Good Samaritan Health Professionals Act of 2011

I rise in opposition to the Woodall amendment.

Madam Chair, we're striking the findings. By striking statements of constitutional authority for the bill, the amendment recognizes that many Members of the House question Congress' constitutional authority to pass H.R. 5. So for that reason, my colleagues, the findings are all important. Supporters of states' rights ought to take the next step and eliminate the section of the bill that preempts State law. Indeed, many supporters of the underlying bill have spent years arguing that decisions about health care are fundamentally prerogatives of the State.

So I have only 18 conservative or Republican scholars and leaders that agree with me, including the Heritage Foundation; the Virginia attorney general, Mr. Cuccinelli; the constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law Center; the distinguished Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Coburn; some of our colleagues, including Judge Ted Poe of Texas, our colleague from Nebraska, Lee Terry, former judge Louie Gohmert, in particular, Ron Paul; the founder of the Tea Party Nation, Judson Phillips.

It goes on and on, where we are all in agreement that the findings are, indeed, critical and ought to be left in the bill. To take the findings out is incredible because we say that the Federal Government shouldn't be involved, that it's a State matter, and tort law, itself, is a State matter.

So for those reasons, Madam Chair, I am pleased to represent a bipartisan group of Members and scholars that very strenuously object to the findings being removed in this Woodall amendment.

Here's what conservative scholars and leaders have to say

about this hypocrisy:

Heritage Foundation: Despite H.R. 5's reliance on the

Commerce Clause, Congress has no business (and no authority

under the Constitution) telling states what the rules should

be governing medical malpractice claims.

Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia Attorney General: Senate Bill 197

takes an approach that implies ``Washington knows best''

while trampling states'' authority and the 10th Amendment.

The legislation is breathtakingly broad in its assumptions

about federal power, particularly the same 1 power to

regulate commerce that lies at the heart of all the lawsuits

(including Virginia's) against the individual mandate of the

2010 federal health-care law. I have little doubt that the

senators who brought us S. 197 oppose the use of the commerce

clause to compel individuals to buy health insurance. Yet

they have no qualms about dictating to state court judges how

they are to conduct trials in state lawsuits. How does this

sort of constitutional disconnect happen?

And if [S. 197, a medical malpractice bill] it were ever

signed into law--by a Republican or Democratic president--

would file suit against it just as fast as I filed suit when

the federal health-care bill was signed into law in March

2010.

Randy Barnett, Constitution law professor at Georgetown Law

Center and senior fellow at the Cato Institute: This bill

[H.R. 5] alters state medical malpractice rules by, for

example, placing caps on noneconomic damages. But tort law--

the body of rules by which persons seek damages for injuries

to their person and property--have always been regulated by

states, not the federal government. Tort law is at the heart

of what is called the `police power' of states. What

constitutional authority did the supporters of the bill rely

upon to justify interfering with state authority in this way?

Constitutional law professors have long cynically ridiculed

a `fair-weather federalism' that is abandoned whenever it is

inconvenient to someone's policy preferences. If House

Republicans ignore their Pledge to America to assess the

Constitution themselves, and invade the powers `reserved to

the states' as affirmed by the Tenth Amendment, they will

prove my colleagues right.

Senator Tom Coburn (R OK): What I worry about as a fiscal

conservative and also as a constitutionalist, is that the

first time we put our nose under the tent to start telling

Oklahoma or Ohio or Michigan what their tort law will be,

where will it stop? In other words, if we can expand the

commerce clause enough to mandate that you have to buy health

insurance, then I'm sure nobody would object to saying we can

extend it enough to say what your tort law is going to be.

Then we are going to have the federal government telling us

what our tort laws are going to be in healthcare, and what

about our tort laws in everything else? Where does it stop?

One of the things our founders believed was that our 13

separate states could actually have some unique identity

under this constitution and maybe do things differently, and

I think we ought to allow that process to continue as long as

we are protecting human and civil rights.

Congressman Lee Terry (R NE): If you're a true believer in

the 10th Amendment, then why are we not allowing the states

to continue to create their own laws and decide what's in

their best interest for their residents?

Congressman Ted Poe (R TX): The question is: does the

federal government have the authority under the Commerce

Clause to override state law on liability caps? I believe

that each individual state should allow the people of that

state to decide--not the federal government. . . . If the

people of a particular state don't want liability caps,

that's their prerogative under the 10th Amendment. . . . but

I have concerns with the current bill as written.

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R TX): The right of the states

for self-determination is enshrined in the 10th Amendment . .

. I am reticent to support Congress imposing its

will on the states by dictating new state law in their own

state courts.

