Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 385 and as the designee of the majority leader, 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the HEALTH Act, which is identical to two other bills that passed the House during the last Congress. The HEALTH Act is modeled on California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, called MICRA, which has resulted in California's medical liability premiums increasing only one-third as much as they have in other States.

MICRA'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; a fair-share rule by which damages are allocated in direct proportion to fault; reasonable guidelines, but not caps, on the award of punitive damages; and a safe harbor from punitive damages for products that meet FDA safety requirements.

According to the nonpartisan organization Jury Verdict Research, the median medical liability award has more than doubled in the last 7 years to $1.2 million.

Doctors and other health care providers are being forced to abandon patients and practices, particularly in high-risk specialties such as emergency medicine, brain surgery and obstetrics and gynecology.

Women are particularly hard hit, as are low-income neighborhoods and rural areas. According to a report by the Department of Health and Human Services, ``Unless a State has adopted limitations on noneconomic damages, 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.''

Many doctors are no longer available to treat patients. Mary Rasar's father did not get the medical care he needed following a car accident last summer, because the only trauma center in his area closed for 10 days due to medical liability costs. Her father died from those injuries.

Melinda Sallard, a 22-year-old mother, was forced to deliver her own baby on the side of the road after her physician stopped delivering babies and her hospital's maternity department closed because of rising medical liability costs.

Leanne Dyess' husband Tony sustained head injuries in a car accident and could not find a neurosurgeon to treat him because rising liability costs had forced insurers to drop their coverage. Tony was airlifted to a hospital in another State that still had neurosurgeons, but 6 hours had passed, and it was too late. As a result Tony suffered permanent brain damage.

In my hometown, the CEO of San Antonio's Methodist Children's Hospital has seen his premiums increase 400 percent. He has been sued three times. In one case the only interaction with the person suing was that he stepped in her child's hospital room and asked simply, how is your child doing? Each jury cleared him of any wrongdoing, and the total amount of time all three juries spent deliberating was less than an hour. But the doctor's insurance company spent a great deal of time, effort and money in his defense.

It is no surprise the American College of Emergency Physicians found that large majorities of both rural and urban hospitals had inadequate on-call specialists coverage. And there has been a 40 percent reduction in medical students entering obstetrics and gynecology.

According to the chair of the OB/GYN department at the Yale School of Medicine, ``Within 2 years we will be faced with a very real possibility of having to shut down our high-risk obstetrical practice, a practice that cares for the sickest mothers in the State.''

As for legitimate cases of medical malpractice, nothing in the HEALTH Act prevents juries from awarding very large amounts to victims, including children. The HEALTH Act does not limit in any way an award of economic damages to injured victims. Economic damages include lost wages or home services, medical costs, the cost of pain-reducing drugs, therapy and lifetime rehabilitation care.

In fact, in just the last few years, juries in California have awarded the following damages to medical malpractice victims: An $84 million award to a 5-year-old boy, a $59 million award to a 3-year-old girl, a $50 million award to a 10-year-old boy, a $12 million award to a 30-year-old homemaker, and a $27 million award to a 25-year-old woman. Other examples include damages of $7, $22, $25, $30, and $49 million, all in just the last few years. Awards of these same sizes would be available under the HEALTH Act. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health stated

that ``we found no evidence that women or the elderly were disparately impacted by the cap'' on noneconomic damages in California under MICRA.

The HEALTH Act will work. According to the Congressional Budget Office, ``Under the HEALTH Act, premiums from medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.''

The American people support the HEALTH Act. The Gallup poll found that 72 percent of those surveyed favor a limit on the amount patients can be awarded for noneconomic damages. The HEALTH Act also respects the judgments of State legislatures because it does not preempt any State law that limits damages, be they higher or lower than the limits provided for in the HEALTH Act.

Finally, this legislation is supported by some 200 organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Council of Women's and Infant's Specialty Hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, for the sake of those who need health care, for the sake of health care providers who simply want to practice their professions, please join me and these selfless organizations in supporting the HEALTH Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) the primary author of the bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly), a subcommittee Chair of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green), a member of Committee on the Judiciary and an expert on this subject.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, opponents of reform claim that the current crisis is driven by a small number of so-called bad doctors. But as Yale Medicine Professor Dr. Robert Auerbach has explained, ``The American Trial Lawyers Association has perpetrated myths on the American public, including the myth that a very small proportion of all physicians are responsible for the majority of claims. This is a sort of statistical magic, because, unfortunately, a small proportion of the physicians in high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics and gynecology and neurosurgery, are responsible for a disproportionate number of the claims.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), former chairman of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman and I have spoken about this before. I happen to think that the problem lies with current law and not with this particular piece of legislation. But in any case, I share the gentleman's concerns and will work with him to address those concerns as this bill progresses to conference committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller), a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), who just spoke, voting for this legislation in the last Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart), a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary and now a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and a former member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, regarding Vioxx, some have alleged the company knowingly misrepresented or withheld information from the FDA. If so, they would be denied the protections in the bill because the bill specifically in section 7 says and excludes any instances in which a person, before or after premarket approval, clearance, or licensure of such medical product, knowingly misrepresented to or withheld from the FDA information that is required to be submitted.

If we look at the language of the bill, we can see that what the gentleman said is not relevant.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Miss McMorris).

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I also rise in support of H.R. 5, which will bring needed medical liability reform to health care providers in Washington State.

As I travel around eastern Washington, I hear from desperate doctors and health care providers that these lawsuits are increasing costs to patients and driving doctors out of business. It is not unusual to hear that doctors are being forced to drop their insurance or stop delivering babies, or younger doctors are quitting to practice overseas. This is at a time when we have a health care personnel shortage. This has happened in areas within my district, such as Odessa, Republic, and Davenport, where we have no OB/GYNs, and pregnant women must travel over an hour now for care. Additionally, it is becoming impossible to recruit and retain specialists, such as neurosurgeons and cardiologists, when 30 to 50 percent experience lawsuits annually. Emergency care is in no better shape with over 30 percent of trauma surgeons being sued each year. This is unacceptable for 21st century health care.

Skyrocketing medical liability insurance costs for doctors and health care providers has caused the American Medical Association to declare that Washington State is in a medical liability crisis. In the past 10 years, the average jury findings in my State have increased 68 percent. As well, the number of million-dollar settlements has risen almost ten times.

This is an important bill that limits excessive lawsuits, but also ensures that those who are truly harmed are going to get their day in court. Over the past few years, had this law been enacted, Washington would have saved an estimated $53 million. HHS estimates that by setting reasonable guidelines for these noneconomic damage awards, we will save between $70 billion and $126 billion in national health care costs annually.

