great recession, which was caused by the deregulation, hands off policies of the prior administration, and doing this time when families across my district and across the nation are struggling with rising un employment, and while health insurance companies have recently announced that last year was the best year on record as far as profits are concerned, $12 billion last year in profits for the insurance industry, and while that's the case, they are announcing plans to rise -- raise insurance premiums by 40%. .

during this time of hurt and in pain and also making money by the insurance industry off these people who are hurting and in pain we are considering today removing the anti-trust exemption that insurance companies have ignored or have enjoyed for over 60 years. and it's time for this protection from an immunity from anti-trust laws and this anti-competitive behavior, it's time for it to come to an en. this insurance industry which delivers health care to the people has been broken for a long time. we all know it and it's time to change it and this is a good place to change it.

it will help with competition if we pass this law today. that will happen only if we start applying anti-competitive, anti-trust legislation to the insurance industry, just simply no reason why they should continue to benefit from it. don't listen as the health insurance industry tries to tell you that they can't live under the anti-trust laws, every other industry does. it's high time that they do, too. consumers will benefit, the economy would benefit and health insurers who want to compete honestly will, too. let's give struggling american families an honest health insurance market by enacting this important bill and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman

from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, a senior member of the judiciary committee, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has five minutes. mr. lungren: i thank the chairman, the ranking member, and i thank the speaker for the time. let me say at the outset, i do not believe that health insurance companies should be exempt from our nation's anti-trust laws. as one of those -- as one of those who believes and hopes those applauding would join me in supporting the idea of buying health insurance across state lines, when we reach that accomplishment i think it is appropriate for us not to have a federal anti-trust exemption. when health care has been primarily in a very real sense exclusively the province of the real states, under their jurisdiction, the attorney generals of the states have retained the ability to enforce the anti-trust laws of those

states. and so we're entering a new era, i would hope, where we would be able to purchase, if in fact this one republican idea finds its way into legislative enactment, finding an opportunity to extend the universe of decisions that might be accessed by individuals or their employers by way of insurance policies that may be available in other states. my intention is to vote in favor of this bill. however, my concern is that the bill before us is not nearly as good as it should be. because normal bipartisan committee process has been circumvented. as has been noted by some in advancing this bill, i did vote in favor of the health insurance industry anti-trust enforcement act of 2009 when it was marked up in judiciary committee. at that time i offered an amendment to the bill to allow the sharing of historical data and the performance of services

by insurance companies, not future trending data, but rather looking backward, historical data. at that time it was adopted unanimously by the committee, therefore in a bipartisan basis, our distinguished chairman of the committee supported my amendment which he described at the time as, quote, a helpful clarification. there's one thing that we ought to understand when we have this downturn in the economy, if you want to make sure things don't happen in the private economy, insert uncertainty. if you want to make sure that things cost more than they otherwise would, insert uncertainty. and that's what we are doing by not allowing that in the bill before us. in fact, i should point out to my friends on the other side, section 262 of your health care bill, your health care bill, adopted on this floor allowed for the sharing of such

information. it contained the language of my amendment. unfortunately for whatever reason it has been held out of the bill before us. unless anything thinks i have risen to speak because my amendment was not included in this bill, let me clarify the case. i can give you assurance that's not the case for the simple reason that i cannot take personal credit for the guts or the contents of this amendment. the truth of the matter is that the hard work done to repeal the act began with the efforts of then chairman jack brooks, democratic chairman in the 101, 102 and 103 congresses. ironically at the beginning of our committee markup, the chairman described it as, quote, a tribute to jack brooks. if they wish to pay tribute to jack brooks and i believe we should, perhaps a good place to start would have been to allow an amendment to include chairman brook's language in any amendment before us. i am hopeful that the motion to recommit might contain that

language and i would hope that people would set aside partisan differences and support it. so aside from the issue of the denigration of the committee process and i think that's an important thing that we ought to take into consideration, subcommittee, committee, you act on this bill, you debate it, you consider amendments, you vote it out on a unanimous -- the amendment on a unanimous bipartisan vote, then you have a bipartisan support for the bill as it comes out of committee and then what happened? it's changed before it comes to the floor. and we had one of the members of the rules committee say she wasn't going to engage me in debate because she said, i don't have the expertise in this issue. so i presume that means if you have expertise and that's what committees are supposed to have you ignore that you so come -- so you can come to the floor and not allow debate utilizing that expertise because you prohibit that amendment from being considered on the floor. h.r. 4626 will have precisely the opposite effect of its