Congressman Ron Paul (R TX): The federal government

shouldn't be involved. It's a state matter; tort law is a

state matter.

Congressman John Duncan (R TN): I have faith in the

people--I have faith in the jury system. It's one of the most

important elements of our freedom, and it was so recognized

in the Constitution, was felt to be so important, it was

specifically put into the Constitution in the Seventh

Amendment. And I'll tell you, it's a very dangerous thing to

take away rights like that from the people.

Senator Mike Lee (R UT) on tort reform: Congress needs to

be very careful when it enters into a uniquely state law area

like tort. So tort reform needs to be undertaken very

carefully insofar as it done at the federal leve1.

Judson Phillips, founder of Tea Party Nation: Some

conservatives complain opposing unconstitutional tort reform

rewards the trial lawyers. The trial lawyers may benefit from

stopping unconstitutional tort reform, but we fight to

protect the Constitution. In this case, the trial lawyers are

with us supporting the 10th Amendment.

Robert Natelson, senior fellow at the Independence

Institute: To be blunt: H.R. 5 flagrantly contravenes the

limitations the Constitution places upon Congress, and

therefore violates both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. . . .

During the debate over ratification of the Constitution,

leading Founders specifically represented that the subject-

matter of H.R. 5 was outside federal enumerated powers and

reserved to the states.

John Baker, Catholic University law professor: House

Republicans hope to nationalize medical malpractice law,

which is traditionally a matter of state tort law, by passing

H.R. 5, a bill that would wipe out all state medical

malpractice laws and complete the nationalization of

healthcare. Passage of H.R. 5 would undercut arguments that

Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the

Judicial Crisis Network: Among other things, S. 197 sets a

statute of limitations for claims, caps damages and creates

standards for expert witnesses . . . but they are not within

the constitutional powers granted to the federal government

for the very same reasons Obamacare is not.

The law's own justification for its constitutional

authority should be chilling to anyone committed to limited

federal power. The bill's findings state that health care and

health insurance are industries that `affect interstate

commerce,' and conclude that Congress therefore has Commerce

Clause power to regulate them--even when it involves an in-

state transaction between a doctor and patient, governed by

in-state medical malpractice laws.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. But why, as a new Member--and we welcome you to this body--why would we strike all the findings from H.R. 5?

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Just to get the facts into this debate, I rise in strong support of the Bonamici amendment. I include for the Record the Congressional Budget Office letter to Chairman Dreier on March 19 in which the CBO estimates that enacting the provision will increase the deficits, if you use IPAB, by $3.1 billion.

Congressional Budget Office,

U.S. Congress,

Washington, DC, March 19, 2012.

Hon. David Dreier,

Chairman, Committee on the Rules, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has

reviewed H.R. 5, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost,

Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2011, as posted on the Web

site of the House Committee on Rules on March 12, 2012. CBO

estimates that enacting the bill would reduce direct spending

and increase revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures

apply. Together, the changes to direct spending and revenues

would reduce future deficits by $13.7 billion over the 2013

2017 period and by $45.5 billion over the 2013 2022 period.

Federal spending for active workers participating in the

Federal Employees Health Benefits program is included in the

appropriations for federal agencies, and is therefore

discretionary. H.R. 5 would also affect discretionary

spending for health care services paid by the Departments of

Defense and Veterans Affairs. CBO estimates that implementing

H.R. 5 would reduce discretionary spending by $1.1 billion,

assuming appropriations actions consistent with the

legislation.

H.R. 5 would impose limits on medical malpractice

litigation in state and federal courts by capping awards and

attorney fees, modifying the statute of limitations, and

eliminating joint and several liability. It also would repeal

the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that

established the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and

created a process by which that Board (or the Secretary of

the Department of Health and Human Services) would be

required under certain circumstances to modify the Medicare

program to achieve certain specified savings.

CBO estimates that the changes in direct spending and

revenues resulting from enactment of the limitations on

medical malpractice litigation would reduce deficits by $48.6

billion over the 2013 2022 period. CBO also estimates that

implementing those provisions would reduce discretionary

spending by $1.1 billion, assuming appropriations actions

consistent with the legislation. The basis for that estimate

is described in the cost estimate CBO transmitted on March

10, 2011, for the HEALTH Act as ordered reported by the House

Committee on the Judiciary on February 16, 2011. The

estimated budgetary effects have been updated to assume

enactment near the end of fiscal year 2012 and to reflect

CBO's current budgetary and economic projections.