H.R. 5 will bring common-sense reform to outrageous liability rates and will protect patients' access to quality and affordable health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and former attorney general of California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reply very quickly to the point that was made, and that is that this bill does not violate any States' rights. Section 7(a), it very clearly says that if any State has any cap of any amount, be it higher or lower than the caps in the bill, then that State's cap will prevail.

So this recognizes States' rights. It is friendly to States' rights.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary and also chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Law.

(Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, what was just said was actually contradicted by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO found that rising litigation awards are responsible for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. The report stated that ``GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims, which make up the largest part of the insurers' costs, appear to be the primary driver of rate increases.''

The GAO found that insurers are not to blame for skyrocketing medical professional liability premiums. The GAO report states that insurer ``profits are not increasing, indicating that insurers are not charging and profiting from excessively high premium rates.''

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say that the opponents of this legislation are forgetting, I hope not ignoring, a study by the Harvard Medical Practice. What this study found is that over half, over half of the filed medical professional liability claims they studied were brought by plaintiffs who suffered either no injuries at all or, if they did, such injuries were not caused by their health care providers, but rather by the underlying disease itself.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thought my colleagues might be interested in some quotes. One quote is from a former Democratic Senator, and the other quote is from a liberal Washington Post columnist. I would like to read those now.

Former Democratic Senator George McGovern has written that ``legal fear drives doctors to prescribe medicines and order tests, even invasive procedures that they feel are necessary. Reputable studies estimate that this defensive medicine squanders $50 billion a year, enough to provide medical care to millions of uninsured Americans.''

Mr. Speaker, this is from a prominent liberal commentator, Michael Kinsley. He wrote in the Washington Post, ``Limits on malpractice lawsuits are a good idea that Democrats are wrong and possibly foolish to oppose. Republicans are right about malpractice reform.''

Mr. Speaker, also we have a number of polls showing that the American people support the HEALTH Act. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the American people support exactly what we are trying to do. Just this week a poll conducted by Harris Interactive showed that 74 percent of those surveyed support reasonable limits on the award of noneconomic damages and limiting payments to personal injury attorneys.

A poll by the Harvard School of Public Health found the following: ``More than 6 in 10, 63 percent, say they would favor legislation that would limit the amount of money that can be awarded as damages for pain and suffering to someone suing a doctor for malpractice.''

The same poll found that 69 percent of the people surveyed say a law limiting pain and suffering awards would help either a lot or some in reducing the overall cost of health care.

Finally, the results of a recent Gallup poll show that the American public strongly supports the HEALTH Act. The survey asked whether those surveyed would favor or oppose a limit on the amount patients can be awarded for their emotional pain and suffering. Mr. Speaker, 72 percent were in favor. That means three-quarters of the American people favor this HEALTH Act.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, let me share with my colleagues the result of three studies,

and let me emphasize that these studies are not about hypothetical situations. They are not theoretical studies. They are studies of the actual experiences of States that have enacted reforms similar to the ones we have in this bill that we are talking about today.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, States with reasonable legal reforms including caps on noneconomic damages enjoy access to more physicians per capita: ``We found that States with caps on noneconomic damages experienced about 12 percent more physicians per capita than the States without such a cap. Moreover, we found that States with relatively high caps were less likely to experience an increase in physician supply than States with lower caps.''

Mr. Speaker, also, research shows that California reforms, which the HEALTH Act is based on, have not resulted in unfair awards to deserving victims. A recent comprehensive study of California's MICRA reforms by the Rand Institute concluded that under MICRA, ``awards generally remained quite large despite the imposition of the cap, and California's reforms have not resulted in any disparate impact on women or the elderly.''

Mr. Speaker, in another study, researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health stated that ``we found no evidence that women or the elderly were disparately impacted by the cap by noneconomic damages in California under MICRA.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleague who just spoke that our separation of powers provides that all aspects of the government are limited to some extent. If juries or judges give outrageous awards, like any other exercise of government power, they should be subject to reasonable checks and balances.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to remind my colleagues that unnecessary and frivolous litigation is threatening the viability of the life-saving drug industry. To encourage the development of life-saving drugs, the HEALTH Act contains a safe harbor from punitive damages from a defendant whose drugs or medical product comply with rigorous rules or regulations. The provision is manifestly fair.

Why should a drug manufacturer be found guilty of malicious conduct when

all they did was sell a product approved as safe under the comprehensive regulations of the FDA? Claims for unlimited economic damages and reasonable noneconomic damages could still go forward under the HEALTH Act. The safe harbor does not apply if relevant information was misrepresented or withheld from the FDA.

Eight States have, in fact, provided an FDA regulatory compliance defense against damages just like this bill. Those States are Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah. Opposing this bill jeopardizes those State laws. And the Members who are from those States might want to remember that.

Mr. Speaker, the evidence is overwhelming. Without legal reform, patients will continue to go without needed doctors: women will continue to deliver babies on the side of the road because the nearest OB/GYN is hundreds of miles away; parents will continue to be forced to watch as their child with brain injury suffers because lawsuits forced the nearest neurosurgeon to stop practicing.

Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time, as we are prepared to close on this side.

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

Mr. Speaker, first let me say to my colleagues who are not usually concerned about States rights that if they will look at section 11 of the bill, they will find the bill respects the right of any State to set a cap of any amount, be it higher or lower, than the caps in the bill itself.

Mr. Speaker, the HEALTH Act is the only proven legislative solution to the current medical liability insurance crisis. According to the Congressional Budget Office, under this bill, ``Premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25 percent to 30 percent below what they would be under current law.''

H.R. 5 allows unlimited awards of economic damages. These include past and future medical expenses, lost or past and future earnings, the cost of obtaining domestic services, loss of employment, and loss of business or employment opportunities. Deserving victims can be awarded tens of millions of dollars in damages, as we have already seen in the States that have similar reforms to those contained in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Harvard Medical Practice Study found that over half of the filed medical professional liability claims they studied were brought by plaintiffs who suffered either no injuries at all or, if they did, such injuries were not caused by the health care providers, but rather by the underlying disease.

H.R. 5 is modeled on California's legal reforms. Those reforms have resulted in California's medical liability premiums increasing at a rate that is only one-third the rate of those of other States.

Mr. Speaker, we need to act, and we need to act now. The nonpartisan Annals of Medicine predicts that the current doctor shortage could get worse, and we could lose 20 percent of needed doctors in the coming years. Let us protect patients everywhere. Let us pass the HEALTH Act.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 385 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 385 is a closed rule that provides 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader or their designees. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, provides that notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker, and it provides one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the proud sponsor of H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Health Care Act of 2005, or the Health Act, and to speak on behalf of both the rule and the underlying bill.

