[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 101 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1436-E1437]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             POLITICALLY DRIVEN MANAGED CARE REFORM DEBATE

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. JAMES L. OBERSTAR

                              of minnesota

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 24, 1998

  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my grave concern 
that the debate today on managed care reform has deteriorated into a 
politically-driven exercise to serve the narrow and partisan goals of 
the majority party.
  Neither the Republican leadership bill nor the Dingell/Ganske 
substitute were subjected

[[Page E1437]]

to the cleansing legislative process, in which the American people 
expect public hearings, open and full debate, a committee amendment 
process, and a meaningful opportunity to make specific changes to the 
legislation.
  At each of these normal checkpoints of legislative procedure, the 
public and their elected representatives were denied the opportunity to 
participate fully in the legislative process, to offer and debate 
amendments and vote on them to produce a legislative output that 
hopefully reflects a solid consensus, or, at least, the end result of a 
democratic process.
  Instead, we are engaged in a debate without the opportunity to make 
substantive and necessary changes to either piece of legislation 
through floor amendments, and we will be compelled to vote these 
competing measures either up or down without meaningful change.
  Given the opportunity, I would have preferred that both bills be 
neutral on the issues of abortion and assisted suicide.
  While there has been a good faith attempt in the Dingell/Ganske 
legislation to address these two matters, I strongly believe that the 
language on such issues must be so clear as to withstand judicial 
scutiny that health care plans are not required to provide assisted 
suicide or abortion services.
  Given the opportunity, I would have offered the following language 
that would achieve this important objective:
  Amend Section 108 and 109 of H.R. 3605 by adding the following new 
subsection (c):
  ``(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as requiring a group 
health plan or health insurance coverage to provide, pay for, refer 
for, or ensure the availability of or access to any benefit or service, 
including the use of facilities, related to an abortion or any item or 
service for which use of Federal funds is prohibited under the Assisted 
Suicide Funding Restriction Act of 1997. Nothing in the preceding 
sentence shall be construed as allowing a group health plan or health 
insurance converge to deny any benefit or service related to treatment 
for medical complications resulting from an abortion.''
  Amend Section 141 of H.R. 3605 by adding the following new subsection 
(b)(3):
  ``(b)(3) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to cause a group 
health plan or health insurance issuer to violate its ethical, moral or 
religious benefits.''
  I have been assured by the distinguished gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 
Dingell, the Ranking Democrat of the Commerce Committee, that it is his 
intent that the legislative history should reflect that his legislation 
seeks to be neutral on these two issues.
  With that statement of legislative intent, I plan to support the 
Dingell/Ganske substitute.
  I want to make it clear on this point that I will seek inclusion of 
the legislative language that I have just referenced in any further 
managed care legislation that this Congress may consider.

                          ____________________