CBO estimates that enacting the provision that would repeal

the Independent Payment Advisory Board would increase

deficits by $3.1 billion over the 2013 2022 period. The basis

for that estimate is described in the cost estimates CBO

transmitted on March 7 and March 8, 2012, for H.R. 452 as

ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy and

Commerce and by the House Committee on Ways and Means,

respectively.

H.R. 5 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would

preempt state laws that provide less protection for health

care providers and organizations from liability, loss, or

damages (other than caps on awards for damages). CBO

estimates the cost of complying with the mandate would be

small and would fall well below the threshold established in

UMRA for intergovernmental mandates ($73 million in 2012,

adjusted annually for inflation).

H.R. 5 contains several mandates on the private sector,

including caps on damages and on attorney fees, the statute

of limitations, and the fair share rule. The cost of those

mandates would exceed the threshold established in UMRA for

private-sector mandates ($146 million in 2012, adjusted

annually for inflation) in four of the first five years in

which the mandates were effective.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

To my colleague, Mr. Dent, hold up. You're giving complete immunity to hospitals, physicians, and providers for any emergency activity. Do you want to do away with all liability whatsoever because it's in an emergency room? Of course, you don't. But this amendment requires the Federal Government to pay for the medical errors committed and denies our government any ability to address or reprimand those who commit medical errors. You don't want to do that. You don't want to go that far.

The Federal Government would be responsible for all occurrences of negligence in an emergency room. Please. Ninety-eight thousand patients die every year due to preventable medical errors.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

But what we're doing in the amendment is to provide immunity to all hospitals and physicians and require the Federal Government to pay for medical errors committed by them.

Look, we have 98,000 patients dying every year due to preventable medical errors. I'm not slamming the docs and the hospitals. I'm saying that we don't want to provide complete immunity.

This Dent amendment, Madam Chairman, does just that: it provides complete immunity.

So I'm asking my colleagues to please slow down and realize that irreparable harm due to negligence in the emergency room--and we've got pages

and pages of examples--would be not subject to adjudication because of this amendment. It's a very dangerous amendment. It goes way too far. It's overbroad. And I urge my colleagues to carefully examine the consequences of this provision.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, this amendment would actually lower the incentive to practice safe medicine, and I say this on careful examination.

I'm surprised that my colleague, the leader on the other side, himself a distinguished doctor, would be silent on this provision because it shields hospitals, employed physicians, even physicians who are already covered by private insurance; and physicians working in an emergency room setting will never be held accountable when they wrongfully injure their patient. That is my only reservation and objection to what is otherwise an honorably intended revision of this measure.

When hospitals and emergency room departments are not held accountable for medical errors and for negligence, then they have no incentive to offer quality care or hire competent physicians. Please, I beg you to carefully examine the dangers implicit in the Dent-Sessions amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.

It is my position that within the good that this does is a poison pill. The good is that consumers would also benefit from a repeal of McCarran-Ferguson. We salute you. But the poison pill is that this measure would ban class actions on a claim for violation of antitrust law, which is the cleverest way of ending antitrust law. Unless you have a class action--well, my doctor-Congressman is not a lawyer, but without class actions, you can't bring a claim because nobody's going to file a suit on a $30 issue, 1 million people suing for $30 each. So it's a poison pill.

I'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who had an amendment that had huge bipartisan support.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

We are here debating an overwhelming proposition offered by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), which would have corrected this problem so beautifully. But now comes the poison pill, which says no more class actions. If you can't bring class actions in this matter, then there's no way people with small, valid claims can go into court and sue for 30 bucks.

Now, I think most people understand this without going to law school. If you eliminate class actions, you have effectively destroyed the McCarran-Ferguson repeal that we are bragging about. So it's a kind of undercover scheme. We pretend we're doing something good. We ignore DeFazio's overwhelmingly bipartisan supported provision, and we let the insurance company through, and they live to continue the vile practices that have been revealed and discussed in this debate.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in opposition to the Stearns amendment.

Madam Chairman, the problem here is we don't have a problem. The 1997 law, which is called the Volunteer Protection Act, which I don't recall being mentioned, already provides immunity to all volunteers, not just doctors, to everybody, all volunteers, and has worked very effectively to ensure that nonprofit or government entities remain responsible for background checks.

I remind my colleagues of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which is violated in H.R. 5, which preserves our system of federalism that allows States to legislate their own State tort laws and the qualifications of health care professions. What could be more simple than that?

This is one of the least debated provisions of our great Constitution. And so amendments that limit liability of health care professionals by our Congress and provide a virtual blanket immunity to any individual for any harm while acting in a volunteer capacity during a disaster violates the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I raise a question to my good friend from Florida.