intent -- of its stated intention if in fact the notion of sharing historical data is not considered appropriate and legal. the economics of the insurance industry are such that companies depend on information, why? in order to enable them to price their products. they have to base it on something, it's bet father they have the -- mr. smith: i yield the gentleman two additional minutes. mr. lungren: it is bet father they have actual data upon which to make their decisions. and here's the rub, as was mentioned by the gentleman from wisconsin, it is the small companies which depend on the availability of information the most. smaller companies simply do not have a sufficiently large volume of information to price the products efficiently. so if it's for this reason that it is of the utmost importance that insurers have the ability to share historical data. now am i just saying this? no. in this regard a congressional research service report raises

the possibility that were such data not available to small insurance companies we might see the ironic outcome of further concentration of the insurance industry. again, not my conclusion, the conclusion of the congressional research report done most recently. so yesterday i did a -- i did ask the rules committee that the brooks amendment be restored and even though it was approved unanimously by my colleagues on the judiciary committee, my request was inexplicably rejected by the rules committee. this is not the which say, madam speaker, that this body should do business. let's respect the integrity of the institution and the work that has been done in the duly established committee process. i would hope that when this part of the recommital motion is discussed, we'll discuss it in light of the history of this

bill. the language taken from the jack brooks bill, the language taken from the majority's health care bill passed just this year. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. conyers: and i want to respond to the senior member of the judiciary committee, former attorney general of california, and a friend of all of us on the committee, an effective member. and all i want him to know is that we approved his provision in the judiciary committee because we thought it was a good provision. it was unanimous, i don't recall that anyone voted against it or

spoke against it. the problem, though, is that when we got to the rules committee our leadership on both sides of the aisle, i hope, had come up with another bill and that bill omitted it. we were not able to get that put back in, we think that their reasoning is not altogether strange or out of order or violating any procedure, but this is what they told me, they said if there are no anti-trust exemptions in this measure then you don't need to specifically put in a retain upon of the n.h.s. exemption relating to the safe harbors provision because

they aren't going to be effective anyway. and so it's in that spirit that i appreciate the comments of the gentleman from california and i hope that we can continue to work together as much as we can and perhaps the final vote here will be more bipartisan than many thought that it would. and i now would like to turn to a senior member of the congress from iowa, leonard boswell. i'd like to yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from iowa is recognized for two minutes. mr. boswell: revise and extends. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. boswell: thank you, madam speaker, and thank you, mr. chairman, for this opportunity, i appreciate it. i rise today in support of the health insurance fair competition act, an original co-sponsor of this legislation i believe that our health insurance companies need to be held to the competitive

standards our free market demands. for too long these companies have told our constituents what they will insure and what they will be paid. just recently 80,000 iowans were told that their insurance rates would jump on average of 18%, with many facing increases of as much as 25%. these same individuals have seen their rates increase by 10.5% each year since 2005. i insist that light be shed on the pricing of health care costs and the consumers have access to how their premiums and co-pays are determined. i would particularly like this information for my constituents with premium increases twice what it was in 2009. iowans in the third district are struggle -- struggling to make ends meet. they deserve to know how a company can spend as much as perhaps $200 million on a new headquarters and turn around and double their premium increases from 2009 to 2010 and then claim

these two things have nothing to do with one another. i support this legislation which will make it illegal for companies to price fix, practice bid rigging and market allocation simply to drive up costs for american consumers. thank you, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for a minute. mr. smith: madam speaker, first of all i just want to say that i appreciate what the chairman of the judiciary committee just said a minute ago to mr. lungren. i understood him to make very positive comments about the so-called brooks-lungren amendment and i hope that that is well for the majority accepting our motion to recommit at the end of this debate. at least i would expect that. at this point, madam speaker, i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, a member of the budget committee, a member of the financial services committee, mr. garrett, two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. mr. garrett: i thank the chair. i rise in opposition to the bill for a number of substantive reasons but also quite honestly after hearing the comments on the gentleman from california i also was about to say i rise with concern as to the process as well. i appreciate the ranking member's comment as far as potentially moving forward on this. i too have been there in the past where we do things in committee, in the relative committee i serve on, serve on financial services committee and have agreements with the other side of the aisle and with the chairman, specifically the financial services with chairman frank and then things go to the rules committee and i don't know whether it was a bipartisan obstacle in this case but be it as it may, problems happen with the rules committee and i can tell new my working with chairman frank, he was able to actually get things done then on the floor as far as the substantive amendments done here to get it done. so i hope that we see similar action with regard to this as

