test one two test one t ranking member smith clerk will report chairman including we have sixteen members responding to the quorum call california was elected on july fourteenth sworn in on july sixteenth replacing our former colleague who has since become the secretary of  in her area since two thousand and six she was on the california state board of equalization where she was you know honestly elected vice chair and before that she served three terms as a state assembly member and authored landmark tax legislation that brought in nearly five billion dollars in revenue to the state of california without raising taxes she's also the chair of the california asian and pacific islander legislative caucus and the select committee on hate crimes before her state assembly  she served on the moderate city council thirteen years and as mayor on three different occasions and she was previously a member of the board of the  more than two decades her grandparents from china she is the first chinese american woman ever elected to the u s congress and   good judgment and common sense has been tainted by three years of law school second the chairman pointed out you have a clinical psychology and it strikes me that that credential will be of my colleagues  only being as he didn't answer the phone the center for justice public service and center for justice and democracy the american hospital association there is a lot to be discussed as we all know that the reform of health care is the number one in the congress and in the country and this is not unrelated to that subject and so i thank my colleagues on the committee for the recommendations that they may have and hope that we can have a meaningful role in the important efforts underway in the house of for underwriting purposes so they can compete effectively against larger national companies in other words mccarran ferguson promotes competition by making small and medium sized underwriters viable mccarran ferguson is not intended to reduce laws and a trust exemption should be rarely granted or created and if they are necessary should be written in as limited a way as necessary to meet a compelling public policy goal that when repealing an existing any trust exemption we must be very careful of the unintended consequences of our actions this is a real concern for more than sixty years the states have regulated the business of insurance and built a record that provides guidance about permissible activity by inviting federal intervention this bill might create a dual regulatory system that only confuses the health insurance and medical malpractise industry it is doubtful that this legislation will do anything beneficial for the customer and i certainly do not believe one hearing on the subject and no subcommittee markup is an adequate basis on which to make judgments about the effects of this bill on such an important topic it's possible that h r thirty five ninety six will be folded into a larger health care bill to address that subject and one under our jurisdiction it's better that we focus our attention on federal lawsuits against medical personnel which create real problems and real cost according to a study by the harvard school o public health forty percent of medical malpractise suits filed in the united states are without merit so every doctor must purchase malpractise insurance at great expense to protect against the department of health and human services study found that unlimited excessive damages add seventy billion to one hundred twenty six billion dollars annually to health care costs doctors are so concerned about frivolous lawsuits that they order unnecessary test procedures that do not benefit the patient estimate the national cost of defensive medicine is now more than sixty billion dollars all these costs are then passed on to patients in the price of health care that's why some states including my home state of texas and acted tort reform to limit the amount of excessive damages awarded philip the result insurance premiums have fallen thirty to forty percent and the availability of medical care has expanded that means texans and others could pay less to have more options and better health care mr chairman in closing i believe we are rushing consideration of h r thirty five ninety six members to oppose the bill and i back the balance of my members of this congress who shouldn't embrace this legislation and that is all of those members of congress who have been arguing on television in town hall meetings that they want to allow insurance companies to be able to cross over state lines to be a products that hearing a lot this is a logical step to do that the argument being that if you want them to be regulated like every other company not state by state which is what happens when you suspend the antitrust exemption you have to regulate them state by state and this is your opportunity to look at health insurance industry and they're not people they're doing exactly what they're supposed to be doing they're trying to maximize the amount of money they take in minimize the amount of money that they spend out that's the way businesses operate on fortunately the way that they're choosing to do it is simply not to compete on price and if you think that there is some level of cooperation to put it mildly going on try this exercise fifty seven year old man in your district to go knock on the doors of the variance insurance companies and ask them what their rate would be to provide them with health insurance and  what my father found when he retired before he was old enough to be eligible for medicare a surprising alignment of the nearly the exact same service look i think the insurance industry has to decide which of the two sides of this have and be regulated state by state