Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the ranking member for the time. Let me say at the outset. I do not believe that health insurance companies should be exempt from our Nations antitrust laws. As one of those who believes and hopes that those applauding would join me in supporting the idea of buying health insurance across State lines. when we reach that accomplishment. I think it is appropriate for us not to have a Federal antitrust exemption. When health care has been primarily and in a very real sense exclusively the province of the States. under their jurisdiction. the attorney generals of the States have retained the ability to enforce the antitrust laws of those States. So were entering a new era. I would hope. where we would be able to. if. in fact. this one Republican idea finds its way into legislative enactment. find an opportunity to extend the universe of decisions that might be accessed by individuals or their employers by way of insurance policies that may be available in other States. My intention is to vote in favor of this bill. However. my concern is that the bill before us is not nearly as good as it should be because normal bipartisan committee process has been circumvented. As has been noted by some in advancing this bill. I did vote in favor of the Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009 when it marked up in the Judiciary Committee. At that time. I offered an amendment to the bill to allow the sharing of historical data and the performance of actuarial services by insurance companies. Not future trending data but rather lookingbackward historical data. At that time. it was adopted unanimously by the committee. therefore. on a bipartisan basis. Our distinguished chairman of the committee supported my amendment. which he described at the time as "a helpful clarification." If theres one thing that we ought to understand when we have this downturn in the economy. if you want to make sure things dont happen in the private economy. insert uncertainty. If you want to make sure that things cost more than they otherwise would. insert uncertainty. And thats what we are doing by not allowing that in the bill before us. In fact. I should point out to my friends on the other side. section 262 of your health care bill. your health care bill. adopted on this floor. allowed for the sharing of such information. It contained the language of my amendment. Unfortunately. for whatever reason. it has been held out of the bill before us. Unless anyone thinks I have risen to speak because of sour grapes because my amendment with my name on it was not included in this bill. let me clarify the case. I can give you assurance that is not the case for the simple reason that I cannot take personal credit for the guts or the contents of this amendment. The truth of the matter is that the hard work done to repeal the McCarranFerguson Act began with the efforts of then Chairman Jack Brooks. Democratic chairman. in the 101st. 102d. and 103d Congresses. Ironically. at the beginning of our committee markup. our chairman described the repeal of McCarranFerguson "as a tribute to Jack Brooks." So if we really wish to pay tribute to Jack Brooks. and I believe we should. perhaps a good place to start would have been to allow an amendment to include Chairman Brookss language in any legislation before us. Im hopeful that the motion to recommit might contain that language. and I would hope that people would set aside partisan differences and support it. So aside from the issue of the denigration of the committee processand I think thats an important thing we ought to take into consideration. The subcommittee. committee. you act on this bill. You debate it. You consider amendments. You vote out the amendment on a unanimous bipartisan vote. Then you have bipartisan support for the bill as it comes out of committee. And then what happens? Its changed before it comes to the floor. And we had one of the members of the Rules Committee say she wasnt going to engage me in debate because. she said. I dont have the expertise on this issue. So I presume that means if you have expertise. and thats what committees are supposed to have. you ignore that so you can come to the floor and not allow debate utilizing that expertise because you prohibit that amendment from being considered on the floor. H.R. 4626 will have precisely the opposite effect of its stated intention if. in fact. the notion of sharing historical data is not considered appropriate and legal. The economics of the insurance industry are such that companies depend on information. Why? In order to enable them to price their products. They have to base it on something.