well that we've seen in other committees. but i do rise in opposition or concern for this bill with regard to the repeal of the mccarran-ferguson aspect. i do so for three points. one has been touched upon and i want to go into a little bit more detail about the c.b.o. congressional budget office, a nonpartisan entity, says that states already have the laws on the books what we are really trying to deal with, price fixing, bid rigging, etc. furthermore, state insurance commissioners already typically review the rates charged by insurance companies. what does this basically mean in a nutshell? that basically the states have a working -- working in this already and the passage will have a minimal positive impact. as a side note, when we talk about the state insurance commissioners, the situation they are in right now was not the fault of the state

regulators of the financial marketplaces that brought us to where we are. it's default largely to errors and omissions in the federal regulators. we are trying to cast blame or aspergs on any regulator out there. it should not be on the state regulators. they have done their job and we should not throw any impediment into getting that done. second point, somebody mentioned a report out of the c.b.o. let me get into a little bit more specifics what the c.b.o. said with regard to cost. c.b.o. says, and i quote, to the extent that insurers would be subject to additional litigation their cost and thus their premiums might increase. let me repeat that. the premiums might increase. so to the point of the other side of the aisle saying we're doing this with the good intention of prices coming down, what do the experts, what does the nonpart san c.b.o. say? just the opposite. premiums might go up. inclusion there is here is

where increased litigation will actually drive up the cost of insurance and not drive it down. third point touched on a little bit and let me go into further detail. this legislation could have the effect of shutting out new entrance -- not folks who are already there but shut out new entrance into the marketplace. the other side of the aisle -- can i have another -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield the gentleman two additional minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garrett: thank you. this legislation will have the effect of shutting out entrance into the marketplace. health insurance across the board, what will this do as jim and others have said on the floor, the new entrance of small companies that wants to compete against the large entrenched companies that are already there, you're pushed out, you're locked out. is that what we want to do with this legislation? that will be the impact.

in a letter to speaker pelosi, the national association of state insurance commissioners said the following -- the insurance, while exempted from federal antitrust law, is still subject to state antitrust enforcement actions. it's important. even if the mccarran-ferguson antitrust exemptions would be repeal, exempting them will apply. the most likely result of this repeal will not be increased competition but a series of lawsuits testing the doctrine with associated litigation costs being passed along to the consumers in the form of higher premiums. the conclusion, madam speaker, is more litigation, more harmful consolidation and more increase to the cost of the consumer, all things we should be working to oppose. that's why i do not support the underlying legislation. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: madam speaker, no one's worked harder on this

measure than another member of the judiciary committee than peter defazio of oregon. we recognize and yield to him three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for three minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the distinguished chairman for bringing this issue before us. you know, we've heard on the republican side, this is just about the little guys. we only want to help the little guys. except the loopholes they will want to create with the lungren provision is with the big guys. if you like the status quo, if you like the fact that some of the largest insurance companies in america saw their profits go up by 56% last year, if you like the fact that in many states we're seeing huge double-digit increases, over 50% in michigan, 40% in california, 20% in my state, if you think the system is working today then you should support mr. lungren's idea. preserve the status quo, that's what they're saying. keep the loopholes, allow them to continue to collude and price fix.

now, there are a few other people who disagree with them. in fact, we had a bipartisan commission created by the republican congress when they controlled the house and the senate, and signed into law by president george bush. the members were appointed by george bush, the republican head of the house and the senate and their conclusions considered mr. lungren's arguments and they've rejected them. a bipartisan professional commission created by the republicans and george bush said after saying, yes, there are these arguments being made. they said like all potentially beneficial competitor collaboration said, however such data sharing would be assessed by antitrust enforcers and are the courts under reason that would look at such conduct and condemn it only, only if on balance it was anti-competitive. they don't want the justice department to have that capability. they don't want any additional

levels of review. mr. lungren: will the gentleman yield? mr. defazio: totally incapable of dealing with these issues, particularly with multistate, multinational companies that operate outside their borders, set rates outside their borders and then import their rates in the state saying we operate in 27 states after all and you're part of our system. so if you like the status quo, if you like the double-digit rate increases, if you like the limits on market competition, if you like the rates going on in the industry then you support the status quo which is essentially what mr. lungren has offered. but i don't and i don't think the marin people do either. i think we have -- american people do either. i think we have tremendous consensus that this abusive industry needs to play by the same rules as every other. and the small companies will still be able to obtain the data as long as they don't use it in a could he louisive manner. it's for the -- could he louisive manner.