First, I would like to thank both the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for their work on this issue, as this is not the first time the House of Representatives has considered this measure.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 is a good bill that has passed this House in the 108th Congress with bipartisan support. Therefore this bill and its substance have been thoroughly debated both on this floor and in committee in the previous two Congresses.

As the sponsor of H.R. 5, I am very excited about the opportunity that we have today to strengthen our health care system for the sake of every household's health and every household's pocketbook.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 is without question one of the best opportunities this Congress has to address the health care crisis we face today. There is no doubt among the American people, and there should be no doubt among Members of this Congress, that we need fundamental reforms to strengthen access to health care and to control the burgeoning cost of health care.

Having practiced for almost 30 years as an OB/GYN physician, I have not forgotten the experiences and the lessons that I learned on the front lines of medicine. I came to this Congress not only with a background in health care, but also with an important charge to do all that I could to make our health care system better.

And, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you in no uncertain terms, we have a problem. We are losing too many good doctors because of the skyrocketing costs of medical liability insurance and the threat of frivolous lawsuits.

These costs have been driven up by frivolous lawsuits and runaway awards that are more about someone's ship coming in, and I do not mean the injured plaintiffs, than the provision of justice for those who are injured.

In fact, the Department of Health and Human Services reports: ``The litigation system is threatening health care quality for all Americans as well as raising the cost of health care for all Americans.''

While I am no economist, it does not take a financial expert to know that with fewer and fewer practicing doctors and an ever-growing number of patients, the price of health care will inevitably go up and skyrocket out of the reach of the average consumer.

These increasing costs not only create a significant burden on the American people, but also increasingly aggravate the current strain on the Federal budget resulting in bigger and bigger deficits.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I, along with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), introduced H.R. 5 as a simple, straightforward solution to reform and strengthen our civil justice system as it pertains to medical liability.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the other 55 Members who have joined with us to cosponsor this bill. Mr. Speaker, the HEALTH Act will not, let me repeat, it will not limit economic awards such as medical bills and lost wages.

So if, as an example, a plaintiff has $10 million in economic damages, they can still collect $10 million for their economic damages. Again, there is no limit to the economic awards. H.R. 5 would, however, limit noneconomic awards to $250,000.

Additionally, punitive damages, if assessed, would be limited to $250,000 or twice the amount of economic loss suffered, whichever of the two is greater.

And, again, Mr. Speaker, as an example, if the economic damages were $5 million, and there were cause to impose punitive damages because of someone's deliberate action, deliberately harmed a patient, then the punitive damages could be $10 million in addition to the $5 million in economic, while the noneconomic would still be limited to $250,000.

The HEALTH Act will also make liability more equitable. If one or more parties is a defendant and ordered to pay damages, then each party pays damages proportional to their fault in the case as determined by the trier of fact, the jury.

Mr. Speaker, no one should have to take the blame and pay damages for the negligence of another defendant, as under current law. That is not justice and this bill will make sure that this inequity is eliminated.

Now, I realize that there are some who have tried to cloud the issue here, and they will certainly oppose this bill. And while I am not questioning anybody's motives, I have to insist that each and everyone of us ask ourselves, Where do my loyalties lie? Do they lie with the American people and their best interests, or do they lie with those special interest trial lawyers?

Some, some, seek to game our judicial system for big bucks, of which their clients, the actual victims, see very little.

For this reason, H.R. 5 includes a provision that will limit the contingency fees of lawyers and health care lawsuits on a sliding-scale basis. This provision will ensure that victims actually receive fair compensation for their damages and they are not bilked and taken advantage by certain greedy trial lawyers.

I cannot stress enough the importance of this bill, Mr. Speaker. Too many of our States are now in a condition of medical liability crisis. My home State of Georgia is one of those States in crisis. And while our legislature, along with Governor Sonny Perdue, has passed meaningful medical liability reform in this past session, there is still much work to be done to undo the damage inflicted on Georgia's health care system. Specifically, according to the Alliance of Specialty Medicine, over the past 3 years, 15 of Georgia's 20 active insurance companies have stopped issuing medical malpractice policies for doctors. This fact flies in the face of the argument from the other side that suggests that greedy insurers are just overcharging doctors for their insurance coverage.

And without this insurance coverage, doctors from emergency medical specialists, neurosurgeons, OB-GYN physicians, they are being chased out of their profession and leaving ordinary people without their specialty doctor and without efficient and timely health care.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 is not the silver bullet to America's health care problems. However, in conjunction with things like associated health plans, which we just passed again, the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit which will go into effect January 1 of 2006, and other important initiatives developed by the majority in this Congress, this bill is the right prescription for the American people at the right time and will put us well on the road toward recovery.

I would like to encourage my colleagues to give their full consideration to H.R. 5. This Congress has an important opportunity to pass this meaningful health care reform.

Mr. Speaker, the American people deserve no less from us. Again, I would encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this mention of greedy, gouging insurance companies, I just want to point out to my colleague that the only insurance company that still is offering medical malpractice insurance in the State of Georgia is Mag Mutual. And in 2004 they made $7 million on their rather conservative investment portfolio and still lost money because of the claims paid and defending all of these frivolous lawsuits.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), my colleague on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), an internal medicine specialist.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), my physician colleague, an orthopedic surgeon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, eight States have specifically focused on pharmaceuticals and punitive damages and statutorily provide an FDA regulatory compliance defense against such damages. Those States are: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Utah.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, listen to these numbers: 19, the number of States in a full-blown medical liability crisis; 72 percent, the number of Americans who favor a law that guarantees full payment for lost wages and medical expenses, but limits noneconomic damages; $70- to 127 billion a year, the cost of the defense of medicine, which could be significantly reduced by medical liability reforms; $10.2 billion, the amount of money paid out by licensed commercial insurers in 2002 for medical liability claims; 100 percent or more, the increase in liability insurance premiums that one-third of the Nation's hospitals saw in 2002; 48 percent, the proportion of America's medical students in their third or fourth year of medical school who indicated that the liability crisis was a factor in their choice of specialty, threatening patients' future access to critical services; 3.9 million, the increase in the number of Americans with health insurance if Congress were to pass common-sense reforms.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about anybody's right to a redress of grievances when they have been injured because of a physician or provider of care or a facility or hospital practicing below the standard of care in that local community. There are no limits on economic awards. As I said earlier, that could be $5 million. And as I said earlier, when you get into a courtroom and you listen to the plaintiff's attorney calculating the cost, the economic cost, a new home because of a disability access need costing $450,000, an au pair, a companion to go to the movies with the person that was injured, and on and on and on, these economic costs sometimes are astronomical.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

A couple of minutes ago I was given some statistics. I want to continue in that vein. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell) just mentioned the situation in California. Of course, this bill, H.R. 5, is patterned after that very successful MICRA legislation, Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, passed in 1979 in California. Here we are some 26 years later, and medical malpractice insurance premium rates have stabilized, growing only at about 6 percent per year.

