propose, make a statement involving big picture and ask a question involving the big picture here. i believe that most americans believe that government is either broken or asleep at the wheel. i mean, when you consider things about the present condition of congress, the sec with madoff, immigration, osha, katrina, on and on, and now we are down to the health-care issue. my question to you is, do you understand why americans may feel that government is too big to fail and too big to govern? guest: i agree that government is broken. you cite a bunch of examples that are completely legitimate examples. we have not adapted, frankly, -- or our government has not adapted took 21st century and the realities we face right now. we have not fixed the way we approach national security. we are still using a cold war approach rather than a 21st

century approach. we have not adapted to the mobility of the labor market and away the labor market works and the change in what companies are like. and that is going to have to happen. the problem we have right now frankly is that there is a much bad faith here in washington, that making any changes runs up against a brick wall. i think it would be great if we could get people from good faith from both sides of the political spectrum to hash it out. i was joking with my dad the other day that i'm actually nostalgic of chuck hagel from the senate, the republican from nebraska, because for most things most of the time, he would come to the table and try to find the best solutions for the american public. but there are far too few of those people left in d.c., particularly, frankly, on the republican side. host: darcy burner has run

twice for in the house of representatives and executive director of progresscongress.org and the progressive action fund. thank you for being with us. guest: my pleasure. >> that was all for "washington journal." join us tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thank you for being with us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker: the house will be in order. the prayer will be led by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: who sang through turbulent times, let us pray for our nation and the military. i love you, lord, my strength, my rock, my fortress, my savior, my god is a cave where i take refuge. my shield, my protection, my strong hold. the lord is worthy of all praise as i call out to be saved from all enemies. the lord came to me because i stood aright, my hands were clean in his sight. he proved loving to those who love you. you show yourself righteous with the righteous. with the sincere, you show yourself sincere. but the countrying who you

outdo in countrying for you save the humble people but humiliate the self-righteous. you, o lord, is like a lamp. my god enlightens my darkness. with you i can break through any barrier. with my god i can scale any wall both now and forever. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the chamber her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentlewoman from the virgin islands, congresswoman christensen. mrs. christensen: please join me in the pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty

and justice for all. the speaker: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: madam speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: madam speaker. the speaker: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has agreed with h.con.res 168, expressing support for the early detection month for breast cancer and all forms of cancer. the speaker: thank you. the chair will entertain up to 15 one minutes on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania rise? ms. schwartz: to address the house for one minute. the speaker: without. ms. schwartz: we are making maul investments in communities across the nation. last week the city of philadelphia received a grant to develop an integrated

bicycle network. it will be an asset to the philadelphia region. residents will benefit grateful from this trails using it to commute to work, go to school and the grocery store and will provide opportunities in the north delaware area for economic development. the fact that this project was just one of 61 projects funded out of 1,300 applications shows a substantial need for investments nationally. my democratic colleagues and i are working to create jobs, to promote clean and safe communities in which to live and work and raise our families. the speaker pro tempore: jeaths. -- the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

ms. ros-lehtinen: the death of political prisoner orlando sabata, the latest victim of the cuban tyranny, and we celebrate the 1996 murder by the cuban regime of carlos costa, mario pena and pablo morales. as they search for those who were risking their lives in the atlantic in pursuit of freedom in the united states, they shot them down in international airspace. some choose to ignore the brutality of the cuban dictatorship. introducing a bill that will reward the regime. instead, i ask that we honor the lives lost and redouble our efforts to turn their dream of a free cuba into a reality. thank you, mr. speaker. the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from the virgin islands rise?

mrs. christensen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. christensen: thank you. we want to provide health care for every american. today i am extremely disappointed to show my consternation of the inexcusable treatment of the millions of americans living in the u.s. territories that we see in the president's proposal on health care reform. rather than working to provide quality, affordable care to all americans it would leave roughly 4.5 million, a disproportionate number who desperately want or need health care. leave us out in the cold without the same consumer benefits that other americans would receive without adequate medicaid funding and thus without the same comfort that comes with knowing that you and your family will have quality health care when you need it every time you need it. the men and women in the u.s. territories are the same as those from california to vermont, from florida to wyoming, who love this nation,

pro bravely serve in war to defend it and who deserves to be treated as first-class citizens in every aspect of our democracy. this proposal fails them and fails every american who believes in equality and fairness. i call on my colleagues to -- as we move forward to honor them. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: mr. speaker, in the nesterlands it's against the law now to hurt someone's feelings. don't dare offend anyone or the speech police will cart you off to the courthouse and try you for the violation of the insensitivity law. a dutch lawmaker has made a movie of real terrorist acts, real radical islamic clerics encouraging violence in the name of hate. now he's charged with discrimination and incitement to hatred. the dutch ministry of justice has stated, it is irrelevant

while he might prove his observations to be correct. what's relevant is his observations are illegal. in amsterdam insult speech is a crime. what kind of free society says truthful speech can be illegal? speech is a universal human right granted by god, especially if the speech is political, religious. all those who believe in this should be insulted by the insensitive words by the amsterdam courts and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. baca: the american families in my district are struggling to make ends meet and pay for health care services. unemployment is 68%, foreclosures is the fourth in the nation. the proposal released by president obama this week is a step towards a healthier future for families and small businesses. health care coverage should be a right, not a privilege for

the few. that means no loss of coverage when you get sick, coverage for as many people that is possible that is affordable, due with unfair practices like pre-existing condition, lower job cost for seniors and lower premiums for early retirements, better access to strong protection for women, health care reform will create jobs and bridge down the deficit. in my state of california, the blue cross is expected to raise their premium by double digits. this must stop. let's solve the problems once and fore all. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. johnson: ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. . .

mr. johnson: the president's decided to introduce the same health care bill the public has rejected. in texas we call that paying for the same real estate twice. and the american people aren't buying it. they have been trying to tell the president in every way possible to stop the backroom decisions and secret deals. this week's so-called bipartisan summit is just more of the same. instead of pressing the reset button, the president's hosting a photo-op using the illusion of bipartisanship as a political tool is wrong. it's not fooling anyone. if the president and democrat leadership were serious about coming together on health care reform, then let's get out of the corral and start from scratch. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.

mr. klein: thank you, mr. speaker. the house is going to consider the house insurance industry fair competition act. lrbn+j bill will level the playing field by repealing the health insurance industry's unfair advantage and helping encourage competition by bringing down costs for families and businesses. everyone knows that competition drives our economy. fair competition is what encourages innovation, ensures quality service, and drives costs down and that applies to health insurance, too. unfortunately, health insurance companies are exempt from these fair competition rules. this is like your neighborhood pharmacy calling up its competitor down the street and deciding to set all their prices at the exact same amount. you can't do that. it's not fair to consumers and no other business in the united states is allowed to act that way. what's fair for every other business in this country is certainly fair for the health insurance industry. today's bill makes sken changes and i look vord -- commonsense changes and i look forward to

replacing the anti-competitive practices. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, the same team that brought america the job killing, tax hiking, cap and tax legislation appear to be at it again. just last week representatives waxman and markey began committee action aimed towards giving e.p.a. unprecedented power to enact oppressive regulations on hydraulic factoring, the technology that helps us reach natural gas which has been proven safe for 60 years. this would have a far-reaching energy impact on consumers alike particularly in formations such as the hainsville shale in my district which depends on hydraulic fracturing. in 2008 production pumped $4.5

billion invf louisiana's econom and created over 32,000 jobs. adding additional layers of regulations to hydraulic fracturing would not only result in sharp increases in costs to small and independent producers, it would dramatically decrease output and job creation. production could grind to a halt and billions of dollars in federal and state revenue would be at risk.bs we need to get away againy!z fr this crazy scheme. soir the gentleman's time has expired. -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. recently forbes magazine liked what they call the most miserable cities in the country. memphis, tennessee, was third on that list. they considered certain issues but not others. they didn't consider the bestr barbecue in the united states of america. some of the greatest music. beale street. gorgeous sunsets on the mississippi rfer. they didn't consider the people of memphis and the creativity that's emanated from there. the greatest delivery of goods

in the world, a system of freight delivery6 unrifled. st. jude's children's hospital that provides the gift of life and research into cancer. opportunities for innovation are prevalent in memphis. music fans, and elvis presley created rock 'n' roll. i invite chris buckley, my friend and forbes magazine to come to memphis and visit for themselves. memphis also has a great optometry school. sometimes it's in the eye of the beholder. maybe they'll leave with 2020 -- 20/20 vision. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cow -- mr. gao: today i pay tribute to the zulus, founded in 1909 and have been an intergrat part of the social corgs of african-american communities in new orleans for 100 years.

they are a foundation of new orleans cultural framework, participation in mardi gras and community service activities. the zulu mardi gras prayed is one of the largest attractions for the tribal costumes, the singing and dancing, and the hand painted coconuts they distribute to onlookers. in 1949 the king of the zulu parade was none other than northerly's own louis armstrong, one of the greatest contributors to african-american history and culture. in addition, thefb5uiwus have contributed to the fibers and spirit of our community through their scholarship fund, adopt a school progr!"m3bq! fairs, and other activities. they are the every man's club and i'm proud to recognize them and their contributions to louisiana's culture and history. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> permission to address the

house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, i take this opportunity to acknonl national eating disorders awareness week. millions of americans struggle with an eating disorder. we must do more to increase publicnjq9÷ awareness about ñiçó treatment. one critical step we can take one critical step we can take is to promote positive body u9ñ as we all know the media has a significant influence on girls and younggx women's perception the ideal body size and shape. 60% of girls say they compare their bodies to fashion models. a staggering 90% say they feel pressured to be thin from the fashion industry. just as we witnessed with cigarette advertisements tarring thed at young women, fashion advertising often portrays a twisted ideal of beauty. i urge my colleagues to take this opportunity during national eating disorders awareness week to work together

to promote positive body images to the girls and women in your lives and in your congressional district. our support on this issue is vital to ensure the physical, emotional, and social health of all our girls. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. kirk: i was flattered that the president chose to include seven parts of my bill, the medical rights and reform act in his latest health care proposal, he left out nearly every major reform in our centrist health care legislation, including the medical rights act guaranteeing decisions made with your doctor will be made without government interference. lawsuit reform. and granting the right of every american to buy insurance from any state in the union. if you find a plan that is less expensive for your family or your small business. the white house proposal is based on a very expensive

senate bill with half a dozen major new taxes levied in the teeth of the great recession. the new proposal would tax retirement savings, cut medicare for seniors, and add to our long-term deficit. i urge the president to start over. to invite key congressional leaders to camp david. there we could find reforms that we all support like covering americans with pre-existing conditions and present a more modest set of reforms that we all could support. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. moran: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to share the substance of an email from an active duty soldier in afghanistan. in response to an inquiry from his commanding officer related to the military's review of "don't ask, don't tell" policy, the soldier shared how he and his partner of 10 years have managed multiple deployments to iraq and afghanistan.