-- kollousive manner. st. louis university said that is not the case. it will not disadvantage small companies. we have mr. david balloto, an antitrust expert saying -- balto,ing a an antitrust -- an antitrust expert saying it won't. and the c.b.o. report was based on the lungren language. without the lungren language it will save money, $10 billion for consumers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lungren: i'd like to make an inquiry of the chair. is it not correct that members are supposed to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. lungren: is it not true that members are supposed to direct the chair? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. mr. lungren: thank you. since the chairman -- since the gentleman refused to yield when

i asked him to despite the fact that he was using my name and attributing motivations to me that are questionable under the rules of the house, i might say this. the gentleman is absolutely incorrect in his analysis. the reports said that it would harm the small insurance companies if they were not able to get this historical data, number one. number two, the gentleman conflats two completely different things. one is historical data and the other is trending data. and they're two different things. my amendment does nothing about allowing insurance companies to work together and compare trending data which is data going forward. despite the fact that some in the insurance industry wish that's the case. the dirty little secret is some in the insurance industry don't want to have my amendment. they want it to be silent so that in addition to historical

data they can have trending data. but the gentleman hasn't looked at the data in that way, hasn't examined or i presume the gentleman would not have examined the reports to know the difference that was in that and my specific decision not to include trending data in my amendment. secondly, i find it interesting that the gentleman suggests that i'm trying to do something other than what i say i'm doing. this is an interesting argument made on this floor. that if you disagree with someone you suggest that what they say can't possibly be true. the fact of the matter is i am quoted outside reports to support my position, number one. the fact of the matter is i have used the language from the jack brooks -- from the jack brooks legislation. i have used language from the gentleman party's health care

bill, and i have used the language that was adopted on a bipartisan basis in judiciary committee. unanimously. now, perhaps the gentleman suggests that every member of his side of the aisle -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: can i have another minute? mr. smith: i yield two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lungren: all those on his side of the aisle that supported this amendment share in his description of the motivation of those of us who have presented it. i thought maybe we were above that. i thought maybe we were engaged in civil discourse here, but rather if the gentleman or any gentleman wishes to talk about the motivations of others, i will tell you any idea about bipartisanship is lost in this house. the suggestion that all you have to do is shout louder than somebody else and accuse them of motivations other than what they articulated is just absolute nonsense. the fact of the matter is

properly done, the sharing of historical data is not anti-competitive. the fact of the matter is on the underlying bill with my amendment would still allow actions taken by the justice department and the various states attorney general if there was bid rigging, if there was price setting, if there was determination before the hand of which markets you would act in or which markets you would not act in. and so this is a lot of sound significant anyfying something, essentially. i have never seen such an attack on an amendment that was adopted in a bipartisan basis in the committee. now, i understand it is the only the committee of jurisdiction that deals with this. those who have sit on this floor that they have no expertise in this and they don't understand it. therefore, they don't want to

debate it, should have the upper hand in the rules committee. but, frankly, i will say once again. at some point in time you have to accept yes for an answer. i support the bill. i'm trying to help the bill. i'm trying to get it back to where it was when jack brooks introduced it. and in response to that, rather than saying hooray for bipartisanship, i hear from other people, well, we got to question your -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. lungren: oddly a high point in this chamber. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm inclined to yield to yield to the gentleman from oregon 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. you know, the law has evolved over time and the law has

evolved significantly since jack brooks. as the current deputy attorney -- assistant attorney general of the antitrust division says -- it says more of the application of antitrust laws is pro-expect tif has become far more sophisticated in the 62 years since the industry was exempted from the law. in some forms of joint activity that may have been prohibited under strict doctrines or at least analyze under rule of reason that takes appropriate account of the circumstances. so what we are saying is, let's -- you know, you say the states can take care of this. let's see, the state of montana can oversee an industry, a multistate, multinational, you know, conglomerate, and they can get in their books and see the rates that were imported outside the state were set fairly? no. we need the antitrust division. they should not have their