but you can't say we want to be like every other industry except we want this special protection that is really a quirk in the law and i'll say to my good friend from texas the ranking member you can make the regulator apply antitrust laws to a daw yeah of course you would be a pretty powerful company and you'd be a pretty powerful industry and you'd be an industry that takes about thirty percent of profits and overhead or skimmed off the top for every dollar of health care we spend in this bringing up health care reform issue in this committee i join with the ranking member and wondering why it is limited to this narrow area and in fact if this bill would be so narrow and and its scope certainly this committee has jurisdiction over medical liability reform and it is a real curiosity why when the health care industry is nearly unanimous in saying that there are tens of billions of dollars a year spent on defensive medicine ordering up on necessary tests and procedures that cost those who purchase health insurance substantial amounts of money and could have a very direct effect on lowering that cost and why that has not been addressed in this committee does not withstanding the fact that the present state has indicated his support for tort reform in this area so it's surprising to me that this would be the only area that we would bring up and address but i suspect it has to do with what was reported on national public radio this morning that this bill is being brought up in an attempt to weaken the insurance industry's opposition to massive massive amounts of government regulation and interference in the marketplace not creating more competition but creating more government control over the insurance industry and this is designed to try to weaken their opposition to the health care bill since they are now speaking out more forcefully about that furthermore i think it is ironic that while i'm sure that most but i know not all the members of this committee on the other  the aisle support the so called government insurance option which is the furthest thing from creating real competition because it entails it can to entails giving the government which is in itself a monopoly of power the ability not only to compete with private insurance companies but also their ability to regulate those insurance companies at the federal level so to say that this measure today is going to increase competition in the insurance industry when you couple it with the entire picture of what's going on in this congress with regard to health reform is in my opinion a gross misrepresentation of what is really reforms i think that could take place there but we certainly wouldn't want to take away the ability of as the ranking member mentioned small insurance companies able to gather information about accidents and  there have been more than twelve hearings on this subject and the judiciary committee what some of you were in here then but the person that made the statement was here number two the public option is not to be found anywhere on this bill and this bill everybody opposed to the public option encouraged by their statements about wanting to open up competition more and i would hope that their comments would indicate that they would support allowing the sale of health insurance policies across state line well first i'd like to thank god chairman conyers for his warm welcome this morning thank you so very much i'm excited to be the newest member of the judiciary committee and i look forward to working with all of you on important issues that improve the lives of american i think it's  significant that my first vote in this committee will be on a bill that is as important and life changing as this one like many of you health care is one of my top priorities in congress and i believe the only way we can make a system with private insurance work in america is if it is based on aggressive competition that's why i do support the public option because i do believe that it provides incentives for comp competitive pricing in the exchange and that's why i support this legislation as well i think my constituents would be shocked to learn that the antitrust exemption is even on the books i know i was price fixing bid rigging and market allocation go against the core of what it means to do business in america we cannot implement true health care reform if we don't ensure a fair playing field for patients doctors and insure health care is expensive and out of the reach for many even at sticker price and for many it's a matter of life question of medical malpractise by eliminating the antitrust exemption for insurance carriers including those who provide medical malpractise insurance frankly with all due respect mr chairman others is absurd is absolutely absurd i think you who are around in the hundreds because it is exactly the same language in the legislation introduced by the former chairman of the committee for the transition language which is not really relevant to this bill i would add that this language was  market allocations which would operate to the detriment of consumers my concern however as was concerned relates to a desire to avoid the law of unintended consequences some  to take care of an insurance company recognize that that is not the best way to do things you would hope that that's the very last resort insurance company nothing to improve the situation the through the congress now would be  if they were traded off for americans in exchange for american prisoners of war that was the intent at least we had discussions we had a hearing we had witnesses but it's been a consistent position on the on the part of both sides of this bill that there would not be reparations included even in the consideration of a commission that would be set