But listen to these numbers in regard to whether people continue to get just compensation for their injuries when you do have a cap on so- called noneconomic or pain and suffering.

September 2003, 9-year-old boy, San Francisco jury awarded $70.9 million in compensatory damages after finding a hospital and a medical clinic negligent for failing to diagnose his metabolic disease.

December 2002, $84.250 million total award, Alameda County, a 5-year- old boy with cerebral palsy and quadriplegia because of delayed treatment of jaundice after birth.

January 1999, $21.789 million award, Los Angeles County, newborn girl with cerebral palsy and mental retardation because of a birth-related injury.

October 1997, $25 million total award, San Diego County, boy with severe brain damage, spastic quadriplegia, mental retardation because of too much anesthesia administered during a procedure.

November of 2000, $27.573 million, San Bernardino, California, 25- year-old woman with quadriplegia because of failure to diagnose a spinal injury.

July 2002, $12.5 million, Los Angeles County, 30-year-old homemaker with brain damage because of lack of oxygen during recovery from surgery.

Mr. Speaker, people are not being denied access to an opportunity to redress their grievances when they have been injured when someone has practiced below the standard of care. No physician member of this body, no physician in this United States would want anything like that. We want people to recover when one of our colleagues have indeed caused that harm.

Mr. Speaker, we know of cases in our own hospitals where lawsuits are brought against one of our colleagues where we know they practiced below the standard of care, and we are the biggest cheerleaders for the plaintiffs in those situations. H.R. 5 has nothing to do with that.

Mr. Speaker, we are just limiting this noneconomic so-called pain and suffering. It has worked in California, and it will work in the rest of the country.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

I am sure the gentleman from Oregon was not questioning anyone's motives in his remarks. I think maybe the section of H.R. 5 that says no punitive damages to a pharmaceutical company, a drug maker or a medical products manufacturer that makes something, a drug or a medical product, that has been ruled safe, it has gone through all FDA testing, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that the drug or product is defective based on phase 1, phase 2, phase 3 trials, and then something turns up. It only relieves that manufacturer of punitive damages. As I say, Mr. Speaker, maybe we ought to call that section the Oregon model, because that is the exact same thing that exists under Oregon law.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to about 75 percent of the American public that are in favor of placing caps on noneconomic damages, let me just list a few other organizations that are in favor of that as well: The American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatricians, the American Association of Home and Services For the Aging, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Surgeons, the American Health Care Association, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association; the absence, of course, of the American Trial Lawyers Association.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, in concluding this debate on House Resolution 385, I would like to encourage my colleagues to not only support this rule but also the underlying bill. I want to thank all of those who spoke on behalf of the rule and applaud them for their willingness to address this problem in an honest and an open fashion.

Unfortunately, some opponents of this legislation seem content to demagogue the issue and pander to those special interests who are determined to keep the playing field tilted in their favor.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record letters of the many organizations that have been submitted to me in support of this bill.

Letters of Support

A. PIAA (Physician Insurers Association of America)

B. American Osteopathic Association

C. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

D. American Academy of Ophthalmology

E. American College of Surgeons

F. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

G. The Doctor's Company

H. Californians Allied for Patient Protection

I. Physicians Insurance

J. JPMSLIC Insurance Company

K. American College of Physicians

L. American Society of Anesthesiologists

M. Premier Advocacy

N. American Association of Nurse Anesthetists

O. American Medical Directors Association

P. American Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons

Q. American Medical Association--Michael Maves, Executive

Vice President

R. Chamber of Commerce

S. American Benefits Council

T. American College of Cardiology

U. American Academy of Otolaryngology--Head and Neck

Surgery

V. American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians

Mr. Speaker, some might not want to see reform, but I have list upon list and a binder full of organizations and individuals who recognize that we have a problem, and they see H.R. 5 as the solution. Over 200 medical organizations from the American Medical Association, the American College of Surgeons, to the American Dental Association to the United States Chamber of Commerce have urged this Congress to act now, not later.

A recent survey by the Health Coalition on Liability and Access found that 72 percent of Americans favor a law that would guarantee full payment for economic losses like lost pay and medical costs, but would limit noneconomic costs. With an overwhelming majority of the American people and most health care organizations in support of the language of this legislation, we in the House of Representatives cannot stand idly by with a good commonsense solution at our fingertips.

Again, this bill in no way, shape, or form limits the amount an individual can receive in economic damages. If someone's hospital bill or lost wages costs $50,000, $500,000, or even $5 million, they can still be awarded the full amount in damages less attorneys' costs and fees. If there are punitive damages that are applicable because a physician or health care provider deliberately, deliberately, causes injury to a patient, then punitive damages can be awarded double the economic damages. So if it were $5 million worth of economic damages, then there could be $10 million worth of punitive damages.

The same thing, Mr. Speaker, is applicable to medical product manufacturers and the pharmaceutical industry that produces these drugs. The other side would make us believe that they were granted complete immunity. Absolutely not, if they knowingly withheld information. Only economic damages are limited; and punitive damages, as I say, would be calculated by a responsible formula.

Finally, H.R. 5 ensures that victims benefit from a fairer system and they receive a greater portion of their damages. Ultimately, the biggest winner in H.R. 5 is the American consumer-patient who will have better access to health care and lower health care costs. I think that alone testifies to the importance of this bill and the need to put partisanship aside for the sake of the people who sent us here to represent them. They deserve no less.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for their timely consideration of this bill, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), who is the Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property Subcommittee chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary and floor manager of H.R. 5.

I again would encourage my colleagues to support House Resolution 385 and H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5--the so-called HEALTH Act of 2005--is anything but healthy.

If there was even the remotest possibility that H.R. 5 could help get efficient, accessible, low-cost, timely health care to the American people, it would probably get 435 votes in this House.

However, H.R. 5 does absolutely nothing to achieve the admirable goals embodied in its misleading name. It does absolutely nothing to address the specific problem it is purported to fix: skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums.