hands tied only in the respect of insurance. every other industry in america has learned to live with truly free markets with antitrust law. this industry can do the same, and it will benefit consumers. this is a false argument that somehow they need the special privileges, special exemption and that somehow this will hurt only little companies, only the big guys. we have seen tremendous consolidation already under the existing total exemption and if we continue with partial exemption we will only see more. the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for two minutes. mr. lungren: madam speaker, once again i know i run the risk of trying to introduce some expertise into this debate and for that i apologize, but the american bar association appeared before the subcommittee of judiciary dealing with the underlying bill, the bill that was presented before our

committee, and in there they voiced support as they have for decades for removal of the mccarran-ferguson anti-trust exemption for the health care industry, health care insurance industry. however, they said as point number one of the five major points they made, insurers should be authorized to corporate in the collection and dissemination of past lost experience data so long as these activities do not unreasonably restrain competition. but insurers should not be authorized to corporate in the construction of advisory rates or the projection of loss experience into the future in such a manner as to interfere with competitive pricing. that second part deals with trending data. i do not allow that under my

amendment. and as i presented my effort to have my amendment considered in the rules committee i was told by the representative of the american bar association they did support my position, they supported my amendment and they supported the arguments that i made before the committee. now, maybe they're wrong because they have some expertise in this area but perhaps this is one time we might look to them. the a.b.a. has not been known as a republican conservative pro-insurance company operation. last time i looked they have a major element of the bar association that's involved with anti-trust law. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased to recognize a senior member of the house judiciary committee from los angeles, ms.

waters for three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for three minutes. ms. waters: madam speaker, the consumers of this country are finally getting the attention they deserve. for far too long consumers have been ripped off by collusion and concentration of the health insurance industry. for far too long public policymakers have turned a blind eye to the special anti-trust exemption that health insurance -- insurers have enjoyed to the detriment of the american people. we must pass this legislation. the health insurance fair competition act. this bill finally, after 65 years, amended the mccarran-ferguson act, health insurers will be investigated and held accountable for price fixing, dividing up territories among themselves, sabotaging their competitors in order to

gain monopoly power and all anti-competitive practices. the justice department will have a mandate to prosecute this criminal activity. and finally the health insurance industry will have to compete, no more legally protected collusion. let the marketplace work. no more protection for health insurance companies from the very people who have been elected to protect the best interests of the people. that's us. the health insurance industry has gouged us long enough. they have increased premiums, higher co-payments, higher deductibles, the health insurance industry to add insult to injury have thumbed their noses at both the consumers and legislators and left too many families at risk. in the middle of our debate about health insurance reform health insurers are raising the premiums, they're denying life-saving procedures, they're dropping too many of the insured

who have been paying premiums for years if they deem the cost of their health care too costly. the c.e.o.'s am some of the biggest insurance companies are paying themselves unreasonable high salaries, most of them are earning $10 million or more per year. ladies and gentlemen, it is time to put an end to the practices of the health insurance companies, that time is now. let us stand up for the consumers, let us do what the consumers elected us to do, come here and give some protection from these kinds of practices. 65 years too much, too long, the time is now, let's get the job done. let's pass this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, the bipartisan and very credible congressional budget office has said that this bill will have little or no effect on insurance

premiums. it further says that if there is any effect it will be, quote, quite small. so i do appreciate all the comments that members are making today and i agree with a lot of them but we should not think that any of them pertain to this bill or that this bill is going to have any kind of a major impact on premiums. however, i would like to discuss one subject that will have a major impact on insurance premiums and that is health care tort reform. the american medical liability system quite frankly is broken. according to one study, 40% of claims are meritless, eith no injury or no error occurred -- either no injury or no error occurred. fees account to 54% of the compensation. the study found that completely meritless claims account for clearly 1/4 of total administrative cost. the american civil litigation system is the most expensive in

the world, more than twice as expensive as nearly any other country. defensive medicine is widely practiced and it is very costly. skyrocketing medical liability insurance rates have distorted the practice of medicine. costly but 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 massachusetts physicians reported that they practiced defensive medicine. another study in pennsylvania put that figure at an astounding 93%. while estimates vary, the civic research institute has put the cost of defensive medicine at $124 billion. others have arrived at even higher figures. a new study by the pacific research institute estimates that defensive medicine costs $191 billion a year.