up by this bill and yet one of the witnesses had made a number of writings and remarks in support of reparations now i'm taking this position that the people who were who were moved in that process it's really more their descendants than it is they and the united states cannot be assigning it to the descendants of people who made a judgment at a time when we were in a global war and as so it is the intent as the proponents of the bill have consistently stated that reparations not be included my amendment just simply says that they will not be considered if there's a commission is formed in this bill to pass that's the substance of my m m it it says if you're serious about this if it wasn't just at rhetoric and by the way i do recall discussion in the last in the last time that we discussed this amendment that it was the intent of the japanese internment do not include reparations that was the way this whole scenario started with japanese internment but we know that the american taxpayers paid reparations and i want to be confident congresses of what's in the bill and therefore the king amendment is just simply not necessary the proponents of what it is they're seeking and they are not seeking reparations and that's where we would just thank the gentleman harper mr harper vote court that might determine our subsequent legislature they would try to consider our intent would also consider the real results are recorded votes and i offer that as a precursor to the discussion on this amendment because i believe that the interpretation will be that this committee voted to support reparations and this and now i'm going to ask this committee to codify their position with regard to impartiality on the commission that would be established if this bill passes and so this amendment just simply says the commission shall include all the members who are distinguished scholars and academic historians who will be able to provide expertise and impartiality and who have made no prior judgment about the facts to be examined by the commission and we have seen and i think we know most of us are and in public policy if you seek to get a result of that from a commission or a committee the selection that committee is producing the results that you might want and if we're objective about this and i don't know that we are judging by the result of the last recorded vote but if we are objective on this it's incumbent upon us to support this amendment that requires that the commissioners that would be appointed would be objective impartial commissioners and distinguished scholars and academic historians that should be the qualification criteria would put it on the menu individual that might be a distinguished scholar academic historian and also a former member i don't know whom that might be are you suggesting they're not to do certainly not mr chairman but i can pick up the implications of your question with the gen n i would hope that the two are not mutually exclusive but let's put into this into language reclaiming that any member that fits the criteria of this amendment should it pass would certainly be considered but i think it's hard to find a member of this congress little member let alone a member of this judiciary committee who has distinguished themselves as being completely impartial judging from some of our experiences here however we might try and i think it does raise a point of the necessity of this amendment because i think we've seen a partisan vote in the previous amendment that i've offered that simply stated the intentions that i heard going for the miles of the proponents of this bill including mr longdon and now  if we're really serious and we don't even have to be really serious we just have to simply be objective we should have if we're going to have a commission a commission that is that is filled with people who have reached this level this academic level this expertise that is that is in my amendment and not having reached a prior judgment and if there is no prior judgment there then i have a chance to be objective i would point out that up president bush some years ago i stab commission and one of the attacks commission to take a look at this tax structure of the united states in the purpose of that commission was to bring about the best the best type attack structure that could have a healthy growing economy and one of the criteria for being seated on that commission was not having made a prior judgment that i was a little critical of that because not having made a prior judgment might disqualify people if you don't have an opinion maybe you don't know enough about the subject and that's why you haven't made a prior judgment but we want to avoid the bias the language in this says not having made a prior judgment even though i might have contradicted a previous statement that i made about the tax writing commission this commission should be unbiased and they should be historians they should be distinguished scholars and i'd heard if we're dealing with objectivity i look at some of the language here and ask if any of this is potentially objective i attended three universities taught at two different universities and i never saw anybody with  placard on their door a distinguished scholar or academic historian historians or they were professors at some point time we're going to have to decide who's distinguishing who's just a scholar and who's a historian who's an academic a story and and it almost sounds like in the last part of this amendment we're asking people to sign an affidavit of some sort that they made no prior judgment about the facts to be examined it should be drawn naturally proud of our nation's victory in world war two and it is always appropriate to highlight the remarkable courage displayed by so many