[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1471-E1472]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     PATIENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1998

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. PETE SESSIONS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Fridday, July 24, 1998

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I spoke with Congressman Harris Fawell, 
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations of 
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, on the occasion of the 
passage of H.R. 4250, the Patient Protection Act. I told Chairman 
Fawell that instead

[[Page E1472]]

of a 200 page bill full of mandates and Federal interference, I 
proposed a two-page clarification of the ERISA preemption that would 
get the Federal government out of the way of states to address these 
problems. I told him that the problem was with ERISA preemption. I 
asked Chairman Fawell if he could assure me that the bill does not do 
anything to strengthen or broaden the ERISA preemption.
  Chairman Fawell assured me that H.R. 4250, the Patient Protection 
Act, does not amend the ERISA preemption clause. Therefore, it makes it 
neither broader nor narrower. We have left this to the courts to 
continue to develop.
  Seeking further clarification, I told Chairman Fawell that I 
appreciated his putting language in the committee report at the request 
of members of the Texas delegation to ensure that the Patient 
Protection Act neither broadens nor changes the current scope of the 
ERISA preemption as it is being developed in the courts. Again, 
Chairman Fawell assured me that was the case.
  I explained to Chairman Fawell that the United States Supreme Court, 
in the last three years in cases like Travelers, Dillingham, and 
DeBuono, have narrowed the previously broadly interpreted scope of the 
ERISA pre-emption and clarified that ERISA does not preempt traditional 
state law areas of regulation such as ``quality standards in health 
care.'' Federal Circuit courts of appeal have likewise been holding 
more recently that ERISA does not and should not preempt patient 
quality of care cases against HMOs like the 3rd Circuit held in the 
Dukes case. Five different Federal judges in the Dallas-Fort Worth 
area, all Republican, have also held that quality of care cases are not 
preempted by ERISA. Again, Chairman Fawell assured me it would not.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans in Texas last year passed state patient 
protection legislation that is more comprehensive than the Patient 
Protection Act. Such protections include the right to sue HMOs for 
affecting the quality of health care treatment decisions. Aetna has 
gone to court in Houston to assert that Texas legislation is preempted 
by ERISA. I am glad that Chairman Fawell could assure me that the 
Patient Protection Act would not affect the decision of the court in 
that case.

                          ____________________