he explained that they survive like any couple does except because of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy his partner would not be informed in the event of his death and could not make any emergency decision that is would normally fall to a spouse. this situation is typical. even within his unit. he learned that a fellow soldier was also gay, only after he was killed by an i.e.d. in iraq. the partner of the deceased soldier wrote the unit to say how much the victim had loved the military, how they were the only family he had ever known. as admiral mullen said, this issue is a matter of integrity. this human trait, sexual orientation, like the color of one's skin, does not affect one's integrity, their honor, our commitment to their country. soldiers serving their country in combat should not have their sacrifices compounded by having to struggle with an antiquated "don't ask, don't tell" policy, let's do the right and honorable thing and repeal this policy. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. miss -- ms. speier: ann them blue cross should be a shamed of itself for raising premiums by 39%. people in my district have complained of increases as much as $2,400 a year. how can anyone afford that kind of an increase? this at a time when the insurance lobby has spent millions of dollars to defeat health care reform in america. this at a time when anthem passed $4.2 billion to the parent company wellpoint in profits alone. it's beyond my comprehension how any member of the people's house can continue to defend this behavior. it's time to demand an answer to a question asked many years ago by pete ciger, whose side are you on? -- seeger, whose side are you on? you are either with the american people or with the

insurance lobby. you either stand up for those who simply want affordable health insurance or lay down with the corporate titans who continue to care less about the american people. whose side are you on? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from -- the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: thank you. well, tomorrow the white house will convene a so-called summit on health care reform. it's supposedly an effort to find bipartisan agreement and consensus on reform. frankly, if the administration and democrats in congress were actually willing to scrap the bill and start over with a clean sheet of paper, i would be all for it. the american people long for health care reform that will lower the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government. but that's not what's happening here. instead of scrapping the bill, the president's actually produced his own bigger worse

version of the bill's -- bills that passed the house and senate and then rejected by the american people. more spending, more taxes, more government, and coverage for abortion. instead of starting over, democrats in congress continue to threaten to abuse the very rules of this institution by passing some version of their health care reform bill by a simple majority in the senate known as reconciliation. tomorrow's summit is looking more and more like a taxpayer funded media event designed to set up passage of obamacare 2.0. the american people deserve to know it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from puerto rico rise? mr. pierluisi: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. pierluisi: mr. speaker, i support health care reform but i do not support the proposal put forward by the white house because it mistreats 4.4 million americans living in puerto rico and the other u.s. territories.

they are treated like second class citizens. my loyalty to my party and my president is beyond question. but my principles and my people come first. this proposal violates my principles and it mistreats my people. in puerto rico the federal government pays less than 25% of the cost of providing medicaid services. that is a national travesty. the house took important steps to mitigate this disparate in funding, yet the white house proposal does not make a good faith effort to address this inequality. moreover, the proposal excludes puerto rico from exchange but allows noncitizen residents of the state to participate. this is discrimination. and it is no way to treat fellow americans. i do not believe this proposal reflects the president's thinking and i cannot believe my colleagues will allow it to stand. the people of puerto rico and the territories fight proudly for their country, their country should fight for them,

too. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. this administration and democrats in congress don't seem to have an answer to the single most important question workers across the country are asking, where are the jobs? the american people don't want more political pandering on the economy and health care, they want action now that will control run away federal spending and create jobs. the third time is not the charm, mr. president. when government controlled health care was introduced in the house, the american people rejected it. strike one. when government controlled health care was introduced in the senate, thm2&ñ american peo rejected it, strike two. and when the president puts his before a he table5w bipartisan handful on thursday, the american people will reject that, too. strike three. the democrats need to scrap their job killing policies like

a government takeover of health care and national energy tax and begin working with republicans on commonsense solutions to create jobs and reduce] out-of-control spending it's time we work together to get this economy moving again and help put people back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: to address the house for one minute. ask unanimous consent. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: you'd understand that the investment that this democratic congress made, along with this president, created or saved 3.5 million jobs, gave 95% of american workers a tax cut, began to build our crumbling rail and a variety of infrastructure. where are the jobs? i tell you. 4.2 million jobs were created, according to the congressional budget office, nonpartisan. $120 billion in tax cuts. the 95% of our working

families. and our businesses, loaned to our small businesses saving our creating jobs. i tell you the 400,000 jobs in correctional officers. let us ask all the firefighters and police officers across america whether or not there are jobs. mr. speaker, i will tell you that we have invested in america. we had an economy that wasn't growing when we came in, down some 6%. now, it's up. we have the jobs and we are going to do health care reform this morning. we are working for the american people. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, the administration's health care bill fails to include a republican solution that could actually have savings for parets, lawsuit abuse reform.

43% of medical malpractice suits against doctors and hospitals are without merit, according to a study by the harvard school of public health. and excess damages add $70 billion to $126 billion annually to health care costs. the department of health care and human services has found. these costs, of course, are passed onto patients. the administration has only suggested a pilot program for tort reform, but some states, including my home state of texas, have already enacted tort reform. these states has seen insurance premiums fall and access to medical care expand. we don't need a pilot program. we need to enact medical malpractice lawsuit abuse reform. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized.

mrs. halvorson: thank you, mr. speaker. where are the jobs? i think we can answer that every time we speak. in my district it's happening quite literally. i was very proud to announce $1.2 billion in recovery act funding be invested in illinois for high speed rail line from chicago to st. louis. two of the towns in my district happen to be stops along the rail line, joliet and normal. some have said and continue to say that projects like these won't put people to work, that the stimulus isn't working. well, i think here's the reality. these high-speed rail lines in illinois alone are going to put 6,000 people to work. this wouldn't have been possible without the investment in the american recovery and reinvestment act. i'm proud that the recovery act is putting these people to work and putting our communities back on the track to recovery. we must continue to invest in american infrastructure, build upon the work of the recovery

act and what it is doing, work to create these jobs. the future of our districts depend on it. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. watson: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. watson: the president is opening the doors to the white house to host a bipartisan effort on health care reform. and the reason is for hope and optimism, some think it's the other way around. it's been a long and tough process, but we always knew that tackling this problem wouldn't be easy. remember this has been tried many times over the course of many years. this is the furthest we have reached. everyone has to have an open mind for this summit. we have to leave divisive part sanship -- partisanship behind.

it transcends day-to-day politicking. everyone believes we need reform. everyone recognizes the problems in health care. there are too great to ignore. postponing putting this off, holding it over is just tactics to destroy what we have come forth with. join us, please, and let's see that we can insure all americans. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> one person died from indiana, sergeant mccrery, a plymouth, indiana, native, suffered two i.e.d. attacks while in iraq. he enjoyed fishing and a.t.v.

agency. he had a baby boy, hadley. he was only one-month-old when he died. eager to join the marine corps, jeremy graduated from high school early and enlisted in 2002. jeremy's passion for the corporation was so strong that he -- corps was so strong that he completed basic training on a broken foot. this level of commitment shown by jeremy to the corps and our country is a testament to us all. he was a devoted father and family man who paid the ultimate sacrifice serving for this country. i mourn the loss of jeremy. i want to thank jeremy and his family for his service to our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.

mr. etheridge: my constituents say they want washington to quit the bickering and posturing. big banks may reward themselves with big bonuses but american families on country roads are hurting. north carolina's unemployment rate is high for 2009 in december at an incredible 11.2%. our top priorities must be jobs, jobs, jobs. my iron act will provide an incentive for companies that they need to put people to work today and give employees up to $7,500, put new workers to work as they hire them. congress needs to take action on this bill today and put people to work. passing the hiring act will be like c.p.r. for our economy. i hope my colleagues will join me in supporting that legislation. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend, my remark. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. boccieri: i rise in recognition of the museum located in my congressional district at the akron-canton airport. i recently visited this nonprofit museum devoted to protecting our rich aviation history and the great volunteers who make that museum a reality. you know, when the wright brothers built their first plane in ohio, it was an example of american innovation. when the u.s. airborne division cleared the normandy invasion, it was great. when the military dispatched to haiti to help with the relief effort, it was an act of charity. this museum captures our rich culture. we desire to be leaders in the world and in aviation. i commend the museum for its continued inspiration to

aviation history. thank you to the soldiers, sailors and airmen who volunteer every day to keep our history alive. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. slaughter: good morning, mr. speaker. by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 1098 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 162. house resolution 1098. resolved, that upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill h.r. 4626, to restore the application of the federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. the bill shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill are waived.