millions of americans tens of millions of americans of all ethnic and religious origins in terms of our nation's actions and behavior during the world war two period we as a nation in the past have examined the treatment of japanese americans during this period of time and i would respectfully suggest our nation is stronger as a result of that examination in terms of what we did and what may be in the future if faced with similar circumstances could learn from that behavior so that we do it better in this vein it is important for the congress to recognize the particular hardships that certain european americans and jewish refugees end d during the world war two period the bill seeks to draw attention to this forgotten part of our history and what the bill requires is the creation a commission to review the government's behavior with respect to certain communities within the very rich american fabric and in that light i want to chairman h r four thousand twenty five the wartime treatment study at create two commissions the first european american commission reviews the u s government's treatment of people of german and italian descent in america during world war two the second commission reviews the u s government's treatment of certain jewish refugees during world war two as well the february nine hundred eighty three report of the u s commission on wartime relocation and internment of civilians contains a chapter regarding germans and italians report states quote by feb hundred two the justice department had in turn two thousand one hundred ninety two japanese one thousand three hundred ninety three germans and two hundred sixty four italians and quote the push for such a commission is nothing new in fact as a response to requests a commission to look at america's world war two policy regarding italian americans congress enacted the war time violation of italian american civil liberties act of two thousand that bill required the attorney general to conduct a comprehensive review of the treatment by the united states government of italian americans during world war two and to submit to congress a report the documents the findings of such review the attorney general issue the report on november seventh two thousand and one one of my concerns is that the european american commission is required to quote recommend appropriate remedy for the individuals affected by these government policies that the subcommittee markup the ranking member offered an amendment to prohibit reparations from being recommended by the commission as a remedy it was voted down along party lines i understand at the bill was arthur the gentleman from florida assure the subcommittee in writing that he did not intend for the bill to lead to reparations so i don't understand why the subcommittee rejected the ranking members amendment explicitly addressing th possible the possible bias nature of the proposed commission members is also troubling and a member designed to address this issue was accepted during the subcommittee markup that was a step in the right direction our the amendment does not require that the members be impartial to professional expertise relating to the issue at hand and no way i am partial and i'm biased decision making i'm also concerned that we continue to second guess the decisions made by the administration faced with the realities of being attacked by a foreign country measures like this do not help move america forward the american people do not elect to be mired in the past a lot just to safeguard their future we should find ways to strengthen america not regula do learning through those mistakes increase the odds that next time we have in a passion public and one of the problems in a war is that the public and the decision makers become impassioned to the right kinds of emotions and actions are taken that might not be taken your logic and one of the things up in this country to do is to try to act in such a way that you reduce the likelihood that will make americans in the year two thousand congress passed on the president signed the wartime violation of italian american civil liberties at the build a record the attorney general just conduct a comprehensive review of the treatment by the federal government of italian americans during fired to move from their homes and were excluded from certain areas and persons of italian and assess tree but were not united states citizens were declared enemy aliens and were required to carry identification cards designating them as such in addition t report points out that these wartime restrictions were sanctioned by the alien enemy act of seventeen ninety eight presidential proclamation number twenty five twenty seven executive order nine zero six six and other regulations so i don't understand why we have to rehash the issue except that this group and their descendants want the same treatment as the japanese americans receive that is mr chairman reparations again i don't understand how monetary payment by individuals who had nothing to do with the actions of the us government during world war two and likely had not yet been born can make the situation any better h r fourteen twenty five creates a commission to again study the treatment of italian americans as well as individuals of german hungary romania and bulgaria descent  also requires that commission to issue a report on its findings well aside from the fundamental flaw of even creating such a commission the bill also contains additional flaws it directs the commission to recommend i quote appropriate remedies close quote get a lax acknowledgment of the justified reasons that existed for us for such us government activities and its findings basically direct the commission as to the outcome that it should reach as i stated previously