Let me be perfectly clear. I am in complete agreement with this bill's supposed and stated purpose: to help get efficient, accessible, low-cost, timely health care to all Americans. I agree that one of the obstacles to low-cost, accessible health care is outrageous medical malpractice liability insurance premiums charged to physicians and other health care providers throughout our Nation. I also agree that some litigation strategies contribute to the escalating costs of our Nation's health care by encouraging providers to order tests, procedures and treatments that may not be medically necessary. I agree with the supporters of H.R. 5 that high malpractice insurance premiums charged by carriers have led some physicians to abandon high-risk specialties and patients.

I ask you though to look at the legislation before us. H.R. 5 contains about 4,000 words. In those 4,000 words, the word ``premium'' appears only once; the word ``insurance'' appears only 5 times; and the word ``cost'' appears 14 times, the vast majority in the definitions and not the operative clauses of the bill.

I ask you to consider whether H.R. 5 is really about skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance premiums as its proponents claim. I have looked very carefully at this bill, and, after much reflection, have reached the only reasonable conclusion: It is not.

I stand here today because someone needs to stand up for American physicians. Someone needs to stand up for the American health care system.

The proponents of H.R. 5 tell us medical malpractice insurance premiums are skyrocketing out of control. There is no dispute that malpractice insurance premiums are increasing at an alarming rate. We agree on that.

There is no question that medical malpractice premiums are escalating across the country, particularly for physicians in high-risk specialties and certain geographic centers. In some cases, premiums have increased so dramatically that physicians have relocated their practices, reduced their services, or retired early. While there is little doubt that something must be done to alleviate this crisis, H.R. 5 is no solution.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that if you limit the amount that insurance carriers have to pay for legitimate claims, then insurance rates will fall.

But I ask you to consider the fact that the American Insurance Association--the American Insurance Association--has repeatedly and specifically denied that tort reform will result in premium savings. Sherman Joyce, the president of the American Tort Reform Association, has stated, ``We wouldn't tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.''

So, by the insurance industry's own admission, H.R. 5 will not stem the tide of rising medical malpractice insurance rates. Nevertheless, our friends on the other side would have us believe that limiting the exposure of insurance carriers is a panacea. It is not.

H.R. 5 is a hoax. It is a sham, and our friends on the other side know it. It is a fraud on the American medical establishment by insurance carriers who want to limit their exposure but will not commit to reducing premiums.

Please read the bill. H.R. 5 has absolutely no provision requiring the reduction of medical malpractice premiums, despite the fact that our friends believe that it is these high premiums that are crippling the health care system. Nevertheless, there is not a single word in this bill that directly calls for reductions in premiums: zero, zilch, nada, nothing, and they know it. It is a scam. H.R. 5 is absolutely nothing more than a boon, a windfall for the insurance industry.

Our friends on the other side tell us that damage caps will solve the premium crisis. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you consider the fact that in States that have enacted caps, the medical malpractice insurance premiums are higher than in States that have no caps. The carriers do not want us to know that.

In fact, in California--the State the other side holds up as a shining example of the benefits of legislation like H.R. 5--the average premium is $27,570, fully 8 percent higher than the average of all States that have no caps on noneconomic damages.

Recently, the American Medical Association issued a list of States that it concluded were in crisis due to exploding medical malpractice insurance rates. Five of those States have caps on noneconomic damages like the one proposed in H.R. 5. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they are still in crisis.

One of those States is Florida, where, despite having caps of just the kind proposed by H.R. 5, obstetricians and gynecologists pay the highest premiums in the Nation for medical malpractice insurance, some in excess of $200,000 per year. Florida has caps, and Florida has a crisis. So, Mr. Speaker, damage caps alone are not the solution to the problem.

If you look further at the California example, it becomes clear that damage caps alone are not an effective premium-reduction measure. In the 12 years after California passed MICRA, medical malpractice premiums rose 190 percent. Only after California passed Proposition 103--actual insurance reform--did medical malpractice premiums stabilize. Since California passed insurance reform--not medical malpractice reform--its medical malpractice premiums have been more stable than in most States.

Mr. Speaker, the lesson to be learned from California is that measures like H.R. 5 do not reduce medical malpractice insurance premiums. The facts simply do not bear it out.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side insist that one-size-fits-all approach of H.R. 5 is the last and best cure for the crisis of escalating malpractice insurance rates.

Some of our colleagues are, like me, very deeply concerned about rising malpractice insurance rates. Some of our colleagues have expressed an inclination to vote for this bill in order to get the ball rolling, in order to take a first step toward solving the premium crisis. But I want to be very clear: If H.R. 5 is our first step, as the saying goes, it's a doozy. It is a step on the backs of doctors, hospitals and patients to help out greedy insurance carriers. It is certainly a step in the wrong direction. H.R. 5--as the best evidence proves--is an ill-conceived, ill-advised bill that will not--let me repeat--will not solve the problem. This bill helps insurance companies--period.

Recent articles in newspapers across the country show in clear and compelling ways that this crisis is as complex as it is serious. ``Malpractice litigation is only part of the cause of the huge increases in insurance premiums. The insurance industry's pricing and accounting practices . . . play [at least] as big a role.''

The insurance company patrons of our friends on the other side want to hide behind what they consider out-of-control jury awards. Again, Mr. Speaker, the facts simply do not support this claim.

Over the past few years, many physicians have been hit with medical liability premium increases of 25 to 400 percent. Yet, according to The Journal of Health Affairs, during the past decade, malpractice payouts have grown approximately 6.2 percent per year. That's almost exactly the rate of medical inflation: an average of 6.7 percent between 1990 and 2004.

Moreover, contrary to the claims of proponents of H.R. 5, juries are not overly sympathetic to plaintiffs, as evidenced by the rate at which physicians prevail in medical malpractice suits. Dr. Barry Manuel, chairman and CEO of ProMutual Group, one of the Nation's leading malpractice insurance carriers, reported in 2001 that ``we continue to close 60 percent of all claims without payment, and of those cases we are forced to defend in court, we prevail in 90 percent.'' In addition, many of the leading scholars studying the problem have concluded that despite conventional wisdom, juries in fact often favor physicians.

Neil Vidmar, a professor at Duke University School of Law and a leading scholar in the field, states unequivocally that ``the assertion that jurors decide cases out of sympathy for injured plaintiffs rather than the legal merits of the case . . . have been made about malpractice juries in the United States since at least the nineteenth century. Yet, research shows no support for these claims.''

So, Mr. Speaker, one begins to wonder what has caused such extraordinary increases on medical malpractice insurance premiums during the past few years.

Well, investment losses, like those of average Americans, and a weak economy have made a greater dent in the bottom lines of insurance companies than malpractice payouts.