If you feel strongly about this, why don't we modify the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 rather than go into the business of a constitutional violation by changing all of the State laws with this wholesale limitation of liability? Why not do it in a more appropriate way, which we would be bound to consider with you?

I yield to the gentleman if he cares to make a comment on that.

The Volunteer Protection Act, I say to my colleague from Florida, is a Federal bill enacted in 1997, and that's the one that I would urge you to want to join with me and others to modify if there is a problem.

What you're doing by Stearns-Matheson is that you are now changing the law in all 50 States without going through the Volunteer Protection Act over which we have jurisdiction. That's the reason that I urge my colleagues that there is no need to upend existing State laws to provide unnecessary immunity.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, that's what we're doing under the Volunteer Protection Act is protecting our volunteers, our good citizens that come forward.

Please, I would like to focus on the amendment here that provides a lesser degree of liability protection while allowing weaker State standards to remain in place.

What we need to do is to preserve our system of federalism and support the Volunteer Protection Act which is constitutional, which does not violate the prerogative of the States to manage and legislate on their own tort laws and determine the qualifications of health care professionals.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit and strongly support H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, 2\1/2\ years ago in this body, we debated the Affordable Care Act, and I remember being part of that debate here on the House floor. Part of that debate was to increase access for American citizens and to maintain the physician-patient relationship.

I have a letter here that was signed by 75 of us, both Democrats and Republicans, opposing, in part, because in the House version of the Affordable Care Act the Independent Payment Advisory Board was not there.

This bill is very simple. H.R. 5 is to repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board and to vote for malpractice reform, a very simple bill, one that should be easy to support. Let's just discuss and see what occurred.

Based on the Independent Payment Advisory Board--most seniors don't

know about this--after the $500 billion has been taken out to pay for a new benefit. The Independent Payment Advisory Board are 15 unelected bureaucrats, appointed by the President and approved by the Senate to oversee Medicare spending.

Why does this bring angst to a physician? I practiced medicine for 31 years in Tennessee. My concern is I've already seen two examples of this, and this will be the third.

The first is a sustainable growth rate, a formula based on how to pay doctors in Medicare. This was established in 1997. Each year--almost every year since then--the Congress has had the ability to change this because, why? We were afraid if reimbursements to physicians were cut, access to our patients would be denied.

Let's look at what's going on right now.

Two weeks ago in this body, we extended the SGR for 10 months, preventing a 27 percent cut to physicians. Well, as a doctor, what would this mean for me in providing care for my patients? Well, what this would mean is you couldn't afford to see the patients. With IPAB, a formula based on spending, not quality or access, what would happen, I believe, is that this would occur, this 27 percent--at the end of this year, a 31 percent cut, which would be catastrophic for our Medicare patients.

So it's a very simple bill. We don't want Washington-based bureaucrats getting in between the physician-patient relationship. Medical decisions should be made between not an insurance company, and certainly not 15 unelected bureaucrats in Washington. It should be made between a patient, the doctor, and that family.

The second part of this bill, very simply, is medical-legal malpractice reform.

When I began my medical practice in Tennessee, my malpractice premiums were $4,000 a year. When I left 4 years ago to come to Congress, $74,000 a year. During that time, from 1975 until I left to come here, there's basically one insurance company in Tennessee, and over half the premium dollars that were paid during that time went to attorneys, not to the injured party. Less than 40 cents of the malpractice premium dollar in that State have gone to people who have actually been injured. It's a very bad system.

The tort system we have for medical liability now is a very bad system. It needs to be reformed. No one has ever argued about paying actual damages. No one has ever argued about paying medical bills. It's the unintended consequences of this bill that have run the cost up at no value to patients.

I strongly encourage my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, December 17, 2009.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker, House of Representatives, Capitol Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Madam Speaker: In July, 75 members of the U.S. House

of Representatives wrote to express strong opposition to

proposals, such as the ``Independent Medicare Advisory

Council (IMAC) Act of 2009'' and the ``Medicare Payment

Advisory Commission (MedPAC) Reform Act of 2009'' (H.R. 2718,

S. 1110, S. 1380), that would divest Congress of its

authority for Medicare payment policy and place this

responsibility in an executive branch commission or board.

This letter clearly stated opposition to the inclusion of

these or any other similar proposals in health reform or any

other legislation, but with recent developments, we, the

undersigned members, believe it is imperative to restate our

strong opposition to any proposal or legislation that would

place authority for Medicare payment policy in an unelected,

executive branch commission or board.

Consistent with the July letter, on November 7, 2009, the

House passed the ``Affordable Health Care for America Act''

(H.R. 3962) did not include provisions to create an unelected

Medicare board. Yet, at present, the Senate is considering

the ``Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009,''

which includes provisions to create an ``Independent Medicare

Advisory Board'' (IMAB) that would effectively end Congress's

authority over Medicare payment policy.