the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening motion except, one, two hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. and two, one motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for one hour. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. for the purposes of debate only i am pleased to yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from north carolina, dr. foxx. all time yielded during consideration of this rule is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, like all of my colleagues, i spend a lot of time talking with people in my district about the health care and what

is happening to them. they were no way prepared for the influx of incredible rate increases that seem to come out of nowhere and fall like rain upon them to the extent that most of them really are not sure they can even stay insured. invariablely the conversation turns to health insurance. i hear about the increases. i hear about insurers that are denied coverage. i hear from a father who just had a child that was born with a child that would make him uninsurable for the rest of his life. i listen someone to tell me that her husband's new coverage won't cover her because she has pre-existing conditions or won't cover her. now the congress is on the brink of some commonsense changes to the health insurance agency that will help to level the playing field a bit between ordinary americans and giant corporations that exert such power over our day-to-day

lives. and i say our because i personally are caught in the same trap of most of my constituents. i don't have any kind of special coverage because i am a member of congress. i have always been on my husband's policy at home from kodak that has covered us since he retired but will no longer cover spouses. we are halfway through dropping spouses and all benefits for spouses were taken away four years ago. it's not the best plan but not the worse either. the insurance companies will no longer be able to deny insurance coverage based on pre-existing conditions or just premiums based on gender, which they do. you may not know that women are charged 48% more for health insurance. or for their occupation. they wouldn't be able to drop coverage if they get sick. i was talking to a man just this morning who talked about all the money he had paid in health insurance and when he made his first claim at the age

of 30 they decided already he was going to be trouble and denied his claim. it costs too much to take care of your child. insurance companies would have to publicize their rates and no longer charge older americans twice as much as younger ones. there is one part of our reform package that is simple to explain, easy to justify and 60 years overdue. and that part is to repeal the antitrust exemption given to the health insurance industry in 1945 by congress and that's why we are here today. there is no reason any industry in the united states, including baseball, which is exempt as well, should be exempt from the one consumer protection that the federal government gives everybody against inclusion, rate setting. even though the broader effort to pass the final health care

bill is under way, we have an opportunity today to make a simple straightforward statement about how we think health insurance should operate in this country. by repealing this unjustifiable exemption we will enable -- this is very important. people do not understand that during the 60 years the justice department has not been able to enforce anything against them because they were exempt. this will enable the justice department to begin aggressively enforcing the laws that protect the consumers against the cartel of health insurance who wheel outside influence in the health care industry. as it stands now the insurance industry is allowed to fix prices, enfwage in other anti-competitive behavior. . there is very little prospect

for an average family to price shop. it's truly tempting to not choose a little bit. moreover, regulating insurance industry is left up to individual states, most of them will tell you that they really are not up to it, which often suffer from a lack of resources to effectively crack down on abuses. each of the 50 states and the district of columbia has its own regulatory framework. this leads to a spotty patchwork of enforcement. in fact, according to a report from the center for american progress, there has been only extremely limited state enforcement by state insurance commissioners throughout the 60 years. insurance companies have engaged in anti-competitive behavior resulting in some insurance premiums costing as much as 70%.

as a result, this exemption that warts premarket pricing. it is impossible to defend today or any other time. what we will be doing by removing this exemption is tell the health insurance industry that they need to start behaving like every other industry. we tell them colluding and conspiring to set prices at a certain level could harm -- to harm consumers is not going to work in america anymore. as i said the history of this provision dates back to 1944 when some insurance companies went to court to challenge the notion that the federal government could enforce antitrust laws. despite their best efforts, the supreme court ruled that the insurance business was subject to antitrust laws just like everybody else. i'm happy with that decision. the insurers effectively got congress to invalidate the ruling of the top court. it was an amazing piece of

legislation, mr. speaker. both houses, senate and house, passed legislation giving the insurance industry a three-year transition period while they moved to be covered by what everybody else is covered by, antitrust. and both bills passed and when it came out of conference, the exemption was made permanent. over the years, we have been stymied. the last serious effort was led by representative jack brooks in 1991 who tried and failed to change the law. last year when we again started in a serious effort to change the law, the industry stoot up for a big fight. fr insurance association and the american academy of actuaries among others who argued that changing this law would somehow cost consumers more money. other interest groups claim the provision was poorly written,

too broad, or solution in search of a problem. interestingly, some lobbyists have quietly begun to whisper that this provision will not have impact on their rates. they say it is too narrow in scope and frankly i would much have preferred to lift this exemption from the entire insurance industry instead of just health, but they are firmly opposed, make no doubt about that, and are lobbying to prevent it which makes me wonder if they are whistling past the graveyard. let's look back for a minute at the last major investigation of the health industry. two years ago the attorney general from the state of new york andrew cuomo investigated the collusion of health insurers. they were using a billing data clearing-house to set rates even though the company is owned by one of them. the -- the evidence showed the insurers were conspiring together to oppress the reasonable and customary charges reimbursed to health care providers which shifted additional cost to the

policyholder. in the face of a threat from cuomo, the clearing-house agreed to disban and insurance companies pay a sizable sum to resolve the charges. as recently as this week there were fresh news reports out of california about abuses by a major insurer there. it is important to remember that many people assume that conspiring to set rates is illegal in our country. i suppose most people believe that. every high school student in america is taught about sherman antitrust act and the creation of the federal trade commission came about to level the playing field. part of the motivation was to make sure the small businesses who make up the backbone of our economy would have a chance against the big corporate interest. these creative producers needed confidence they would not be prosen out of the market by the big boys. sadly that's exactly what happened. in many states and regions across the country there are often just a couple of health insurance companies operating. many states have it even worse

including our neighbor of vermont where two companies have 90% of the market share. of course some people will continue to say the government should stay out of the business. my colleagues on the other side say no government is the best government and free market works best if there is no attempt to regulate it. i would argue that is far outweighed by the benefit we gain by having more competition, less concentration, and the assistance of a powerful watchdog. i strongly encourage all of my colleagues to join me today in supporting the repeal of the act. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentlewoman from new york for yielding time. i -- i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized.

ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. at the beginning of the 110th congress the new majority came to power full of promises for a bipartisan working relationship and a landmark plidge to create the "most honest, most open, and most ethical congress in history." however this rule and this bill are the antithesis of that statement. the bill we consider today, h.r. 4262, the health insurance industry fair competition act, is not the language that passed the house judiciary committee in november, 2009, as h.r. 3596. in fact, the bill we have before us today was not considered by any committee and was introduced only two days ago on monday, february 22, 2010. it's hard to understand what's the sudden rush. yesterday the gentlewoman from new york said we waited 60

years to get this bill. today she says this is long overdue. what she doesn't point out that in all that period of time the democrats have been in charge of congress except for two years in the 1950's during thizen hour administration and the years -- during the eisenhower add commrgs and the years -- administration and the years in 1966. the language in this bill is substantially different from the bill the judiciary committee passed. that bill dealt with both health insurance and medical liability insurance, but medical liability insurance has since been stricken from the language. in addition, my colleague, mr. lungren from california, offered an amendment that was accepted with bipartisan support by the house judiciary committee during markup. that amendment was stricken from the language of the

current bill that we see in h.r. 4262. during the rules committee debate yesterday, mr. lungren offered that same amendment, however it was not made in order. instead we have yet another closed rule where members are shut out from offering any amendments to a bill that did not see the property vetting process. it is high time that we open this process up and that we hold the majority to their promise to make this an open congress. and we allow amendments to be offered on the floor and fully debated. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from maine, miss pin gri, control the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. miss pin gri: --

miss pin gri -- >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. >> i thank the gentlewoman from maine for yielding the time and i also want to salute the chairwoman of the rules committee, ms. slaughter, who has been a champion for american families when it comes to standing up for their needs, especially in health care. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of h.r. 4626, the health insurance industry fair competition act and the underlying rule. it is time for policymakers in washington to determine whose side are they on, are they on the side of the health insurance companies or the side of american families and small businesses? i urge my colleagues to stand up for hardworking families across america and pass this health insurance industry fair competition act today. because the state of the current law is unfair.

health insurance companies currently enjoy an exemption from antitrust laws with no good justification. meanwhile, american families are held hostage to rising health care costs and a nagging insecurity that even though they pay their premiums and pay their co-pays, they could be canceled at any time, even when they get sick, or they are going to have to fight for the red tape to get the benefits they are entitled to. last year the five largest health insurance companies made a record $12.2 billion profit, a 56% increase while dropping coverage for 2.7 million americans. health insurers appear to be cherry picking who they will cover to make a huge profit n my home state of florida, from 2000 to 2007, health care premiums for families rose on average by 72%.

meanwhile their paychecks only went up 20% during the same time. so our action in removing the antitrust exemption will spur fair prices and real competition. again it's time to choose, whose side are you on? who will we protect? american families or the health insurance companies.oa the answer is clear. no more favors to private insurance companies. i urge a yes vote on the rule and underlying bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i now yield such time as he may consume to my distinguished colleague from california, the former attorney general of mr. lungren: thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. lungren: i thank my colleague from north carolina for the time. this is an interesting point. i don't think i have ever been on the floor in 16 years and faced this kind of a rule.

it is a closed rule, i have been here before with closed rules. but the effect of the closed rule is to prohibit me from providing or presenting my amendment. now, that's not unusual. usually you come to the and you present an amendment to try and amend the bill to change it from the way[ it was reported out of the committee that did the work on it. but in this case i am being prohibited from offering an amendment to change the7 bill back to the way it was as reported out of the committee on a bipartisan basis. for whatever reason the majority on the rules committee decidedn÷ that an amendment tha was cited by the democratic chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. conyers, as an excellent clarifying amendment,

is not going to be here.km when one of the chief co-sponsors of the bill, co-authors of the bill being presented on the floor today announced the bill last week, she said publicly that this is similar to the bill that was passed out of the judiciary committee with the bipartisan support of congressman lungren from california. so naturally i was interested-t to look at the bill that they were presenting to see how it was the same as the bill we presented. and i found out that they left out my amendment which allowed for the sharing of historical data by insurers so that they might look at the experience evidence and utilize that in making their decisions with respect to how they conducted their business going forward. i had been assured that my

amendment was not necessary because committee staff on judiciary committee had researched it and they believed that no justice department would find that that would be, that is compiling historical data among the insurers, that nobody believed that the justice department of any administration going forward would find that to be noncompetitive. and violate the anti-trust laws. i was further assured they did not believe that would be the case with any of the attorney generals of the states. now i had the privilege of serving as attorney general of my state for eight years. being a member of the national association of towns general, organization which does support legislation of this type, and of course towns general of the various states have independent authority under their state laws to enforce antitrust laws.