The difference between insurance companies and average Americans is that most of us can't give ourselves a raise to cover our losses. A medical malpractice insurance company can--and does. It alone controls the premium rates it charges our country's doctors. I think you can guess what malpractice carriers have done in response to the general economic climate in the past few years.

The truth is that medical malpractice insurance carriers are asking doctors, hospitals and patients to pay for underperforming investments. It is as simple as that. They know it. We have asked the insurance carriers to commit to reducing premiums in this bill. They will not do it. They will not even talk about it. That is because they have absolutely no intention of reducing medical malpractice insurance premiums.

The bottom line is that H.R. 5 is a jackpot for insurance carriers, and it is the doctors, hospitals and patients that are going to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk for just a minute about the cap on noneconomic damages. If H.R. 5 becomes law, we will be speaking with a loud and clear voice that the injuries victims of medical malpractice suffer are valued in direct relation to how much money those victims have. The unfortunate consequence of this legislation is that-- regardless of the severity of your injury, regardless of how long you suffer, regardless of its effect on even the most basic functions of your life, the things we take for granted every day, regardless of whether you can ever play with your children again, regardless of whether you can ever hug your grandchildren again, regardless even whether you or your child or your wife or mother die due to medical malpractice--no one's injury is ever worth more than $250,000.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle like to equate ``noneconomic damages'' with ``pain and suffering.'' But ``pain and suffering'' is a misleading label. What is capped is recovery for disability and disfigurement, among other things, not just ``pain and suffering.'' H.R. 5 lumps together everything that is not ``economic'' and calls it ``noneconomic''--subject to a $250,000 cap that the bill does not even adjust for inflation.

Our friends on the other side of the aisle go to great lengths to emphasize that H.R. 5 in no way limits economic damages as long as they are objectively quantifiable monetary damages. In other words, if a surgeon loses his hand and is unable to perform surgery again, the injury he will suffer is greater than that suffered by a carpenter who loses his hand due to medical malpractice and is never again able to do his job. Why? Well, under H.R. 5 the answer is simple: The surgeon makes more money, so his economic damages are greater. Not to worry, they tell us, both of them can get up to $250,000 in addition to soothe their wounds.

The same is true in the case of an injury suffered by a working mother when compared to a mother working inside the home. Do our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that those women's husbands or children will understand the difference?

At many jobs, the loss of a leg, for example, may not prevent a worker from earning a living. But it will make it difficult to enjoy ``noneconomic'' pursuits like playing soccer with your kids, or basketball and volleyball with friends, or a multitude of other things that make life enjoyable.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5 instructs that the value of life is capped at economic losses plus $250,000. That seems inconsistent with the administration's recent characterization of the value of life as ``immeasurable.'' Remarkably, our friends on the other side of the aisle have taken out their calculators, and they have measured the immeasurable. Perhaps they should call the White House, and let them know.

While the proponents of H.R. 5 appear already to have figured it all out, I want to ask them: How much is hugging your grandchildren worth? How much is kissing your husband or wife worth? How much is the ability to walk or to drive or to play a round of golf worth? How much is your ability to feed, bathe and clothe yourself worth? How much is seeing your children grow up worth? How much is your life worth?

I honestly don't know, and I don't think we should be answering those questions for every American either.

Whether it's losing a limb, or an eye, or just the freedom to be able to go where you want and do what you want, how many of us would trade a lifetime of disability or disfigurement, not to mention pain, for $250,000?

The very real consequence of this legislation is that it punishes the most economically vulnerable members of our society to the benefit of greedy insurance companies. It discriminates against children, against women, against older Americans, against ethnic minorities, against the poor. And for what, Mr. Speaker? History shows us the only winners emerging from H.R. 5 are the medical malpractice insurance carriers-- not the doctors, hospitals and patients our friends on the other side of the aisle purportedly seek to help.

I urge you to vote against this ill-conceived and mean-spirited legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith) for yielding me the time.

With all due respect to the distinguished ranking member, let me say that in response to his comments, this is a special interest bill. That is right. It is a special interest bill. It is a special interest bill for the American consumer of health care, for our patients. That is where the special interest is; not, Mr. Speaker, the insurance industry, not drug companies or manufacturers of medical devices.

The insurance industry, of course, offers a broad range of products. It could be health insurance. It could be automobile insurance. It could be homeowners insurance. It could be an umbrella policy for general liability. And, yes, of course there is a product line called medical liability insurance.

But let me tell you what is happening to the insurance industry in regard to that piece of their business. In my home State of Georgia, 3 years ago we had 20 companies that offered that line of business. Today we have one. We have gone from 20 to 1, and that is a mutual company.

If these insurance companies were making out like bandits, as the other side of the aisle and the opposition to this commonsense bill are suggesting, then they would not be quitting the business in droves. They would be continuing to stay in the business and raising those premiums and making these tremendous profits.

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what is happening with the industry of insurance in regard to other product lines. The gentleman may be right on that. But in regard to this line of business, I can tell you they are losing money even when they have good returns on their investments, as did Mag Mutual in Georgia several years ago. In fact, the return on their very conservative investments, they are very restricted by the insurance commissioner in that very conservative portfolio of investments, returned them $7 million; but they still are losing money because of these outrageous claims and the expense of defending so many frivolous lawsuits.

In regard, Mr. Speaker, to the drug companies and the manufacturers of medical devices that the distinguished ranking member mentioned, this bill would only relieve them of punitive damages, that is all, punitive damages, if it is shown that they did deliberately market a drug or a device that they knew was harmful to a patient and they deliberately withheld that information from the FDA. It does not relieve them of liability for being named in a lawsuit. It is only the punitive damages.

If they are guilty of something like that, of withholding information deliberately, we went through this with the tobacco industry in regard to lung cancer, the punitive damages can be in the hundreds of millions and, maybe if it is a big Fortune 500 company, billions of dollars.

So this is a distraction from the real problem. And the real problem, Mr. Speaker, is that we have an unlevel playing field. That is all it is. This bill, H.R. 5, the HEALTH Act of 2005, is not going to take away anybody's right to sue if they have been injured and to seek economic damages and payments for medical care for the rest of their lives.

The gentleman from Texas explained to us that many of these cases in California, a State that since 1979 has had a cap on noneconomic so- called ``pain and suffering'' at $250,000, these cases that he just talked about, $10 million, $20 million, $30 million worth of economic awards, people are not being denied access to that care, Mr. Speaker. This is only to balance the playing field so that we do not have this situation in this country where we are supposed to have the greatest health care in the world, and yet our specialists are dropping out. They are not delivering babies. They are not getting involved in high- risk pregnancies. They are not manning emergency rooms. They are not doing newer surgery.