To create an unelected, unaccountable Medicare commission

as envisioned in the Senate's IMAB proposal would end

Congress's ability to shape Medicare to provide the best

policies for beneficiaries in our communities around the

country. Through the legislative process, and from Medicare's

beginning, Members have been able to represent the needs of

their communities by improving benefits for seniors and the

disabled, affecting policies that fill the health care

workforce pipeline, and ensuring that hospitals are equipped

to care for diverse populations across our individual

districts. Such a responsibility is one that is not taken,

nor should be given away, lightly.

These proposals would severely limit Congressional

oversight of the Medicare program, and to place this

authority within the executive branch, without Congressional

oversight or judicial review, would eliminate the

transparency of Congressional hearings and debate. Without

the open and transparent legislative process, Medicare

beneficiaries and the range of providers who care for them

would be greatly limited in their ability to help develop and

implement new policies that improve the health care of our

nation's seniors. An executive branch Medicare board would

also effectively eliminate Congress's ability to work with

the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to create and

implement demonstration and pilot projects designed to

evaluate new and advanced policies such as home care for the

elderly, the patient-centered medical home, new less invasive

surgical procedures, collaborative efforts between hospitals

and physicians, and programs designed to eliminate fraud and

abuse.

The creation of a Medicare board would also effectively

eliminate state and community input into the Medicare

program, removing the ability to develop and implement

policies expressly applicable to different patient

populations. Instead, national policies that would flow from

such a board would ignore the significant differences and

health care needs of states and communities. Geographic and

demographic variances that exist in our nation's health care

system and patient populations would be dangerously

disregarded. Furthermore, all providers in all states would

be required to comply even if these policies were detrimental

to the patients they serve. Such a commission could not only

threaten the ability of Medicare beneficiaries, but of all

Americans, to access the care they need.

Finally, as the people's elected representatives, we much

oppose any proposal to create a board that would surrender

our legislative authority and responsibility for the Medicare

program to unelected, unaccountable officials within the very

same branch of government that is charged with implementing

the Medicare policies that affect so many Americans.

Therefore, we must strongly oppose the creation of IMAB,

IMAC, a reconstituted MedPac or any Medicare board or

commission that would undermine our ability to represent the

needs of the seniors and disabled in our own communities.

Again, we urge you to reject the inclusion of these or any

like proposal in health reform or any other legislation.

Sincerely,

Richard E. Neal; Mary Bono Mack; Patrick J. Tiberi; Phil

Gingrey; Marsha Blackburn; Joe Courtney; Stephen F.

Lynch; Michael C. Burgess; John Lewis; Jerry McNerney;

James P. McGovern; G. K. Butterfield; Bill Cassidy; Jim

McDermott; John W. Olver; Doris O. Matsui; Fortney Pete

Stark; Timothy H. Bishop; Allyson Y. Schwartz; Shelley

Berkley.

David P. Roe; Brett Guthrie; Mike Rogers; Henry C.

``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.; Linda T. Sanchez; Eric J. J.

Massa; Michael E. Capuano; Donna M. Christensen; Susan

A. Davis; Daniel Maffei; Michael M. Honda; Laura

Richardson; John Hall; Sam Farr; John Fleming; Yvette

D. Clarke; Kendrick B. Meek; Alan Grayson; Mike

Thompson; Edward J. Markey.

Eliot L. Engel; Gary L. Ackerman; John F. Tierney;

Edolphus Towns; Carolyn B. Maloney; Nita M. Lowey;

Donald M. Payne; Gregory W. Meeks; Lynn C. Woolsey; Ken

Calvert; Bob Filner; Pete Sessions; Steve Buyer;

Jerrold Nadler; Dana Rohrabacher; Brian P. Bilbray;

Gene Green; Barney Frank; Wm. Lacy Clay; Maurice D.

Hinchey.

William D. Delahunt; Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Steve Kagen;

Steve Israel; Joseph Crowley; Ginny Brown-Waite.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I have a very simple amendment today. It's the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Amendment. This amendment would allow trained medical professionals to volunteer across State lines to assist in Presidentially declared Federal disaster sites.

My colleagues, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we saw firsthand how much of a demand there is for trained professionals at disaster sites and how there is a need to provide liability protection for these very experienced individuals.

According to the Council of State Governments, the most pressing need immediately after Katrina was the availability of medical volunteers. However, out-of-state practitioners providing medical treatment face the real possibility of noncoverage under their medical malpractice policies. Those that volunteer and treat the sick are at risk of violating existing statutes and potentially facing criminal or administrative penalties or civil liabilities.