which i did during my eight years. . sometimes we went beyond what the federal government did because we understood better the unique circumstances of our state. i remember one time we were dealing with a merger between two large banks. they were national banks, and they had branches in the state of california. and we were working in conjunction with the antitrust division of the justice department, and we were moving in the same direction. but i remember getting a phone call from one of the attorneys that the justice department in washington, d.c., and they asked this question -- well, how close is san jose to san diego? about 400 miles. but they thought they were next to one another. and why was that relevant? that would be relevant as to whether you had competition

among the bank branches that would then be merged and would that then give increased and illegal concentration of power in those areas? the point i'm making is that attorneys general of the states may know a little bit more about their states than attorneys working as hard as they can here in washington, d.c. so the idea that attorneys general are somehow impotent from a legal standpoint such that they cannot bring forward antitrust cases is just not true. at the same time i voted for the bill coming out of committee because i thought it had in fact reached an appropriate balance. interestingly enough, the gentlelady from new york, the chairperson of the rules committee, stated in her support for this rule and in support for the underlying bill that this is really a tribute to jack brooks who attempted to do this for years.

i was privileged to serve with jack brooks, sometime who was chairman of the judiciary for sometime. and when the bill in the judiciary committee was introduced this time around, the distinguished chairman of the committee, mr. conyers, cited jack brooks and said this was the jack brooks bill. so i went back and i looked at it. and i found out that my amendment, or the language that i then put in an amendment form was in the jack brooks bill but not in the bill before us. so i brought it forward. so you might say that we are doing this in homage to jack brooks you would do him homage to put the language in this bill. and that's what i ask for, all i ask for. now, the other part of the bill that came out of the judiciary committee that is not in this bill was to remove the antitrust exemption that currently exists for medical malpractice insurance

providers. but somehow that's been taken out of this bill with no explanation whatsoever. so we have cherry picked from the bill that came out of the judiciary committee with bipartisan support and yet we claim the bill as being essentially the bipartisan bill that came out of committee. and as i said before the rules committee yesterday, sometimes you just have to learn to take yes for an answer. i support the underlying bill. i support this effort. i am trying to make it better. it was accepted on a bipartisan basis, and yet in the rules committee there wasn't one, in my judgment, credible argument why you wouldn't have it. i heard from the staff on the judiciary committee it's not necessary because no single administration will have a

justice department that finds this to be anti-competitive. and on the other hand, i hear from the chairperson of the committee, well, we don't want to give this power to the insurance companies. we want the justice department to investigate it. well, if that's the case you can't have your cake and you can't eat it too. it's either one or the other. and if it is as i was told unnecessary, redundant because nobody looking at it will find this to be noncompetitive because it is essential information. and by the way, the absence of this information will not hurt the big guys as much as it will hurt the little guys. why? because if you're a large carrier, you have a far greater experience database than if you're a small carrier. you understand the market better in terms of information that is at your fingertips. if you're a smaller provider, you need the information to understand the universe that you might be attempting to

present your product to. so we have on the one side being told that no reasonable antitrust division of any justice department of any administration will find this to be anti-competitive. then you have the chairperson of the rules committee saying, no, no, we have to keep this in here because we need to make sure that the justice department will determine this. what does it give the smaller market? it gives them uncertainty. and what you are saying you want to do you are prohibiting from being accomplished by not allowing this amendment to be considered. this is an amendment, as i might say, was described by the chairman of the committee as an excellent clarifying amendment. we are therefore removing clarification and we are replacing it with uncertainty. look, i can go down on the floor and bash the insurance companies as well as anybody here.

let's just knock them all around here. the point is we are making an adjustment in law which is good for the people, so why not do it in an intelligent way, in a way that will actually assist in the marketplace and allow greater competition? outside studies have said if in fact this information is not allowed to be shared, collected together and shared among those in the industry, it might -- they said might -- might have the impact of harming the smaller insurance carriers. so i don't know why you're doing this. i don't know if there's a political reason for it. i don't know if i am republican. i'll give it up. any republican that wants to add their name to it can add their name to jack brooks and present it on the floor, but this kind of sillyness on this floor has got to -- silliness on this floor has got to stop. you ask for bipartisan and you

throw it away. we complete bipartisanship in the committee and you ignore it. a republican member that supported this on a bipartisan basis said when that bill wasn't going to be presented on the floor, why do we need committees and subcommittees? why are we holding hearings? why have experts testify before us? if in fact somehow -- i don't know where it is. there are closed doors somewhere that decided this bill would come out besides the bill we worked on in committee and then give no good answer, it's such a shame you don't have tv cameras in the rules committee. if people could have seen the argument yesterday, if they could have -- the public could have understood what we were talking about, i mean, they would have shaken their heads and say, do the people's business. please do the people's business. don't get involved in partisanship. again, i would say -- i'd give up my name on this amendment. i'd gladly dedicate it to jack

brooks in his memory, gladly give it to any member of the democratic side. let's do the people's business and get rid of this silliness of unstated partisanship without any rational that undercuts the impact of the bill. once again, this is unique. 16 years in this place. first time i've ever come to the floor being denied an amendment that would put back in something we voted on in a bipartisan basis in committee that's been removed at the direction of somebody, including the rules committee, so that we can't have a chance to work on the product that came out of a bipartisan effort in the committee. i thank you the gentlelady for the time and yield back any time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. chair. thank you to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. and i am not going to -- i will not give you all the answers i

am you a sure you are looking for. i'm sure when this bill is debated there will be questions raised by members of the committee who sat through the debate. i sat there while this conversation was going on. i am not an expert in this particular area. i am very pleased, and i want to talk a little bit about how pleased i am that we are taking on this exemption of the insurance companies. but i did hear people say, and the reason that i voted the way i did yesterday is because i heard that the lungren safe harbor amendment was a loophole in the mccarran appeal. i heard from some that this is anti-consumer. this does not prohibit information sharing. and on the other hand, putting a safe harbor statute would immunize the insurance companies, not have a case-by-case review by the companies. mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? ms. pingree: no, i will not yield. honestly, i am not in a position to argue this amendment, but i know it will

be discussed when the bill is discussed. i want to go back to the original issue, because that's why i am standing here today, and i yield myself such time as i may consume. thank you, mr. chair. i am a proud co-sponsor of h.r. 4626, the health insurance industry fair competition act. i've seen firsthand how health insurance companies have used their exemption from antitrust regulation to profit off the backs of hardworking individuals and small business owners in my home state of maine. if you want to buy an individual policy, insurance policy in my state, it doesn't seem like you have much choice. anthem blue cross blue shield of maine became so big, swallowed up so much of the market that nearly eight out of 10 people buying an individual policy ended up with them as their insurance provider. and how did anthem reward them? with skyrocketing rate increases that are impossible to keep up with. in maine, anthem's rates have gone up 250% in the last

decade, 10 times the rate of inflation. last year they asked for a 19% rate increase, people in maine were shocked. anthem apparently was just getting started. this year they're demanding for a 23% rate increase in their rates. mr. speaker, the only thing rising as fast is premiums big insurance companies are asking for is their profits. their profits rose by 56% over the year before. i don't know but i don't know anyone else in this economy who got a 56% rate increase last year or raise. anthem has turned a deaf ear to the mainers struggling for premiums. last year our insurance superintendent denied the request, allowing them an 11% instead which seemed reasonable. so what did anthem do? they immediately turned around and sued the state of maine. as our attorney general said, in this economy, it is hard to believe the greed of it.

also last year, i learned that anthem had suddenly and quietly changed a policy that allowed them to deny claims at our state's v.a. hospital. the v.a. staff caught the switch but very quickly the hospital was out half a million dollars. you might ask yourself, how can a company get away with that? how can a company get away with denying claims for veterans and demanding outrageous rate increases while pocketting record profits? the answer is pretty simple. they don't have any real competition. i say enough is enough, mr. speaker. anthem clearly demonstrated that their monopoly on the individual insurance market in maine leaves consumers with little choice but to either pay escalating premiums or go without coverage. you'll hear this more than once today, and we already did from the chair. unbelievably, health insurance companies and major league baseball are the only two entities exempt from antitrust laws and it's high time we gave

the insurance companies a little competition. i know it's not what anthem wants. it's why they lobbied so hard against health care reform that would lower health care costs overall, and it's what the american people want. the american people believe in fair pay, a level playing field and free and open competition, not a system where one massive corporation can run rough shot over consumers. we must put consumers before companies and people before profits. h.r. 4626 is the first step in giving americans a better choice of affordable health care options. i urge my colleagues in join me in voting yes on this rule, this unamended rule, and yet on the underlying bill. i currently reserve the balance of my time, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd now like to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the rules committee, mr. dreier. mr. dreier: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you very much, and i thank my friend for yielding. i want to congratulate her on her superb management of this as well as other rules she's brought to the floor. i just don't get it, mr. speaker. my very good friend, my rules committee colleague would not yield to the author of the brooks-conyers-johnson-lungren amendment, the bipartisan agreed to amendment out of the committee because she said she wasn't an expert on this and didn't want to engage in a discussion with mr. lungren on the issue. and all we're asking is, let's not force you to have this discussion. let's allow members of this house to debate it. that's the only request that we were making. mr. speaker, the american people get it. i've been on the rules committee for many years, and many of my colleagues on both

sides of the aisle say, don't talk about process. don't talk about the ends and outs of the rules committee. people's eyes glaze over when you start doing that. . that changed when at 3:00 in the morning we were dealing with the cap and trade bill and a special rule was being reported out at that moment and a 300-page amendment, still warm off the copying machine, was dropped in our laps as we sat there. and what happened after that, mr. speaker? what happened was the mantra, read the bill, became a household term. people around the country for the first time began to focus on process and what has happened in this institution. and they were sick and tired of it. the next day our distinguished