Because of all the defensive practice of medicine, every specialist practices in two areas: his or her specialty and also the specialty of defensive medicine, and it is driving up the cost of health care and people cannot afford to get health insurance. That is all we are talking about here, Mr. Speaker, of leveling the playing field. It is not taking away anybody's right to sue. It is not denigrating or bashing the legal profession.

Those attorneys who specialize in personal injury, most of them do a great job representing their clients well. My brother is an attorney. My daughter is an attorney. We are not here to bash the legal profession. But we just want to ask them to give us an opportunity to level this playing field to make it fair for everyone. And so this idea that the other side suggests that we are taking away anybody's rights is absolutely not true, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say some of the things that this bill does do besides limiting noneconomic to $250,000. What it does, Mr. Speaker, is something called ``collateral source disclosure.'' Current law did not allow a jury to know that a plaintiff in a malpractice case has health insurance or has a disability policy. So when they are calculating all of these economic losses and loss of wages, it is not known by the jury that maybe that disability policy gives them 80 percent of their earnings or their income for their whole life or that they have health insurance.

The other thing, and I will conclude on this, Mr. Speaker, the other things this bill does is it stops this issue of joint and several liability where, when multiple defendants are named, the person, the doctor who has the deepest pockets, who may have had very little to do, if anything to do, maybe just walked down the corridor on a Saturday and said hello to the patient, but they happened to have the most insurance and the deepest pockets so they pay all of the claims.

Mr. Speaker, the last two commentators in opposition to this bill talked about the biggest problem with this bill being the lack of consumer protection.

I am going to tell my colleagues that the biggest consumer protection in this bill is limitation of contingency lawyer fees. When a person is injured severely, they ought to walk out of that courtroom at the end of the day with the preponderance, the largest portion, of that judgment in their pocket and not in the pocket of the lawyers. And that is consumer protection at its very best.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take my time, I hope sufficient time, to refute some of these statements that have been made in opposition. I want to start with the gentlewoman from Colorado who just spoke. It is absolutely wrong about the issue of Federal law superseding State law in cases where the State has already addressed the issue.

Let us say the issue of caps, my State of Georgia passed a law this year, and the caps there are $350,000. That would be applicable State law would apply. It is only when States have not addressed the issue when the Federal law would speak.

I want to also address something the gentlewoman said in regard to this bill being nothing. I have heard this not just from her, but from number of other speakers on the other side in opposition, talking about that this is nothing but a protection for the insurance industry, and it is another bail-out of protection for the pharmaceutical industry, and they are relieved of all liability, which is absolutely untrue, Mr. Speaker.

In fact, last night when we were talking about the rule, the gentleman from Arkansas, a registered pharmacist, opposed the rule and the bill basically for the same reason. I would like to remind him. I hope the gentleman is listening to the discussion this afternoon. But this would protect a pharmacist who prescribes a drug, a legally FDA- approved drug, that the pharmacist had no idea that there might be a problem or an adverse reaction. This is what this bill does. That would protect the pharmacist from punitive damages in a case like that, where there was no deliberate intent to harm the patient.

So it is very important that all of our colleagues understand the truth

here. The gentleman from Illinois kept talking about the Vioxx case, and the marathon runner. Well, if Vioxx and the company that makes that drug is guilty of withholding pertinent information that they had in clinical trials, and they knew that it was a harmful drug that they put out there on the market and exposed patients to that drug, then they are going to pay one heck of a price for that, yes, in punitive damages.

So they are not relieved from that under this bill. It is only when they did everything right and they were approved by the FDA that they would have any relief from punitive damages.

There are plenty of great athletes, Mr. Speaker. I remember an All- American basketball player from St. Joseph's University 10 or 15 years ago that dropped dead on the basketball court. He was not taking Vioxx. But we will see how that case turns out.

The issue was brought up, Mr. Speaker, about young children who are injured, and they do not have a job or profession, so they need this pain and suffering compensation that can be infinity, hundreds of millions of dollars, rather than a cap at 250-, when the truth is the triers of fact, Mr. Speaker, the jury, can determine the life span, the expected life span of that child and what their earnings would be over the course of that lifetime. The same thing in regard to a stay-at-home mom who was a professional maybe, an attorney possibly, before she decided to become a mother and a homemaker. Those earnings would be calculated as well.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, a little while earlier a speaker in opposition, the gentleman from New York, he made this statement: It comes down to the issue of who we are fighting for. I am really not sure who the gentleman in the opposition is fighting for. I suspect that I know who they are fighting for. Does ATLA sound familiar to you, my colleagues?

But I am going to tell you who we are fighting for. We are fighting for the patient. We are fighting for their right to have the ability to access needed specialists in health care, and they are not going to be there if we do not level this playing field.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we make sure that all our colleagues are clear on some of the issues that have been discussed here today. I know there has been some hyperbole maybe on both sides of the issue, and I want to be very clear.

This bill protects our patients, first and foremost, and gives them an opportunity to have access to affordable health care and to the specialist that they need and when they need them. It also helps our physicians, our doctors be able to stay in practice when they have an opportunity to have a stable medical malpractice insurance premium that they have to pay.

Yes, there is no question, Mr. Speaker, that section 7 in regard to punitive damages, that is applicable to our doctors as well as to companies that make medical equipment. It also is applicable to drug companies that provide us with life-saving drugs if they have done so in a fashion that is not negligent and not deliberately intended to harm a patient.

Here is an example, Mr. Speaker: things like time released infusion, chemotherapy, treating cancer patients, insulin pumps for diabetics, titanium hip replacements, artificial heart valves. If the makers of these life-saving devices were subject to punitive damages every time something through no fault of their own went wrong, we would be in the situation that we were in a year and a half ago in regard to the flu vaccine. Nobody wants to get involved in that business for the fear of a lawsuit. And with the government setting prices on flu vaccines, the profit margin to begin with was very limited.

So this section 7 is a very important provision in this bill, Mr. Speaker. So again, I want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to understand that this is not a bad provision. This is a good provision.

Mr. Speaker, also one of the speakers in opposition, well, actually several of the speakers in opposition, said that this bill has been brought to us, we have had no hearings, we have had no opportunity, we have had no voice. It is not true, Mr. Speaker.

This is the fourth time in 3 years that this exact same bill, H.R. 5, has been dealt with on the floor of this House. It is the exact same bill.