during my statement the on the previous bill which was h r forty two the president has left the responsibility to protect the has a responsibility to protect the population from future attacks and from the theft of military and intelligence secrets and acts of sabotage by our enemies if he didn't do was accepted at the subcommittee level i appreciate that as a consequence i have a comfort level with this bill and look forward to supporting it my only concern moving forward is this if this bill were to go to the floor of the house is the potential scoring we are a country that is twelve trillion dollars in debt we are upside down so financially in this country that while i see value in being able to do this at a time with such high debt and deficit i would have trouble spending even one know i'm support of the bill the goals and ideals we're trying to accomplish here i do concur with mr king that there should this should not be an avenue or a stair step if you will to reparations but i think understanding as mr nadler and others have pointed out understanding our history of our country makes us stronger and look forward to supporting it as it's moving forward with a concern about how it might be scored the future and again thank mr wexler for his willingness to work together take the vote occurs on the king amendment all in favor say aye well opposed say no is no reparations amendment to this particular commission that would be set up by this bill for the list of different nationalities with the gentleman you i would yield discussion and here the discussion is no we're not for reparations and i think one of the reasons is because the proponents of the understand that with japanese reparations the same statement was made and it has to come in under the radar and then eventually those the bait and switch will take place and i believe that this is a bait and switch bill that sets up reparations and leaves the door open for reparations in fact that it encourages reparations because it says appropriate remedies and  amendment specifically addresses the issue of appropriate remedies and says they shall not include any monetary compensation and i had response to mr wexler wexler statement on the previous bill that it's unnecessary to have the legislation say what we mean i'm amazed by that that we can't simply adopt an amendment that stipulates that would appears to be at least the stated intent of the proponents of the bill and  i think the public would also be of it astonished mr chairman to think that this committee would refuse to codify the things we say we believe in and make the argument that well of course we already know that we don't really intend reparation so therefore there is no reason to write in the bill the intention of the commission in the first place well then there's no purpose for the bill if we already know unless we simply have to fund a commission not establish or authorize a commission it lays out the specificity specificity this commission and we need to lay out with specificity that it is that is the will and the intent of this committee that there not be reparations paid under this bill and if we do vote down an amendment that says then there are only conclusion that can place let alone the question of passing judgment from the perspective of two thousand and nine on people who made decisions in one nine hundred forty two we simply cannot have that kind of judgment i think franklin delano roosevelt did a great job in world war two i think he was instrumental and magnificent global victory and it may have been the most glorious time ever in the history of the united states and i support most of the decisions that he made he failed elsewhere but when he got to be the commander in chief in the second world war he made a lot of good decisions and america is far better for it and now we're wallowing in something that we're going to try to find some guilt that we can hold back from the 's and impose the reparations of that on the people that will be born in two thousand and ten and beyond and i think that congress that has problems in the here and now should be focused in the here and out in the future not on the past the adoption of this amendment the amendment that just simply there is nothing in the bill that provides for reparations if congress were to do such a thing it would require separate legislation would require an entirely different process none of which is in this bill both myself and the senate sponsor senator feingold have said in oral testimony and discussion to our respective committees we do not seek reparations we could not be more unequivocal i have also put it in writing to the subcommittee i do not reparation i cannot be more specific than that with respect to the commission itself the purpose is to examine the facts and circumstances of what occurred this is not an effort in finding apologies or finding fault or finding anything punitive just the opposite this is an attempt to make certain that all of the actions respect to a number of european americans there is a history that needs to be in a formal way so that we can learn from it with respect to jewish refugees in certain instances again there were actions taken that our country can learn from started by saying that the degree of appreciation and the level that e very american should feel in terms of being proud about our nation's record during world war two is an absolute and absolute but there are certain instances where in fact may have  required people of austrian or german descent to leave our country jewish germans jewish and they were required to leave and to go back into a circumstance that i think  relates to the jewish refugee commission will be related to the persecution of genocide in europe and so we added