republican leader, mr. boehner, proceeded to take his one-minute that is granted to the speaker, the majority leader, and the minority leader, and he utilized much more than that one minute. why? because we had been presented this 300-page amendment in the middle of the night, no one had seen it, and he, fortunately, took time to go through that 300-page amendment. mr. speaker, what we are having here today is a continuation of that. mr. lungren said he had a discussion with one of his committee colleagues and the bottom line that we are seeing here is, the committee process be damned. the committee process be damned is what has really come about. and to me it's a sadp commentary -- sad commentary not for republicans for democrats but the american people. this is about the american people having an opportunity, mr. speaker, i'm happy to yield to my friend. ms. pingree: i didn't have to ask and i appreciate your

offering. mr. dreier: i saw you get to your feet. mr. pingree: i knew you wanted to hear my very brief answer on i appreciate your desire to discuss the process and i hope choose to do so. i just want to clarify -- mr. dreier: reclaim my time. we would simply take a chance to offer the amendment and my friend can vote against it, the bipartisan amendment that had from democrats andr59qr republi to make sure the small insurance companies will not wl jeopardized.t that's all we are asking for. i'm happy to further yield. ms. pingree: i want to have plenty of time for my colleagues who want to talk this issue. mq9 i thought there was plenty of time for the process in the rules committee. there was a lively conversation with some of my colleagues and your colleagues, bipartisan back and forth. i disagreed. i did not think that we needed to change this exemption about data inbãthe rule, in this particular amendment. i

department -- mr. dreier: reclaiming my time. i would say, i'm happy to yield. mr. lungren: i did change it. you changed the bill from the bill that came out of committee. don't tell me you didn't want it changed. you did change it. that's the whole point we are making. the bill that we produced out of committee on a bipartisan basis that was called a clarifying amendment was taken out. so you are the folks that changed it. is this 1984 doublespeak around this place in i thank the gentleman. mr. dreier: i think the point is very clear. we have the author of a enjoyed the support of the committee chairman and others on small insurance companies.o small insurance companies. the big guys aren't going to be affected by this, mr. speaker. the idea here is to ensure that we don't see an increase in premiums or as mr. lungren said in testimony before the rules committee yesterday,

potentially these small insurance companies going out of existence. we heard democrats and republicans alike in the rules committee argue in behalf of the free market process. and we believed that we should do everything we can to ensure there is a wider range of competition, greater competition. and so what is happening is that when this rule passes, when this rule passes, it prevents an opportunity to have any chance to discuss this bipartisan amendment. so it's a very, very sad day that we continue with the process that is so closed. last year we set a record. for the first time in the 220, almost 21-year history of the republic we wept through a year without a single rule that allowed for an open debate. in fact, since my california colleague, ms. pelosi, has been speaker of the house, we have gone through now a three-year

period. and that three-year period of time save the appropriations process, we have had a grand total of one, one bill considered under an open rule. so again this is not a partisan issue. this has to do with the american people having their voices heard in this institution. so while we are supportive of the underlying legislation, this change is absolutely outrageous. so i urge my colleagues to vote no on this rule so that we can bring back some kind of positive recognition of what the framers of our constitution wanted and that is a viable committee structure. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all members are reminded that remarks are to be directed to the chair. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. chair. i do appreciate the clarification on the issue of a

change. i would just clarify my own remarks that i agreed with the sentiment that came out in this final rule that we did not need to make this exemption for the data. currently i would like to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, i rise in support of the health insurance industry compare competition act, mr. speaker. i would like to thank chairwoman slaughter for allowing me to speak today. each month we hear record profits from insurance companies and c.e.o.'s while we see health care costs rise for middle class families. one reason for this injust sprepcy is the antitrust exemption status afforded to big insurance. allowing them to create their own market and set their own prices. a middle class family that has to choose between paying doctor bills and feeding their children is not a democratic nor republican issue. and neither is, tending quality care to those who do not have it. i have 27 years of experience

in the health care industry and i can tell you there was no rational, legal, nor moral reason to grant these companies this status. in congress our top priority should be job creation and taking away insurance companies' legal trust status to improve our system in the right way by lowering insurance cost for small business owners and encourage them to create quality jobs. health care reform -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. owens: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, the debate we have been having on this rule has brought up issues that we have been bringing up this entire session. two major questions -- number one, where are the jobs? we keep asking that question. and number two, what is the other side afraid of? as mr. lungren pointed out, the bill that passed the committee

passed with a bipartisan vote. people were very happy with it. they were very happy with his amendment. and yet somewhere between that committee and here, the bill was changed substantially. we assume it was changed in the speaker's office. but we don't understand what our colleagues are afraid of. why are they afraid of debating this amendment? they can't even allow debate on something that they don't want in the bill. yet that's what the american people want from us. they are sick and tired of things being done behind closed doors. they want to see us debating things. they know we are going to have disagreements occasionally on philosophy and that's fine. that's what this country's about. but people should be able to see the debate instead of one or two people in this house making all the decisions for the 435 members of the house.

let me say a word also about, again, the underlying bill that this rule is dealing with. the bill is not going to accomplish what our colleagues across the aisle are saying. they are saying it's going to bring down the cost of health insurance and add more competition to the marketplace. in fact, the bill will probably do just the opposite. and let me say what the congressional budget office said when they reviewed h.r. 3596, they said, the bill, ost,%q%q and premiums charged by private health insurance companies. whether premiums would increase or decrease as a result is difficult to determine, but in either case the magnitude is likely to be quite small. that effect is likely to be small because state laws

already bar the activities that would be prohibited under federal law if this bill is enacted. however with the new language in the underlying bill and no c.b.o. score, there's no telling what the effect will be and the reason we don't have a c.b.o. score is because the bill was introduced, as i said, two days ago and brought directly to the floor under a closed rule. this is a pattern of the ruling party here. and ruling party is really the appropriate term because that's how they act. that's how the party acts as a ruling party. we.see the same thing happening with the new health care proposal from president obama. here we have from him what's basically a 10-page proposal which mails elements of the house and senate passed health care bills along with a few new provisions.+isñ but both of those bills were

written behind closed doors. no committee involvement or very little committee involvement. none in the senate. some in the house. but basically the bill's written in the speaker's office and in the majority leader's office. however the white house hasn't revealed any legislative text and no c.b.o. score is available. we can't pass a proposal in here. we must have exact legislative language. let me mention again the c.b.o. and its reaction to the proposal put forth by president obama. it's an article in the "washington times" entitled c.b.o., obama health bill too sketchy, which was published yesterday. i quote, the administration did no$;dp=mq the bill's text on t white house website, but outlined what the legislation would do. it said the measure would cost

$950 billion over 10 years. that's fine for the white house to say that, but we don't know that's what it's going to cost. the information wasn't enough for the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the official keeper of budget costs, to even venture an estimate of the bill's price tag. although the proposal reflects many elements that were included in the health care bill passed by the house and senate last year, it modifies many of those elements and also includes new ones. c.b.o. director said in a blog post. and the c.b.o. goes on, preparing the cost estimate requires very detailed specifications of numerous provisions and the materials that were released this morning do not provide sufficient detail on all the provisions, end quote. so we don't have the information that we need in the obama health care proposal, either. this is the way this administration and this

democrat-led congress, or democrat-controlled congress, i should say, is doing things. i now would like to yield three minutes to my colleague from virginia, mr. goodlatte. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. goodlatte: i'd like to thank the gentlewoman from north carolina for yielding me this time. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. goodlatte: mr. speaker, i believe in enforcing our nation's antitrust laws. and this bill has been improved since judiciary committee consideration. however this legislation is still flawed and in my opinion is meant to distract attention away from the fact that the majority is not working on the real issue the american people want us to address. americans want policies that will reduce premiums and increase the quality of health care services in the u.s. unfortunately, it is questionable whether this bill will accomplish these goals. i am also very disappointed in the rule for this bill which

was closed from the beginning and blocks well-intentioned amendments offered by republicans to make the bill better. specifically an amendment was offered by representative dan lungren, a fellow member of the judiciary committee, to allow small health insurance companies to continue to be able to share historic lost data so that they can compete with big insurance companies. under the text of the current bill, this type of sharing would be illegal, which would hinder new and smaller companies from entering the market, competing with the big guys, and offering lower premiums. the shocking thing is this amendment was actually adopted in the judiciary committee on a bipartisan basis. the provision was then stripped by the majority in this new bill. so stifling this amendment today represents the second time the majority has blocked representative lungren's amendment which had bipartisan support and which would have likely reduced health care premiums for citizens. .

instead of bringing flawed legislation to the floor we need to work together to allow citizens to take their health insurance across state lines if they move, legislation to help those with pre-existing conditions find affordable coverage, and legislation to curb frivolous lawsuits against doctors which drive up health insurance premiums and provide increased cost due to defensive medicine. the american medical liability system is broken. according to one study, 40% of claims are meritless, either no injury or no error occurred. attorneys' fees and administrative costs amount to 40% of the compensation fade to plaintiffs. completely meritless claims which are nonetheless successful one in four times quat for a quarter of the total administrative costs. defensive medicine is quidely practiced and costly -- widely practiced and costly.

skyrocketed insurance rates have distorted -- costly and unnecessary tests have become routine as doctors try to protect themselves from lawsuits. according to a 2008 survey conducted by the massachusetts medical society, 83% of physicians reported they practice defensive medicine. another study in pennsylvania put the figure at 93%. while estimates veryy, the pacific research institute put the cost of defensive medicine at $124 billion. others arrive at higher figures. i urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield four minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. you know, during this health care debate over the last six months we heard we should listen to our constituents, and you know, i did.