I joined this body in 2003. We dealt with it in 2003. We dealt with it in 2004, and here we are with the exact same bill. Section 7 was in the bill, the section in regard to punitive damages. Nothing has changed. In fact, in the Committee on Energy and Commerce this February, a hearing was held on medical liability and some 15 witnesses were at that hearing, Mr. Speaker. So it is untrue to suggest that we have not had hearings and they have not had an opportunity. They know this bill.

It is a good bill. We have passed it three times. We are going to, in a few minutes, pass it for a fourth time; and, hopefully, the other body will do the same thing so we can get this to the President for his signature and level this playing field once and for all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my friend, for yielding me the time. I should say Doctor Gingrey and that I want him to call me Attorney Hastings so we get it clear as to who we are around here.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule. Like a broken record, my friends on the other side on the aisle are yet again blocking every single Member of this body, Republican and Democrat, from offering an amendment to this ill-conceived legislation. I might add, no hearings were held regarding same.

Under this closed rule the majority is committing the greatest form of political malpractice. The Republican medical malpractice bill does nothing to lower the cost of health care for low- and middle-income families. Instead, insurance companies make out like bandits while the 45 million uninsured Americans continue to live without access to quality health care.

This is the third time in as many years that Republicans are bringing this incredulous bill to the floor under a closed rule. In the last 3 years, 67 amendments have been offered to the underlying bill in the Committee on Rules. Republicans have blocked all 67 of them from being considered by the House.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrats of the two committees of jurisdiction, offered a fair and balanced substitute to this legislation last night. Their substitute takes steps to weed out frivolous lawsuits, requires insurance companies to pass their savings on to health care providers, and provides targeted assistance to physicians and communities that need it most. The House, however, will never have a chance to debate their proposal. As they have done so often in the past, what Republicans cannot defeat, they simply do not allow.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry) were also prohibited under the rule from offering their common-sense amendment. Their amendment would have taken out language from the underlying legislation that protects manufacturers of medical products, including pharmaceutical

companies, from being sued even when they knowingly place a faulty product on the market.

For example, when Merck did an internal test on the side effects of Vioxx, it reported that only \1/2\ of 1 percent of those tested had incurred some type of cardiovascular event. A further investigation showed that Merck had actually doctored the study when, in fact, 14.6 percent of Vioxx patients were negatively affected by the medication.

Under the Republican medical malpractice bill, those who have died or been injured when taking Vioxx will have no legal ground on which to seek compensation for Merck's outright negligence. Many at home may be asking themselves, How could Congress knowingly protect a manufacturer from being sued if it continues producing a product that it knows is faulty and can cause real harm or even death to someone? What about corporate responsibility? What about protecting the lives of innocent Americans?

To them I say, if the underlying legislation becomes law, what I just described will become the norm. The majority have made it crystal clear that they do not believe irresponsible companies and manufacturers should be held responsible for their actions no matter the harm they inflict. As my colleague and good friend on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) said last night, welcome to the Committee on Rules, where democracy goes to die.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush and the Republican Party have unfairly singled out trial lawyers as the root cause of skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates across the Nation. They suggest that the prevalence of ``pain and suffering'' awards in malpractice suits have forced insurance companies to raise their liability insurance rates and force doctors out of business. This suggestion is both superficial and wrong.

H.R. 5 does nothing to help doctors with high malpractice insurance premiums. Study after study have confirmed that while the insurance company is raising premiums for doctors at a record pace, the amount they pay out for lawsuits has remained stable. The insurance industry is price-gouging physicians and lying to the public all to justify limiting the rights of victims so that the industry can add to its already record-setting bottom line.

This bill is a distraction from the real problems that exist in America's failing health care system. Physicians and lawyers are pointing fingers at each other while insurance companies are quietly and quickly running to the bank.

Solutions to our Nation's health care woes do exist, Mr. Speaker, but they go beyond blaming one group of Americans and involve more than one easy-to-fix resolution. I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and reject the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my good friend who serves on the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes and 20 seconds to the very distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry), who is a farmer and a pharmacist.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I went to school and almost became a physician. I do not know what there is about some of the damages that the gentleman from Georgia calls so-called damages. I do not know how brain damage, losing my legs, double mastectomies, those kinds of things, are so-called punitive damages. If doctors commit those kinds of errors, they ought to be held accountable, and juries are the best place for that to occur.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), a new Member, the son of a former Member of the United States Congress, our former colleague Bill Lipinski.

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

One of the previous speakers, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), said that some victims have won, quote, the malpractice lottery. Tell that to, for example, Ms. Linda McDougal, who had a double mastectomy because a doctor misdiagnosed her condition and recommended this radical procedure. Does the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) really think that Ms. McDougal has won some sort of lottery? I just cannot believe that.

Key findings from ``The Growth of Physician Medical Malpractice Payments: Evidence From The National Practitioner Data Bank'' show that the average annual malpractice claim pay-out rose only 4 percent a year from 1991 to 2003, in line with the average overall increase in the cost of health care.

Time will not permit me to go into a litany of statistics and supporters, but I do want to point out that the thought seems to be that people do not want to practice medicine. Well, the number of doctors increased throughout the Nation from 1985 to 2001, even in States with no malpractice award caps. The study showed that there were 497,140 professionally active doctors in 1985 and 709,168 in 2001. The report found little evidence that doctors are leaving one State for another State with malpractice award caps.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule to make in order the Emanuel-Berry amendment. This amendment would strike from the bill a provision granting immunity to manufacturers of medical products from being sued when it is discovered that those manufacturers withheld potentially damaging information from the FDA and the public. The amendment was offered in the Rules Committee yesterday, but, like all the rest, was defeated on a straight party-line vote.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, what is a provision protecting the drug companies doing in a bill that is supposed to be about doctors' malpractice premiums? How does this provision ever get into this bill in the first place? My guess is that many of my colleagues who support this bill have been asking the same question and would vote to strike it from the bill if they were given the opportunity. But because of this closed rule, the House will not have the opportunity to strike this embarrassing sop to the pharmaceutical industry from this legislation. Defeating the previous question will give Members a chance to vote on what has now been dubbed the ``Merck loophole.''

This section is not just bad policy, Mr. Speaker, it is almost criminal. Every day we read about more evidence that the pharmaceutical company Merck concealed information about the risks of its FDA-approved drug Vioxx. I do not think any of my colleagues want to find themselves in the position of defending people who hid information about this drug that could have saved someone's life.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can debate this important amendment. I want to make it very clear that a ``no'' vote will not stop us from considering this legislation. We will still be able to consider the medical malpractice legislation on the floor today. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from considering the Emanuel amendment to strike this ill-conceived language.

Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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