A Baton Rouge newspaper, The Advocate, ran a story in September 2005 that talked about Dr. Mark Perlmutter, who was in the midst of giving a woman chest compressions when FEMA asked him to stop because of issues of liability protection.

CNN ran a story about a doctor who was evacuated to the New Orleans' airport. The doctor was amazed to see hundreds of sick people and wanted to help them. He wanted to ply his professional talents and heal the sick, but

was prevented from doing so because of legal liability. ``They told us, you know, you could help us by mopping the floor,'' and that's what he was forced to do. And so he mopped the floor while people died all around him.

What was the cost of inaction because of the litigious society that we have? It's incidents like these, my colleagues, that's why I introduced the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Act, H.R. 3586. It's a very simple bill, and its the foundation for this amendment to the PATH Act.

This amendment would allow medical professionals to volunteer at disaster sites. It would provide limited civil liability protection to medical volunteers who act on a good faith effort.

This is limited protection. It still allows victims to sue for serious acts such as criminal misconduct, reckless misconduct, or gross negligence. It does not cover criminal acts by health volunteers.

You shouldn't have someone that spent years in college, years in medical school, through residency, spent years as a practicing physician, push a mop when there's clear need for their services. This is wrong, and my amendment will correct that.

My colleague from Utah Mr. Matheson and myself have a very simple amendment today. It is the Good Samaritan Health Professional Amendment. This amendment would allow trained medical professionals to volunteer across State lines to assist at presidentially declared disaster sites.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we saw first hand how much of a demand there is for trained professionals at disaster sites and how there is a need to provide liability protection.

According to the Council of State Governments, the most pressing need immediately after Katrina was the availability of medical volunteers.

However, out-of-State practitioners providing medical treatment face the real possibility of non-coverage under their medical malpractice policies. Those that volunteer and treat the sick are at risk of violating existing statues and potentially facing criminal or administrative penalties or civil liability.

A Baton Rouge newspaper, The Advocate, ran a story in September 2005 that talked about Dr. Mark Perlmutter, who was in the midst of giving a woman chest compressions when FEMA asked him to stop because of issues of liability protection.

CNN ran a story about a doctor who was evacuated to the New Orleans airport. The doctor was amazed to see hundreds of sick people and wanted to help. He wanted to ply his profession and heal the sick, but was prevented from doing so because of legal liability. ``They told us, you know, you could help us by mopping the floor.'' And so he mopped the floors while people died around him.

What was the cost of inaction because of our litigious society?

Its incidents like this, that's why I introduced the Good Samaritan Health Professional Act, H.R. 3586. It's a very simple bill, and it's the foundation for this amendment to the PATH Act.

This amendment would allow medical professionals to volunteer at disaster sites. It would provide limited civil liability protection to medical volunteers who act on a good faith effort.

This is limited protection. It still allows victims to sue for serious acts such, as criminal misconduct, reckless misconduct or gross negligence. It does not cover criminal acts by health volunteers.

But for everyone working in good faith and doing the right thing, it will provide this basic protection to any trained medical volunteer. It will protect:

Doctors, nurses or physician assistants that treat the injured;

The psychiatrist, psychologist or therapist that provide emotional assistance to those grieving, and;

The pharmacists or respiratory therapists that helps treat chronic conditions like diabetes or COPD.

You shouldn't have someone that spent years in college, years in medical school, been through residency, and spent years as a practicing physician, push a mop when there is a clear need for their services.

This is wrong, and my amendment will correct this.

The Good Samaritan Health Professional Amendment has a broad coalition of supporters. They include:

The American College of Surgeons

The American Medical Association

The American Hospital Association

The College of Emergency Physicians

The Neurologists

The Physician Insurers Association

The Roundtable of Critical Care

These are just a sample; there are more medical groups that support this amendment. I also would like to submit these letters of support into the Record.

This is a good amendment. It will save lives.

American College of Surgeons,

March 21, 2012.

Hon. John Boehner,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the more than 78,000 members

of the American College of Surgeons (ACS), I would like to

express our support for amending H.R. 5, the Protecting

Access to Healthcare (PATH) Act of 2011 to include H.R. 3586,

the Good Samaritan Health Professionals Act of 2011 (Stearns/

Matheson Amendment). The ACS supports this amendment which

would ensure disaster victims' access to medically necessary

care in a declared emergency.