i did 14 town halls in august, and they were attended by over 8,000 people. and there was one agreement between the folks representing the tea party and those representing single payer. and that was consensus that this industry, the health insurance industry should not enjoy a special exemption under the law. they should not be able to clued to drive up -- collude to drive up prices, price gouge people. they should play by the rules. and this archaic exemption by antitrust laws passed in the 1940's should go to the dust bin of history. there was consensus on that. now come the republicans. oh, wait a minute. we're not protecting the industry. we don't want to allow to still have antitrust exemption. it's about the little guys. it's always about the little guys, isn't it? so let's give the little guys a loophole and oh, way a minute,

the big guys can use the same loophole. the other thing i heard is, let's be bipartisan. well, there's not much bipartisan than the modernization commission from april of 2007. this was a commission created by the republican congress when they controlled both the house and the senate and the white house with the members named by george bush and the republican leadership of congress. they came to the conclusion that this loophole that they're advocating here today should not, empty. and i'll quote briefly from the conclusions of the bipartisan republican-created commission. they said, a proposed exemption should be recognized as a decision to sacrifice competition. oops, i thought they were for competition. and for consumer welfare. thought they were for consumers. and should be determined by congress the-count value

outweighs the favor of competition and widespread benefits it provides. they go on to address their arguments and they say, there are those who will argue the small companies to use data. no, this again is the republican-created commission. like all potentially beneficial competitor collaboration generally, however, such data sharing would be assessed by antitrust enforcers and the courts under rule of reason analysis. they will fully consider the potential pro-competitive effects of such conduct and condemn it only if on balance it was anti-competitive. insurance companies would bear no greater risk than companies in other industries engaged in data sharing and other collaborative undertakings. to the extent that insurance companies engage in anti-competitive collusion, however, they would then be appropriately subject to antitrust liability. mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. defazio: a safe harbor that is so big that the justice

department could never review it. they're objecting to the fact that the justice department might look at, investigate the activities surrounding data sharing and potential collusion by the industry that continue to price gouge consumers and benefit unreasonably and profit unreasonably. they want to create that loophole. that loophole is unnecessary. if you adopt that loophole, we might as well just not pretend that we care about consumers, consumer welfare and we are going to meaningfully address this industry playing by the -- mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. defazio: no, i will not yield. mr. lungren: thank you for your courtesy. fasthas this industry should play by -- mr. defazio: this industry should play by the same rules as others. plain and simple. americans get that. they're not happy seeing their premiums doubling at a rate every three to five years. they know they are being taken to the cleaners. they know the industry is trying to cherry pick.

they know there's anti-competitive activity going on. it's time to change. no loophole. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: for 65 years, health insurance companies have enjoyed a special interest exemption from laws that prohibit price fixing, big rigging and carving up the market. consumer insurance premiums go up while coverage gets worse and worse. over the past six years health insurance premiums have increased the rate four times the increase in american average workers' wages. you know, 27 years ago as a young texas state senator i authored the texas free enterprise and antitrust act.

but one industry, one industry alone to all others was exempted because of this federal law. so action about anti-competitive practices of one industry, the insurance industry. and we see the results. in the last decade, insurance premiums, health insurance premiums in texas have gone up over 100%. protecting consumers and fostering competition are american values. families and small businesses will benefit when the health care industry have to compete like other industries. this will reform at a newly reinvigorated department of justice who forget about it under the bush administration. together we can now have oversight that was overlooked for eight years under that administration. hopefully president obama will correct a major omission in the health care legislation that he's proposed by including this

vital reform, repeal of the antitrust loophole for the health insurance industry. it's time for competition. it's time for open markets and it's time to block the closed door collusion that americans are paying for in higher and higher premiums by letting competition work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: mr. speaker, members of the house. we have before us a very simple but extremely important proposal by our republican colleagues to provide the insurance industry the opportunity to continue to collude, set prices and to harm the consumers. call it a safe harbor.

it's indeed a safe har door bore to do what a -- harbor to do what is illegal in every single industry except for baseball. so why should we approve what the republicans want here? no good reason at all. competition is necessary. a safe harbor is specifically designed to allow the insurance companies to continue to gather specific information that they then use to set prices and to collude and to harm the consumers. now, as well as the providers. there are two cases out there over the last decade in which the industry has clearly colluded and harmed providers. a case in new york and another case taken against the -- that was put against the insurance companies by the doctors. this proposed amendment by congressman lungren would harm both the providers as well as the consumers and provide a safe harbor to do what is illegal in every other part of

the american economy. that is to set prices. we ought not to it. we ought to put this aside. i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: yes. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman yield? does the gentleman yield? millender-mcdonald will the gentleman yield? gare -- mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. garamendi: yes. mr. lungren: utilizing this information, that would still be prosecuteable under the amendment that i suggest because it is prosecuttable by the states? mr. garamendi: the proposed amendment opens the doors for collusion. it gives the tools for collusion to the companies. we ought not do it and there's no reason any any other part of

the american economy that such collusion and such an open door and invitation to collusion -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i will give the distinguished gentleman from california 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. lungren: they say they have no expertise, but i did spend eight years as attorney general in the state of california. we had the most active antitrust public law office in the country other than the u.s. justice department. i might just say, this is the first time i ever heard that jack brooks was presenting legislation on the floor of the house or in judiciary that was to protect insurance companies or allow collusion. the language i use is taken by the jack brooks bill. the language i use is specifically the language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis and said by the chairman of the judiciary committee was an excellence clarifying amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. garamendi: when my colleague from california was attorney general i was insurance commissioner. we had a grant fight over this very issue. the very issue of whether the state of california would allow the insurance companies to continue to use rating bills to get their price information and to continue to set prices in what could be a collusion. we put that aside. the regulations that i put into effect were adopted, and the end result was when they could no longer use a rating bill which this proposal would allow was that the prices began to drop and homeowners and auto insurance -- in homeowners and auto insurance in california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman. mr. lungren: under this bill, the state actions still apply,

state action principle still applies. states can do what they will, including what the gentleman talked about before. this is a red herring. this is so silly that you would take something that got bipartisan support unless you're suddenly suggesting that the chairman of the judiciary committee has a secret plan to somehow allow the insurance companies to gouge people and jack brooks had that secret plan. this is total nonsense. to bring a bill to the floor and take out an essential element from committee and then suggest when you want to put it back in the committee's provision is -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from north carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: i yield a minute and a half to the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for one minute and a half. mr. scott: thank you, ms. pingree from maine, for allowing me to speak. mr. speaker, this is an important, important issue. it is at the crews balance of this entire debate on health

care. and it is this, we must bring down the cost of health care. and in a free economy, the surest way of bringing down the cost of a product or a service is through competition. the antitrust laws were put on the books. john d. rockefeller broke that up so we could bring competition. here we have now almost 100 years later the only industry that is exempted from antitrust is the insurance industry, the health insurance industry. surely we can agree on this. mr. speaker, let me just say one other thing, too, to my friends on the other side of the aisle. there was a great republican who said a house divided against this structure will surely fall. but this nation is tired of seeing us divided. they want to see us find something, one or two things that we can agree on. america is yearning for republicans and democrats to

come together on something that will help bring down the cost of health care insurance, and nothing will be more surely to do that than to remove this exemption from antitrust that is beholden to the insurance company. . we can agree to bring down the cost of health care insurance by bringing down this exemption. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: i am the last speaker on this side so i will reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. scott just made mr. lungren's case for him as far as i'm concerned. he just said, we want to work together on issues.

mr. lungren said that's what we have done, a bipartisan amendment passed. the democrats took the bipartisan amendment out of the bill. we want to work together. many republicans are going to vote for this bill. i hope they won't vote for the rule because it's a bad rule, but they will vote for the bill. the democrats time and again count their plan will increase competition and lower premiums. we don't think that's true. i want to urge the american people to read the summary the white house has put out on their bill and see the increased federal control of health care in this country. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maine is recognized. ms. pingree: thank you very much, mr. speaker. thank you to my colleague on the other side of the aisle. we have heard a variety of reasons and excuses today about this -- why this bill shouldn't pass, about whether it was about the committee process or a loophole. debating it back and forth. the fact is we cannot have meaningful health care reform in this country until we finally decide to put an end to

insurance greed and monopolies. we must stop allowing companies like anthem to demand rate increases that are many times the rate of inflation which put health care insurance out of reach for many, many americans. i urge a yes vote on the previous question and on the rule. i yield back the balance of my time. i move the previous question on the resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. all time having expired, without objection, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the resolution is agreed to. the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. foxx: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise. a sufficiennumber having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes

by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on adoption of house resolution 1098 will be followed by five-minute votes on the motions to suspend the rules on house resolution 1074 and house resolution 944, if ordered. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] t?

guest: i hope we do see engagement by it -- by republicans and democrats. it would be nice to see broader support. as long as the legislative or is

are committed to bringing down the cost -- legislators are committed to bringing down the cost i hope we can come to a broader consensus. host: the gop responded in a press conference, that they expect little from obama's health reform. but that throw up a roadblock? guest: if you look in the past, republicans have been opposed to comprehensive health care reform. they have not really brought up any suggestion that would bring down cost and by affordable health care for all americans. i think we are very close to getting this done. the house and senate have both passed bills. the senate has come in -- the president has come out with his proposal that bridges the differences. we will be the last industrial nation in the world that will finally say at last that healthcare is a right.

host: you are for reconciliation for the public option? guest: i think it is the way we will ultimately get the bill done. i think it is difficult to get 60 votes in the u.s. senate and reconciliation allows us to have the majority make the decision. host: you are for reconciliation, period, and you did not foresee it public option? guest: i think the public option would help bring down costs. i should point out that the senate bill that passed, although it is not as strong on the public option than the house, it does provide for qualified plans to be available and guaranteed to be available. host: be you think reconciliation would be a blow to bipartisanship? guest: it has been used many times over the years by both democrats and republicans. it is a way to move forward in a way in which the majority gets to make the final decisions. reforming our health care system

will bring down health-care costs, it will help us balance the budget in the future, so it is an important policy and that is what reconciliation was designed to the. host: there is a letter in circulation that some democrats signed onto, that would support the use of reconciliation with a public option. you have not yet signed on to the letter. you have any intention? guest: i am for the public option, i'm for the issue of reconciliation. i cannot make it clear. when the president said he supports the senate bill, that is the most likely result to move forward. host: let us the right to our callers. republican line from stafford, virginia. caller: my comment is, as everyone knows, dick cheney was in the hospital with another heart attack and many people did not realize that once you are elected to washington or appointed, those officials, even if they have one term, have

lifelong life insurance at the taxpayers' expense. what the harvard medical report indicating 122 americans are dying every day in this country because they do not have access to health care, what would you say that urgency is on the democrats' part knowing they will have to overcome the republican roadblocks in making sure that people who don't have çaccess to taxpayer health care get the care that they need -- a 122 a day is outrageous. guest: members of congress like federal employees is under the federal employee health benefit plan and when they retire they are entitled to retirement benefits like any other federal employees. it is a good plan and we want to make sure all americans have access to the type of coverage federal employees have and members of congress have. our objective is to provide that kind of option, the choice to

every american, that they have access to affordable and quality health and -- health insurance and health care. host:, laura, democratic collar -- caller. caller: it is a pleasure i can actually speak to you. i grew up in maryland, a recent transplant to south carolina and i miss it so much i think i want to come home. guest: but not missing the snow, i tell you that. caller: i don't miss that. i am glad to hear you speak so much in favor of the public option. it is something that i have signed petitions for, talked to people about. when you look at all of the polling, the majority of the american public i think is really in support, with the exception of a few states.