that as a result discussions with the ranking member at the subcommittee level as well as others and second as the ranking member of the subcommittee pointed out he was concerned about any financial implications so we made it clear that the one point two million dollars commissioners if this bill should pass would be established without bias and i would require that they demonstrate impartiality and i have made no prior judgment about the facts to be examined by that commission and so it strikes a world without bias  and again it clarifies the american committee the american commission must be impartial and not made a prior judgment and about the fact to be reviewed and reported by the commission and i don't want to emphasize i said i appreciate the willingness of the bill's author to work with the gentleman from utah and it is that took place before the sub committee markup to redress these concerns but i think that further clarification is necessary and that's the purpose for this amendment at this commission is stacked with members who've already determined their actions their intent then this will be going through the motions to reach a preconceived conclusion at this amendment well at least take a significant step towards ensuring that those who would be appointed to and seated on the commission would be as objective as possible and then i remember that discussion from the amendment on the previous bill on impartiality and if we have a scholar that's appointed or someone who reads it reaches the credentials of this commission is appointed who has a record of let's say calling for reparation that i would suggest that they were disqualified from sitting on this commission i think we have someone who has a clear record of having reached a biased conclusion or a conclusion that doesn't consider the arguments for each side of this and i've made some of the arguments in defense of franklin delano roosevelt i don't do that every day mr chairman but today i do and that is so i think that if we see the bias in their record that they should by the language in this amendment be prohibited from sitting on the commission and it encourages search for people who are objective and we know that we can appoint a commission and get the result we want just simply by choosing the people that sat on it and we want to avoid that if this is an objective proposal here and i do oppose the underlying bill to be the full disclosure on this because i think to go back and history how we should we should let the historians do that and not say commissioners i'm opposed to reparations i'm for impartiality and by the way i point out mr chairman that contemporary issues that we have could be using the time of this committee very well and we know that there are there is a high  level of public focus on now let's say election corruption and fraud within large public organizations including acorn and i suggest we use this committee's time for that not for this but i urge the adoption of my amendment that would require impartiality on the vote which in essence did what mr king is asking and that is the commissioners must be impartial they must have professional expertise relating to the issues addressed by the commission and they will be the people that  are chosen by the president the speaker the house and president pro tem all in concert and based on recommendations from the majority and minority leaders of the respective bodies so we've already taken care of whatever concerns there are necessary call the rules of procedure and statement of policy adopted in the subcommittee on immigration for consideration of private immigration bills and the clerk to report thank you very much as chairman i was unavoidably detained on our major and important legislation that i am totally in support of and i would like to register my vote as r thirty five ninety six i was meeting with the department of justice on some crisis issues in texas with chairman you've been to texas and you know that our criminal justice system is a challenge so  we were having that meeting and i want to vote and i also missed him and want to thank you all for that legislation and to add to the work that you've done in this committee we will be in twenty one forty one on tuesday october twenty seventh to address the question of the impact of health care reform on the uninsured and i would hope that our colleagues would join us at nine a m october twenty seventh two thousand and nine i ask unanimous consent that my vote  fourteen twenty five as i say and it seems as if i came in as you were voting on h r thirty two thirty seven as i and my last comment as chairman on both h r forty two r fourteen twenty five both of these are legislative initiatives that i support but as i indicated earlier when we had started this legislation a week or so ago the issues that you've worked on dealing with reparations issues dealing with the whole addressing of slavery in the united states all show needs to be a part of this committee's agenda moving your legislation forward and moving legislation forward that addresses those putative issues in this country that have yet to be fully addressed and supporting these legislative initiatives i think brings to mind that we have still more work to be done and i look forward to working with  is a reemphasis of the legislation that we just passed out of this committee dealing with health care and when you hear what happens to people who don't have insurance who have been dropped from insurance and physicians wi lady from texas its chairman the work that you've done and the collective members on this health insurance industry and i trust them for i'd ask unanimous consent if i might be added as they called sponsor of h r thirty five ninety six without objection we'd be