Rapid medical response in a disaster can greatly decrease

loss of life and improve outcomes for patients who

desperately need assistance. Surgeons in particular, with

their training in trauma and critical care, play a major role

in the health care community's response to most disaster

situations. Properly trained volunteers are critical in such

circumstances.

However, due to inconsistent state laws and lack of federal

policy, it is often unclear whether protections against

unnecessary lawsuits exist for medical volunteers who cross

state lines. Sadly, this lack of uniformity has greatly

hindered the ability of volunteer health professionals to

provide care; in some cases, volunteer health professionals

have even been turned away due to uncertainty about potential

liability.

Enactment of the Stearns/Matheson amendment would provide

volunteer health professionals with the same level of civil

immunity that they have in their home state when they provide

urgently needed care in a declared emergency. Removing

barriers that prohibit licensed surgeons and other qualified

health care professionals from voluntarily administering

medically necessary care during disasters will ensure

citizens access to high-quality surgical services in the

event of a crisis.

Again, we strongly support the Stearns/Matheson amendment

to H.R. 5 and look forward to working with you to ensure its

enactment.

Sincerely,

David B. Hoyt, MD, FACS,

Executive Director.

Madam Chairman, how much time do I have left on my side?

The one thing I would say to the gentleman, this is not unlimited. As I pointed out, there are provisions to allow for stipulations.

I yield 1 minute to the cosponsor on the Democrat side, Mr. Matheson from Utah.

Mr. Conyers, the point is this is a Federal disaster, and a Federal disaster like Katrina, in which the Federal Government is involved, you want to have a bill that's a Federal bill.

Madam Chairman, I'd just say that the 50 State laws are not allowing a physician to help. He has to mop the floors.

I yield 45 seconds to Mr. Franks from Arizona. He's chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I rise for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Madam Chair, I'm pleased to join my colleague, Pete Sessions from Texas, on the floor this morning to support a very important amendment that we've introduced that would address the crisis in access to emergency care by extending liability coverage to on-call and emergency room physicians.

The underlying bill we're debating here today is about patient access to care. Now I recognize that ideology may divide the House on the underlying bill. But common sense should unite the House on this particular amendment. Our former colleague, Bart Gordon of Tennessee, had introduced this legislation with me last year. In this session, we have bipartisan support for this concept. Mr. Matheson, Mr. Langevin, and Mr. Ruppersberger all have cosponsored this legislation that I am offering as an amendment. They cosponsored the original bill.

There's a growing shortage of physicians and specialists willing to work in emergency rooms. We've seen it all over the country. A 2006 Institute of Medicine report, ``The Future of Emergency Care,'' noted that the availability of on-call specialists is an acute problem in emergency departments and trauma centers. Emergency and trauma care is delivered in an inherently challenging environment. Every day, physicians providing emergency care make life-and-death decisions with little information or time about the patients they're treating.

I've spoken with surgeons who've told me they dread a Code Blue out of fear of a lawsuit. They want to serve these people who are coming into these emergency centers but are fearful for their families of a lawsuit. That's what medicine has become, unfortunately, because of this out-of-control litigation system.

As a result, these physicians providing emergency and trauma care face extraordinary exposure to medical liability claims. Forty percent of hospitals say the liability situation has resulted in less physician coverage for their emergency departments. According to a report from the GAO, soaring medical liability premiums have led specialists to reduce or stop on-call services to emergency departments. This trend threatens patients' access to emergency surgical services. Neurosurgery, orthopedics, and general surgery are the most impacted. They also are the services that emergency departments most frequently require. Trauma centers across the country have closed. In my home State of Pennsylvania, this has been a very serious problem.

This is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. This amendment would protect access to emergency room care and reduce health care costs by allowing emergency and on-call physicians who deliver EMTALA- related services medical liability protections. EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, ensures that any person who seeks emergency medical care at a covered facility is guaranteed an appropriate screening exam and stabilization treatment before transfer or discharge, regardless of their ability to pay. EMTALA is a Federal mandate that protects all our citizens, the insured and the uninsured alike. This amendment will provide a backstop for the doctors who provide these critical services.

Specifically, the amendment would ensure medical services furnished by a hospital, emergency department, or a physician or on-call provider under contract with a hospital or emergency department pursuant to the EMTALA mandate are provided the same liability coverage currently extended to community health centers and health professionals who provide Medicaid services at free clinics.

This amendment will not impact the rights of individuals who have been harmed to seek redress. What this amendment will do is ensure medical professionals are available to provide critical, timely, lifesaving emergency and trauma medical care to all Americans when and where it is needed.