i worry so much that the democrats are going to make a mistake if they pass this health care bill without some even scalpriform of a public option because -- skeletal form of a public option because of the and there of not simply insurance companies -- because of the gang their act not simply insurance companies but anyone who has been taken advantage. the middle-class, working poor. this would be one little thing. guest: medicare is a public option. it is a very popular program. i agree that a strong public option would help provide not only access to affordable care to all americans but help bring down the overall health care costs in this country. the bills we are working on will have major private health insurance reform, to prevent insurance companies from

discriminating based on pre- existing conditions, automatic renewal ability. we will have exchanges so there would be options available, multiple options available to everyone, whether an individual trying to find insurance or a small business owner. i think you will find that many of the concerns of why we have been so strongly in favor of the public insurance option is being taken care of either in the senate or house bill or what the president is suggesting as a compromise. i agree, i am disappointed we could not have a stronger option but i think at the end of the day if we get the bill but you will be pleased. host: what do democratic congressman and white house need to be willing to negotiate on? guest: the president laid out a marker and i think it has been well received by both the players in the house and senate. as far as the democrats and republicans, you really need to ask the republicans that question.

what are they going to bring to the table? we are not exactly sure what they will bring. but if they bring forward a good faith a recommendation that brings down the cost of health care and provide an affordable quality health insurance -- health insurance option to everyone in america, does it within the budget, then we have something to negotiate. they don't do that, i think we will be with the president's marker and that will be the game to get it passed. a host of baltimore, maryland -- host:, baltimore, maryland on the democratic line. caller: i am a constituent. i need you to comment on the ever-increasing rates on the health-care issue. we look to california and we see 39%, that is outrageous. that is absolutely ridiculous. will you deal with that -- when you have the meeting tomorrow or your counsel, can you address the outrageous hits we are getting what increases as well as denial of services?

the other point i had out you -- for you. acorn issue. if you could please comment briefly on that because the guy who called themselves exposing a

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 238, the nays are 181, the resolution is adopted. without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from new york, mr. mcmahon, to suspend the rules and agree to h.res. 1074 on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1074, resolution honoring the life of miep gies who aided anne frank's family while they were

in hiding and preserved her diary for future generations. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of caller: nice to speak to you.

i like c-span, because i did not i would have to leave a message for you instead. i have a way to get a single payer public option. on the website,www.democ ratz.org -- democrats with a z.

nobód6 -- people need to take their political fight to some of the companies that give money to conservatives. for example, for the single payer public option, although what page -- host: adjusted to the point of your content. caller: people are going to boycott write it corp., a conservative contributor, inveterate one, and they are going to e-mail from that position -- people are going to boycott rite-aid. either you will give us a single payer public optionç or we refe to buy from you. the weakness for the conservative movement is the cash registers of those a give them money. guest: i agree with the caller, i am for a strong public option. fcess as compromising but not the principles. if you take a look at the

provisions of the senate bill you will find many of the goals of the public option are incorporated in that legislation. much more competition, many more restrictions on what private insurance companies can do, subsidies to help low-wage workers to be able to afford health insurance, more opportunities for small companies and individuals entering the marketplace, guaranteed products available for everyone so you will have choice. so those who have been advocating for the public option, they have had a major t(impact on the bill being considered in congress and if we can get the senate bill with the modification the president talked about enacted into law, i think you will be pleased with a framework in bringing down health-care cost of making sure there is a plan available for every person in this country. host: let's go to maine, where ben as on the independent line. caller: senator cardin, thank you, and i want to let you know

as a person who seems to have no voice, i want to let you know i feel you are doing the right thing. again, thank you. guest: thank you for the comments. this is certainly an issue that has been around for awhile, time to get it done right. pete host: howard, a republican line from california. caller: good morning, senator. can you give me a quick explanation of what you mean as the public option, and then i have a follow-up question. guest: the public option as originally proposed means there would be a plan that would be sponsored by the government -- it would not be subsidized by the government. it would be a plan where the premiums would pay the full cost. but it would not depend upon private profit motive. it would have a guaranteed benefit. it would be here forever. you don't have to worry about a private insurance company

leaving the market. it would be here and be a reliable plan, and affordable plan, and would be a comparison between what is available to the public sector versus private competition. it gives you a guaranteed product. much of that has been incorporated into the bills moving forward. in the senate bill, there are certain benefits every private insurance company will have to offer. there are exchanges either sponsored by the state or region that will give you different there are provisions in the public option that have been incorporated into the senate bill. the one that the president's -- president has indicated the way he would like to proceed. but a true public option is similar to medicare, where it is sponsored by the government, the premiums -- have a -- how to pay for it is in for private insurance.

caller: is medicare doing fine financially? we go back to the great society and the war on povertyç in -- d these social issues that the democrats seem to ask for, and my only question as a conservative is basically how are you going to pay for it? excuse me -- we all understand we want the best for every american. we don't want poor people going into emergency rooms and bringing up the bill for everyone else. pulling the wagon instead of in the wagon. host: i will go to the senator -- guest: i wanted to make the point on medicare which is a public insurance option, and we have private insurance. same doctors and hospitals, private doctors and hospitals. the same quality.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 421. the nays are zero. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspend the rules and agreeing to house resolution 944, as amended. which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 944. resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives on religious minorities in iraq. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative -- the gentlewoman from maine. ms. pingree: mr. speaker, i ask

for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 415, the nays are three. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion is reconsidered and laid on the table. without objection the title is amended. would members please take their conversations outside the chamber?

members and staff are asked to take their conversations outside of the chamber. the speaker pro tempore: would the members clearly take their conversations outside of the chamber?

the speaker pro tempore: members are asked again to please take their conversations outside of the chamber. thank you. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 1098, i call up h.r. 4626 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4626 a bill to restore the application of the federal anti-trust laws to the business of health insurance, to protect competition and consumers. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 1098, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, and the gentleman from texas, mr. smith,

will each control 60 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, insert extraneous material on h.r. 4626 and i further yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, will the gentleman suspend? the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker and my colleagues, the bill before us will allow for the first time competition to take hold in the health insurance marketplace, an important and vital step in the road to fixing our broken health insurance system and containing costs.

i want to commend in particular my colleagues tom perriello of virginia and betsy markey of colorado for working with our committee on this important effort. now experience has shown that congress, and we hate to admit having made mistakes in the past, but that we did make an error in 1945 in adding an antitrust exemption into the mckaren-ferguson act at the last minute during the debate. not many of you were here at that time and neither was i but leading consumer groups and senior citizen groups, state attorneys general and others have been for years urging that we in the legislature fix this error that has been made so long

ago. the bipartisan anti-trust modernization commission made by this body and president bush in 2002 echoed this call in its 2007 report. and now as we work to fix what everyone mostly agrees is a broken health insurance market, it's about time to bring into that market what's a social ingredient of any well funking market, competition -- functioning market, competition. and the way we make sure that happens here is the same way we make sure that it happens in every other industry, to have the anti-trust laws apply. these laws are the principle protector of free market competition and the prosperity

that it provides. the principles guarantee that businesses who want to offer choice and value to consumers can do so. the blanket anti-trust exemption that the mckaren-ferguson act shields health insurance companies from legal accountability for fixing practices for dividing up markets and customers they serve so as to deny meaningful choice and using thereby monopoly power to sabotage anyone who seeks to offer meaningful competitive choice to consumers. this, ladies and gentlemen, must end. the anti-trust actions alleging each of these practices and more have been blocked routinely in

the courts by invoking the mckaren-ferguson anti-trust exemption and that's what we're here to repair today. now, an antitrust expert, attorney david balta, with the anti-trust enforcement experience, he has acquired both the united states justice department and the federal trade commission has found that state insurance commissioners have not brought any actions in any state against health insurances for added competitive -- anti-competitive conduct during the last five years. health insurance premiums continue to spiral ever upward each year. the co-payments and deductibles

keep taking further bites out of tight family budgets. those families have a right to know that they're not being victimized by insurers any longer who should be competing to offer them choice and value but instead are unfortunately conspiring against them. in the ruling the united states supreme court refers to the anti-trust laws as the magna carta of free enterprise, the health insurance industry should not be exempt from that cedeow. the judiciary committee has been working to move this harmful exemption for a number of years. we made a lot of headway since the distinguished chairman of our former colleague jack brooks

of texas who headed the committee after peter rodino and after manny emanuel seller. so the time to complete this effort in the area of health insurance since this is the number one subject legislatively before us being watched carefully by everyone in the nation and so last fall the judiciary committee reported a similar bill which was incorporated into the comprehensive health care bill passed by the house. and so i commend my colleagues perriello and markey for their leadership in bringing this effort back to the house for as today a free standing measure. the more and more people having to choose between having health

insurance or food on the table, this is about time the health insurance companies cozy anti-trust exemption be taken off the books. so i'd urge all my colleagues to support this long overdue pro-consumer legislation that will effect citizens and families in every state and at this point i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, h.r. 4626, the health insurance industry fair competition act, unfortunately doesn't do much. in fact, it has all the subs stance of a soup made by boiling the shadow of a chicken. in his state of the union address on january 27, president obama challenged congress to create a plan that, quote, will

bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen medicare for seniors and stop insurance company abuses, end quote. the administration's health care plan does just the opposite. it increases premiums, increases taxes and reduces medicare benefits for seniors. well, today mckaren-ferguson repeal bring down insurance premiums? no. the congressional budget office says that, quote, whether premiums would increase or decrease as a result of this legislation is difficult to determine but in either case the magnitude of the effects is likely to be quite small, end quote. so what's the point of the bill? c.b.o. goes on to say that premium reductions from the bill are likely to be small because, quote, state laws already bar the ac tiffs that would be prohibited under federal law if this bill was enacted, end quote. so what's the point of the bill?

