before Members today is part of the result of that and other hearings our committee has conducted over the years on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. On behalf of my friend before I yield back, I think we all ought to take a moment to think about the folks in this town, the two postal workers who have recently passed away which in fact may have been a direct result of some of these anthrax attacks on this city. As we think about them and the others who are currently under treatment and currently in danger, I personally again want to thank the leadership of both parties in this House for the care and concern they have shown for all the workers, all the guests we invite to these Capitol buildings and all the participants in this governmental process for making sure that the buildings are properly swept before we invite our workers and our friends who come to Washington to testify and to be part of our hearings back into those buildings. Would that the postal office had known to show the same degree of care, perhaps we would have saved a few lives in this city. I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) again and Members on his side for the extraordinary cooperation we have all shown to one another in this crisis that America faces. It was often said, I think by Tip O'Neill, that partisanship ends at the water's line. The water's line is now closer to home. I am pleased to know that so many Members of this House recognize that and work together in such a united fashion for the good of our country and for the safety of our people. I want to thank him again, and I urge the passage of this very important legislation.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3160) to amend the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 with respect to the responsibilities of the Secretary of Health and Human Services regarding biological agents and toxins, and to amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to such agents and toxins.

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

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if we want to look at something, look at how often we bemoan the fact that we are so dependent upon an oil cartel to supply 60 percent of the oil that is critical to this Nation's energy supplies. Then I want us to think about the fact that the international sugar cartel is a lot smaller than the international oil cartel, much smaller. This amendment plays right into their hands. This amendment drives further farmers out of business in Louisiana and across this country and makes room for the foreign cartel to dump its cheap sugar into America. When do they do it? They do it after they have sold all the sugar they can sell and they dump what is left, the surplus, at below cost rates into this country to kill off our farmers. What happens as a result? Our farmers are gone in Louisiana. My dad drove a cane truck. I know them very intimately. I know these small farmers and how hard they work. They are out of business and all of a sudden we are dependent now, not just for oil, but we are dependent for sugar, too, on a cartel out there. Would that not be great? This amendment by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) is particularly pernicious this year. It not only taxes the sugar farmers out of existence, but then it makes sure they will have to forfeit their sugar by taking away the program that saves us from government forfeitures. What a nasty amendment. This thing needs to be defeated.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding. Let me thank the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy for the work on this bill. Most particularly let me thank the ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the staffs of our two committees, and all of you for the work you have done in bringing this bill to the floor. The bottom line is this resolution condemns Americans taking advantage of other Americans in the middle of a crisis, when there is no need whatsoever to raise gasoline prices. There is ample fuel out there for every American. This resolution condemns such taking advantage for greed purposes of other Americans in the middle of this crisis and calls for the Federal Trade Commission to commence an immediate investigation and for the prosecution under State law of those who may have violated the law. Like all the things we have done this week in the middle of this crisis, this resolution represents incredible bipartisan effort. The drafting was done together, we bring it to the floor together, and we urge its immediate adoption.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in my tenure in this body that we are called upon to vote to commit the sons and daughters in the uniform of this country to war, to put their lives on the line for this country again, and this is indeed a profound moment in the history of this Chamber. We should ask ourselves carefully why we do this. Do we do it just in anger, just for revenge? No greater authority than St. Thomas Aquinas taught me as a young lad the meaning and the understanding, the definition of self-defense. Our greatest duty under the Constitution is to protect and defend the citizens of this country from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. It is for that reason we rise in support of this resolution. We have literally in this world allowed terrorism to exist too long. We have been on the defensive too long. We have taken too many body blows. It is time civilized man goes on the offensive. Today, we go on the offensive. And we commit our sons and daughters to that enormous chore. This week, a reporter caught a citizen in New York taking dust off a car and putting it into a jar and he asked, ``Is that your car?'' The citizen said, ``No. These are my friends. We have lost our friends.'' It is time to put an end to this madness.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the Ganske-Dingell bill does not guarantee a right to sue for patients. Indeed, the bill makes it difficult for states to create or maintain a cause of action because such causes of action must meet pages of very complicated requirements. A State could, in the future, pass a law consistent with these many requirements. Until they did so, however, patients who were harmed may have no recourse for damages at all. The preemption language under Ganske- Dingell is so fraught with ambiguity that it may take decades to determine whether patients in certain states even have a cause of action and can hold HMO's responsible for negligence. Professor Larry Alexander, Warren Distinguished Professor at the University of San Diego Law School, has reviewed the bill and concludes: ``. .. state common law is quite unlikely to contain these specific features, and state judges are unlikely to possess the authority to read them without legislative assent . . . Professor Alexander also states that the literal reading of the provisions of the bill appear to be ``. . . an attempt to directly impose Federal conditions on state law . . .'' without offering state governments a choice. Professor Alexander states such a reading would be a Constitutional problem. Professor A.J. Bellia of Notre Dame Law School in a letter dated August 1, 2001 reviewed the Ganske-Dingell approach and stated: ``. . . H.R. 2563 raises substantial constitutional issues. I anticipate, that if enacted, these provisions will spawn significant constitutional litigation . . . . He cites several courts and several reasons for these findings. The Ganske-Dingell approach also forces employers, plans and issuers to follow conflicting definitions, rules, and standards of conduct. The resulting uncertainty and litigation will not help patients, will drive costs, and will increase the number of uninsured. As drafted, the Ganske-Dingell bill also preempts State law to reduce liability for negligent or reckless conduct by health professionals and treating hospitals. That means reducing the liability for health care professionals who issue faulty diagnoses, leave an instrument in during surgery, or inject the wrong medicine. Indeed, virtually any medical error would be shielded from a state cause of action where employers or the plan seek recovery or contribution. The Department of Justice (DOJ), Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Congressional Research Service (CRS) all confirm this interpretation. A DOJ memorandum dated July 25, 2001 states: The Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate of H.R. 2563 states ``. . . It would prevent any recovery by plans from doctors or hospitals resulting from medical malpractice. . . '' (emphasis added). A memorandum from the Congressional Research Service further confirms this point. It says: ``. . . This language appears to supersede all causes of action under state law, arising from state statutory or common law. . . Presumably, causes of action for recovery, indemnity or contribution arising from a contract between the health plan and the physician would also be superseded. . . '' (emphasis added) The CRS memorandum continues: ``. . . Based on this preemption, health plans or health insurance issuers providing health insurance coverage would not be able to seek contribution from a treating physician or hospital for damages incurred as a result of [a] cause of action brought against the plans pursuant to the provisions of this legislation or under common law based upon the quality of care received. Nor would they be able to recover costs incurred in the form of benefits paid due to the negligence of a treating health care professional or hospital. . . (emphasis added) It is for these and other policy reasons that I support the Norwood Amendment as a better liability proposal.