Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution. I, like all of my colleagues, suffer with the inconsolable grief of all our countrymen who watched the horrific death and destruction visited on our Nation yesterday. But we also watched with humility and admiration the amazing acts of courage and sacrifice and heroism of firemen and rescue workers and police, both here in this city and New York City; and we pray for all of them tonight. There are criminal acts and there are acts of war. Criminal acts are answered in court within the judicial system. Acts of war are answered militarily. Yesterday was an act of war; and there will be a military response. You know it. It is coming. Those who have visited that destruction upon America yesterday had better get themselves ready for it. But there were other criminal acts yesterday that I want to talk about tonight, and I want to talk to those criminals. There is no shortage of gasoline in this country. There is no shortage of crude oil. Every one of you who jacked the price up yesterday to $3 and $4 and $5 and took advantage of Americans who suffer with all us in this crisis are petty criminals, and you ought to be in the hoosegow and you will be. The Department of Energy, FTC, Attorney General, the Department of Justice have all issued warnings today that they are investigating. Crude oil stocks are up. Gasoline supplies are up. Production is up. Imports are up. OPEC has guaranteed their reserves to us if we need them. Every country in OPEC unanimously did. The major oil companies have frozen their prices, both at the wholesale and retail level. Any one of you out there price-gouging Americans in this crisis are not just criminals, you are aiding and abetting the terrorists who hit us yesterday; and you ought to spend a few days in the pokey. God bless this country. We will get through this; but we need to stand together as patriots, not as petty criminals.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to be concerned about the energy situation in the Pacific Northwest. Earlier this year, language was offered in House Energy and Water Appropriations bill to increase the borrowing authority at the Bonneville Power Administration by $2 billion for transmission upgrading. I understand the language has been put into the Energy and Water bill on the Senate side. Part of the transmission problem in the Northwest has been created by the temporary closure of aluminum facilities, especially those in Western Montana and Eastern Washington. I am concerned about Bonneville's actions to reduce and possibly eliminate future electricity sales to the aluminum smelters in the Northwest, which collectively make up about 40% of total U.S. primary aluminum production. These actions will not only have significant and adverse impacts on the transmission system in the Northwest, but will also create economic dislocations in the communities in which these facilities have operated. This is not just a Northwest issue, however, since it could adversely affect the global supply and demand for aluminum. I have raised these issues with the Department of Energy and will continue to work on them as a priority. As the Committee continues to deal with energy legislation, we may hold hearings on this subject and may consider legislative remedies to the situation in the Northwest. I intend to preserve and exercise the Energy and Commerce Committee's jurisdiction over BPA's transmission and power sales issues.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2563, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references, and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House in amending the bill, H.R. 2563.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, as a cosponsor of the amendment, let me first make the point that no one argues, no one can argue, that unnormally high, runaway malpractice jury awards harms our health care. First of all, it raises costs, it absolutely raises the cost of medical malpractice insurance of physicians and gets passed on to all of us. Secondly, we all know what it does to physicians. It sends a chilling effect to physicians around the country who end up practicing defensive medicine; in fact, doing things not necessary, not required, just to protect themselves from the lawyers who might end up suing them. Today, we can do something about it. We can pass this amendment modeled after the California law. What is beautiful about this amendment is that not only does this amendment place some caps on those runaway charges that juries sometimes make that we all pay for, but it does so in a way that does not preempt the State law. For example, if your State caps noneconomic damages at $500,000, so be it. If your State has any cap on punitive damages, then your State law in that area is preserved. If your State wants to place a $500,000 cap on punitive damages 3 years from now, it is permitted to do so under this amendment. In short, our authors have put this amendment together in such a way that it helps a number of States restrain runaway malpractice costs and, at the same time, preserves your State's ability to do it differently if you want to do it differently in your State. Mr. Chairman, this is modest medical malpractice reform. We passed some recently on medical devices that were going out of business, not because they were losing lawsuits; simply because the cost of defending the lawsuits was driving the companies out of the business of making things, like shunts for kids with hydrocephalic cases or limbs for children who have lost their limbs to cancer. When we passed that medical malpractice reform a few years ago, those manufacturers went back into business. Today, we have a chance to keep our health care system in business. Pass this good amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman if we would be so foolish as to adopt this motion to recommit and pass tonight a $7.5 billion tax increase, Americans might not want us to come home. This motion to recommit not only would put forward this $7.5 billion tax increase, but as Members know, it would undo the good work of this House in endorsing the great work the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has done in reaching agreement on the contentious issue of liability. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, let me take this 30 seconds to introduce the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), my friend. Many of us claim ownership of legislation around here, correctly and incorrectly, but if there is one person in this Chamber who owns the issue of patient protections, it is the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood). He wrote the first bill. I saw his first draft. We read it together on an airplane coming back from Boston Harbor where we demonstrated against the awful IRS and income tax together. But as we rode back, I saw the first rough draft of this bill. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) owns this issue, no matter how many other people claim it. The gentleman from Georgia has been a stalwart to get this issue to the President. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BURR of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Six years, when the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) began this crusade for patient protections, he, through an exercise of extraordinary courage and conviction, has been willing to take on Members on both sides of this aisle. He has taken on his own party. Now he takes on Members of the other party who disagree with him today. He has shown extraordinary courage and conviction, and he is determined that when we get through today with the amendment that he will offer in agreement with the President of the United States to make sure this bill is signed into law, he has determined this bill will do the following things when we get through today: It will preserve the right of patients to choose their own doctors and to have the customary patient-doctor relationship. Secondly, it will extend the patients the right to have an external medical review of HMO decisions. And, third, it will guarantee patients the right to sue HMOs, to hold them accountable in both State and Federal Court, under the agreement he has reached with the President. The gentleman from Georgia is to be commended for this 6-year fight. If we do it right today, we will put a bill on the President's desk that he will sign into law and these 6 long years will have been worth his courageous effort that has been carried forth with so much conviction. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the chairman who has the right to close on this portion?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Cooksey).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a distinguished member from the Committee on Energy and Commerce who has put a great deal of effort in this compromise.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, I am pleased to open this debate on the Patient Protection Act. As you know, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood); the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske); my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell); and the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) are all distinguished Members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. And they, along with many others, have labored for a long time on this legislation, or various versions of it. I want to also commend the work of the Speaker and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Fletcher) and the other committees of jurisdiction, because all of them have made significant improvements in the base text of this bill. A concern of all of us is the needs of American families for health coverage and health care. Let me make a point that I think is incontrovertible, and that is that the most important patient protection in America is access to affordable health insurance, to health coverage, and to care. Mr. Chairman, new costs and new litigation and new bureaucracy can, we know, raise the cost of health care, and, therefore, the cost of health insurance. Costs will either drive a reduction in benefit or drive a reduction in coverage; and so, as we debate this legislation, let us not pretend that litigation and bureaucracy and mandates are free. While they may provide some protection for a patient, if they raise the cost of insurance and coverage too high for other patients, then other families lose, and those rights to coverage are lost to Americans. The Congressional Budget Office does not ignore these facts. They state clearly that a significant portion of increased costs will be borne by the purchasers switching to less expensive plans or cutting back on benefits or, worse yet, dropping coverage. That is a sobering point. It means that real families would do with fewer benefits and less coverage. According to the President's Statement of Administration Policy on the Senate bill, for example, employers already faced an estimated 10 to 12 percent premium increase this year alone. The statement also notes that employers tend to drop coverage for their workers, for roughly 500,000 individuals, when health care premiums increase by a mere 1 percent. Some estimates have put the number of individuals whose insurance would drop by this bill as high as 6.5 million. That is simply unacceptable. Employer-sponsored health care, remember, is voluntary, it is not mandatory; and we should not make employers choose between reducing benefits and maintaining health coverage for their employees. Employer- sponsored health insurance is still voluntary in America, and increasing health costs will prompt employers to drop coverage or insurance. The legislation that does the best job of preserving access to insurance and minimizing costs, while protecting patients' rights to their coverage, is obviously the best balanced bill; and that is what we will search for today. That means both eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy, litigation and cost; and that is why we will support the amendment the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) has worked out with the President of the United States to, in fact, amend this section to make sure we do not unnecessarily drive up insurance costs. I want to commend my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), for that excellent work.

Mr. TAUZIN

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. 2563.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I do not know what kind of problems the gentleman that preceded me has with the Committee on Rules or the underlying bill, but the manager's amendment before us establishes, for example, studies on the feasibility of processing and converting municipal waste sewage to fuel, ethanol; to find ways to limit demand growth; to find a joint study on boutique fuels; to include using the excise tax program to help encourage new and alternative fuels in the marketplace. It is a good manager's amendment, whatever other problems you have with the bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bachus).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp). (Mr. CAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, for a year now I have been fighting tires that kill. I am on the floor today fighting an amendment that will kill. If the Boehlert amendment passes, the National Academy of Sciences says that this kind of an increase in CAFE too soon, too fast over a 4-year period, 46 percent increase, will force automakers to downsize and downweight automobiles, trucks, light trucks in particular, SUVs and minivans. They tell us, ``Additional traffic fatalities would be expected.'' That is the National Academy of Sciences. Now, the bill contains reasonable increases in fuel savings, 5 billion gallons in this category of vehicles over the next 6 years. This is the language of the National Academy of Sciences warning us if my colleagues go further than the bill goes, my colleagues can expect fatalities. Mr. Chairman, I want to show Members the list of SUVs and vans regulated by the bill without this amendment. This is the list of all of the SUVs and vans that this amendment would literally replace in the law, sections that provide a 5-billion gallon savings in this list of vehicles. These vehicles alone consume 2.4 billion gallons a year. Our bill provides a savings of twice that, 5 billion. Keep to the bill. Do not kill Americans with this amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds if the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), a valued member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. New. (Mr. LARGENT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The manager's amendment before us does two basic things: first, it makes a number of technical changes in H.R. 4 that the committees of jurisdiction have agreed upon. Secondly, it incorporates a number of the amendments to H.R. 4 that were originally filed with the Committee on Rules and we thought were deserving of inclusion in the base bill going forward. Most of these amendments are amendments that call for studies and for expanded research and for expanded scope of existing studies, many of them designed to examine the feasibility of new efficiencies and new energy savings that are critical to managing demand in our country. With respect to this latter category, I want to commend in particular the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) of our committee, who worked in a bipartisan fashion to draft an amendment on historic pipelines. As you know, the National Historic Preservation Act was being interpreted to cover pipelines. This bill fixes that, but nevertheless incorporates those that wanted that designation and in fact have it. The bottom line is this amendment is primarily technical with the study amendments added. I would hope that we could have an easy approval of this amendment. I understand we have some objection to it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose), who is a principal sponsor of the price mitigation plan that FERC adopted.