Please join me and Representative Sessions in supporting this amendment. If an accident ever happened to any of us, Heaven forbid, we want to make sure that there are people in these trauma centers and those emergency rooms ready to deal with us and who have nothing on their mind but saving our lives, not worrying about lawsuits. So I urge adoption of this amendment.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, just very briefly in answer to my colleague's comments, I want to say very briefly that this does not waive liability. It simply says that when care is federally mandated under EMTALA that there will be Federal liability protection provided to those who are providing the care. That's only fair. People still can bring action, but there will be Federal liability protection, as there should be, because this care is being required under Federal law. I think it's completely reasonable.

At this time, I reserve the balance of my time.

The only thing I would like to say in response, once again, is this immunity protection only applies to care provided under EMPALA, and that's federally mandated care. Other activities going on in that emergency room or trauma center would not be given this exemption from liability, only federally mandated care. It can't be any more clear.

I reserve the balance of my time.

In conclusion, this amendment has bipartisan support. As I said, our former colleague, Bart Gordon, who was a cosponsor, introduced this bill along with me last session. Mr. Langevin is a cosponsor of the bill, Mr. Matheson, Mr. Ruppersberger. It makes sense. This is important to make sure our citizens have access to emergency care should they ever need it.

At this time, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, my amendment is a very straightforward amendment. But before I actually talk about the text of it, I want to speak about the real accomplishment of my friend from Georgia, who is the sponsor of the underlying legislation, H.R. 5.

The Washington Times did an article on this Congress and called it one of the most ineffective Congresses in history because they looked at how many laws we passed. But then they went on, and they looked at how many days of debate we'd had, how many votes we'd had, how many issues that were important to the American people have we been able to expose in this Congress that we have not been able to expose in Congress before Congress before Congress before Congress in the past, and, Madam Chair, that's what we have today.

This bill, introduced by my good friend from Georgia, gives the American people an opportunity to discuss something that is on every single family's mind in this country when it comes to health care, and that is controlling the cost of medical malpractice litigation.

Now, in this body, I'm sure we could disagree about the myriad ways there are to control it, but we can agree, I suspect--man and woman, Democrat and Republican--that it has to be controlled. And I thank my colleague from Georgia for having the courage and the stick-to-itness to bring this bill to the floor after so many years of silence on this issue.

Madam Chair, my amendment simply strikes the findings section of the bill. As you know, findings are nonbinding parts of the legislation that speak to the intent of Congress. And this issue is, again, such a passionate one, not just for the 435 Members of this House, but for the 300 million Americans across this country. I choose to let the legislation speak for itself.

This legislation has been carved out with states' rights provisions in it, to make sure the States have the flexibility that they need. It has been carved out with input from physicians, from attorneys, from families, from providers all across the board.

So my amendment, Madam Chair, would not change the substance of the bill but would simply eliminate the findings section to allow the substance of the bill to speak for itself.

And with that, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say that, as a freshman in this body, I've had to learn a few things over the last 15 months here serving in this body, and what I have learned is that I haven't been able to get every bill that I want out of this House the exact way I want it when it leaves here. It has been much to my chagrin. I thought I was going to be able to come here and make every bill perfect before it leaves here. But not only can I not make it perfect before it goes, but then I have to deal with that United States Senate, and that has proved to be the most complicated part of this process.

There are absolutely, as the gentleman has listed, folks who have concerns about the underlying nature of this bill. But if not for this Gingrey bill, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation at all. If not for the courage of folks to step out on the ledge and begin this conversation, we wouldn't be able to have it at all.

If we are to advance the cause of litigation reform in this country, if we are to control the inaccessibility of health care that comes from rising costs, then we have to be willing to come to the floor of this House and have the kinds of debates that my friend from Georgia has made possible today. That's true.

I may disagree with some of the ways that we've gotten here--and by striking the findings, we make no conclusions today about why we're here--but we make the certain conclusion today that if we don't begin this process, we will never bring it to conclusion. If we don't have this discussion today, Madam Chair, we will never solve these issues.

I would be happy to yield to the ranking member.

Reclaiming my time, and I thank the ranking member for his question. And that's a good way to conclude, Madam Chair.

The reason is because the language of the bill speaks for itself. The language of the bill speaks for itself. When this bill passes the House today, Madam Chair, we will have the U.S. House of Representatives on record about solutions to the malpractice challenges that face this Nation. But there is no need to be on the record today, Madam Chair, about all of the different ways that we got here. Because I might disagree with my friend from Georgia about how we got here. I would certainly disagree with my friend from Michigan about how we got here.

But what is important is that we begin to take those steps forward. And with the removal of these findings, we are going to be able to let that language stand on its face for this House to have the free and open debate that I'm looking forward to today.

I yield back the balance of my time.