the national association for insurance commissioners pointed out that big bid rigging, price fixing and market allocation, quote, are not permitted under the mckaren-ferguson act and are not tolerated under state law. indeed state insurance regulators actively enforce prohibitions in these areas, end quote. so, again, what's the point of the bill? the mckaren-ferguson's act simply allows small and medium sized insurers to aggregate information for underwriting purposes so they can compete effectively against larger companies. in other words, mckaren-ferguson helps promote competition by making small and medium sized underwriters viable. eliminating the exchange of data provision that was included in earlier versions of this bill likely will impede new entry into the health insurance markets. this means that there could be less competition among health insurers.

that said, i believe, as does the anti-trust modernization commission, that anti-trust exemptions should be rarely granted or created. and if they are necessary they should be written in as limited a way as necessary to meet a compelling public policy goal. i can understand why some of my colleagues may want to support this bill and given that it will have no meaningful impact i don't oppose it. however, when repealing an existing anti-trust exemption we should be careful of the unintended consequences of our actions. 7 c16 c13 eliminating medical malpractice insurers goes a long way towards making this bill more reasonable. however the majority should adopt further changes to this bill to demonstrate that they are more interested in legislating than in targeting an unpopular industry for no real policy reason.

specifically the legislation should be amended to define the term "business of health insurance." second, we should reinsert the exchange of data provision added in the bill in committee. finally, we should clarify that this bill will not impinge upon state insurance regulations. none of these concepts are revolutionary. they were all included in earlier versions of this legislation that were passed by the house. that said, if the majority really wants to help consumers, we should consider a measure that could actually achieve savings for patients, medical malpractice, tort reform. according to a study by the harvard school of public health, 40% of all medical malpractice suits against doctors and hospitals are, quote, without merit. so every doctor must purchase malpractice insurance at great expense to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. a department of health and human services study found that

unlimited excessive damages adds $70 billion to $126 billion annually to health care cost. and doctors were so concerned about frivolous lawsuits that they have to practice defensive medicine in -- and order unnecessary tests and procedures. h.h.s. estimates the national cost of defensive medicine is now more than $60 billion. all these expenses are then passed on to patients in the cost of health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman can resume. thank you. the gentleman from michigan, i suspended the gentleman from

texas because he could not be heard. to quiet down the chamber. it's still the gentleman from texas' time. he has not yielded back his time yet. mr. smith: thank you, madam speaker. that's why some states including my home state of texas had enacted tort reform to limit the amount of excessive damages in frivolous lawsuits. the results? insurance freedomums have fallen at availability of medical care has expanded. but this bill will do nothing to reduce the cost of health care. congress should setaside this bill and take up lawsuit abuse reform which could reduce health care costs for our constituents. madam speaker, i support this unfortunately ineffective bill and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself a minute before i yield to sheila jackson lee.

because my dear friend, the ranking member, asked what is the point of this legislation? we made a long list of points of this legislation, but to begin with, it's to increase competition in the health care industry. and it also is to shine a light on industry practices that are currently unavailable and undetectable because of the exemption. that's why we are on the floor today. i yield now to a distinguished member of the committee, the gentlelady from houston, texas, sheila jackson lee, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for three minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank the distinguished speaker. i thank the distinguished chairman. i rise to announce to the american public and to this body that as we stand here

today over a year's time, 45,000 americans die because they don't have health insurance. they don't have health insurance because the premiums have literally spiraled beyond any imagination. so today we are rising to create an opportunity for americans to live, for lives to be saved because competition is the engine not only of the economy but it is the engine of better health care for all americans. an example that shows how increased premiums are the complete opposite of commitment and service to our constituency. when the state of california passed a law in 1988 that eliminated the state antitrust exemption for the auto insurance industry, auto premiums for consumers in california rose 9.8% when the rest of the land and the nation were going down. the consumer federation of america said consumers would save over $50 billion in insurance premiums by repealing

the 1945 mccarran-ferguson act. i thank the distinguished colleague from our judiciary committee, for his leadership, along with many others, removing the antitrust will not only enable appropriate enforcement against these unjust practice when is they are uncovered, it will also give all health insurance companies healthy competitive incentive so you as a family of four, as a grandmother, single parent can get the insurance possible as we move forward in health insurance. the attorney general of new york in his investigation found that insurance companies engage in collusion. that's why we need this. we want to break the rules so we can help doctors with lower premiums and medical malpractice and shielding our constituency from these godforsaken prices. let me tell you that we have seen this inaction. in the ocean state physicians health plan versus blue cross and blue shield, citing this act, this antitrust prevention

act, the jury overturned the first circuit overturned a jury verdict against a dominant health insurer for using its power to put financial pressure on area employers to refuse to do business with a competing h.m.o. the first circuit because of the exemption blocked any opportunity for competition. we need to change this. and we have found that this collusion is hurting us. and so, madam speaker, i would say to you that in order to save lives like the lives in my 18th congressional district where texas is the poster child for the most uninsured, $1.1 million, it has the dubious honor of being the largest uninsured state in the nation and my county, harris county, as we fight over and over for health insurance does not have people who are insured. so this will help bring along with the health reform that we will pass in the next couple weeks, the idea of saving lives and providing for our children and our families. mr. chairman conyers had the

single payer bill that was the initiative that should have gone forward. now we have a way of saving lives. this is fiscally secure, i ask you to support those in need. i ask you to support this legislation to save lives. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: i yield myself one minute. madam speaker, let me say that i always appreciate what my colleagues say on the house floor and their good comments during the debate. to the extent they want to increase competition among insurance companies and reduce insurance premiums i completely agree with them. but we should not think that any of those comments or any of those desires or any of those goals have anything to do with the bill that we are considering here today. once again in case my colleagues missed it, let me say what the congressional budget office said about this legislation. whether premiums would increase or decrease as a result of this legislation is difficult to determine, but in either case

the magnitude of the effects is likely to be quite small. so this bill has no point. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from wisconsin, the former chairman of the judiciary committee, mr. sensenbrenner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for three minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: thank you, madam speaker. listening to the arguments that have been advanced by the proponents of the bill, all i can say is what you hear is not what you're going to get if this bill is enacted law. there is a reason why this antitrust exemption has survived now for 65 years. and that is is that it actually has encouraged competition because it allows smaller insurers to use the actuarial data that larger insurers are able to amass. and if the smaller insurers can't get this actuarial data, which is what will happen if this bill is enacted into law, then it will either be gobbled up by the larger insurers that

get the data in house or they'll go out of business. and as a result, there will be less competition rather than more. so what you hear today about competition is not what you're going to get if this exemption is repealed. now, repealing the limited exemption that the house insures carriers have under the mccarran-ferguson act is that it's going to change little and worse going to be counterproductive. as the c.b.o. concluded in october, repealing the exemption would have little or no effect on insurance premiums. little or no effect on insurance premiums. because state laws already bar the activities that would be prohibited under federal law should the bill be enacted. instead, additional regulatory burdens on insurers will likely be passed down to the policyholders in the form of higher premiums. this, my friends, is the majority's higher health insurance premium bill in the

name of competition. it's not going to happen. the bill would subject to new federal enforcement a variety of ongoing collaborative practices among health insurers currently permitted by the states because they allow the small insurers to compete. shouldn't we be force -- for small insurers? shouldn't we be for having new companies enter the market? this bill will prohibit that. small insurance companies rely on the data collect interested their larger competitors and shared industrywide to accurately set their rates. however this would be forbidden under the bill. small insurers can't get the data for their consolidation is likely. small insurance will either merge to gain a competitive edge or get swallowed up by the big insurance gines. again the majority is putting together an insurance company consolidation bill. less competition rather than more. and worse, a repeal could

result in the small insurers going out of business altogether. meanwhile, for the big insurance companies, the big bad insurance companies with the means to collect and analyze this data in house, it would simply be business as usual. this legislation attempts to solve a problem that doesn't exist. first, there's no evidence that the exemption has increased health insurer's prices or profits -- two more minutes. mr. smith: i yield two more minutes. mr. sensenbrenner: or contributed to higher market concentration. second, the effort to repeal mccarran-ferguson is based on the belief that it allows individual insurers to collude on prices and policy coverage. state laws prohibit insurers from bid rigging, price fixing, and market allocation to restrain competition. state insurance regulators actively enforce the prohibition in these areas. and this legislation would only add another layer of federal

regulation and litigation to an industry that operates under a robust and well established state regulatory regime. there are ways, however, to promote competition in the health insurance market. one change congress should consider is to permit individuals and businesses to buy their health insurance policies from any willing provider in any state. under current law, insurance firm registered in one state may not cover individuals in another without registering in the second state and being subject to all its taxes and laws. this raidses -- raises the cost of doing business across state lines and prevents many smaller or mid-sized companies from entering the markets to compete. simply put, this is not the type of reform that is needed. and not the type of reform that americans were promised. i challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, madam speaker, to come up with secretary of defense -- commonsense reforms, one that will do, in fact, what appears in speech.

this bill fails on both counts and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. the former chairman emeritus has raised a number of points that amount to jew -- verbal jew zit sue i will go through shortly. for now i recognize the distinguished chairman of the judiciary subcommittee on courts and antitrust, a former magistrate in the courts, subcommittee chair, hank johnson, for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for three minutes. mr. johnson: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker, last week i was shocked to learn that in the shocked to learn that in the middle of the