while a separate study by price water house coopers puts the number even higher, $239 billion every year. lawsuit abuse drives doctors out of practice, there's a world document record of doctors leaving the practice of medicine and hospitals shutting down, particularly practices that have high liability exposure. this has been particularly acute in the fields as well as in the rural area of our country. the absence of doctors in vital practice areas is at best an inconvenience, at worst it can have deadly consequences. hundreds or even thousands of patients may die annually due to a lack of doctors. according to the massachusetts study, 38% of physicians have reduced the number of higher risk procedures they provide and 28% have reduced the number of higher risk patients they serve out of fear of liability. the american college of objects

trisheses and gynecologists have concluded that they, quote, current med could he legal environment continues to deprive women of all ages, especially pregnant women, of their most educated health care providers, end quote. excessive litigation damages, the doctor-patient relationship, and impairs care. beyond the dollars and cents when doctors begin to see their clients as potential litigants, the quality of care patients receive is compromised in a recent survey, 76% of doctors said that their concern about being sued has hurt their ability to provide quality patient care. nearly half say they are prohibited or discouraged from providing needed care by rules set up to avoid lawsuits. the states have proven that legal reform works. while so many in washington talk about the need to study the problem, states have acted to address it. several states have limited noneconomic damages such as

those for pain and suffering and dramatically lessened the burden of lawsuits. in states with such limits, premiums are 17% lower than they are in states without them. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan's recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. no one comes before the judiciary committee that i can think of offhand more frequently than bill pascrell of new jersey. he's worked with us on a number of other issues besides this one and we welcome his counsel, we yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is yielded two minutes. mr. pascrell: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your leadership and persistence on this critical matter. mischaracterization i think is the word of the day. when you look back at the beginning of the discussions of health care there's been more

mischaracterizations of what was in the bill. but this bill that is before us, 4626, mr. chairman, is only two pages, not 2,000, not two million, two pages. very clear to the point. so what this bill seems to do and if i had my which have brought this bill up when we discussed the beginning back in last summer, but i'm one person. to call out the other side and to call out the other end of the building, i mean, week of passed 290 pieces of legislation that they haven't even looked at yet. the use is critical. this is to end the anti-competitive, anti-trust exemption. now we have a new administration, talk is cheap about how we're going to bolster anti-trust laws. i haven't seen anything yet so far. but i'm hopeful. in all the industries in america there are only two that have

anti-trust exemptions, baseball, america's pastime, and the health insurance industry, america's nightmare, and i think it's long past time we get rid of their exemption. now, i've heard so many times since the parties last summer through the fall, through the winter, about uncompetitiveness. we want open markets and we look at the system and it's price fixing and collusion over and over and over again. 94% of the health insurance markets are concentrated. here's what that means, mr. chairman, in every state of the union, maybe through the chair, there's three or four companies that are selling insurance that are writing insurance. this is why we are where we are today. no other reason. because there is a lack of insurance. we have been accused of

socialism. that is the biggest joke. mr. conyers: i yield the gentleman another 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has another 30 seconds. mr. pascrell: we're talking about the biggest profits ever, just like wall street declared the biggest profit profit year they've ever had at 2009, that's interesting, we talk about we want to save the smaller insurance companies, we've saved nobody. in the last 60 years all we've done is concentrate power and the result of it is higher cost to the average citizen that lives in my district and every district here on the floor -- here on the floor. i thank you, mr. chairman, be persistent, call the other folks out at the other end of the building and we'll see who really cares about the policy holders in this country. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pascrell: i thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, may i ask how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 27 minutes and the gentleman from

michigan has 33 1/2. mr. smith: ok. madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman -- the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, on october 9 the congressional budget office pronounced that a tort reform or civil justice reform package would reduce the federal budget deficit by an estimated $54 billion over 10 years. c.b.o. recognizes that civil justice reforms also have an impact on defensive medicine. defensive medicine is when doctors order more tests or procedures than are truly necessary just to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits. studies show that defensive medicine does not advance patient care or enhance a physician's capabilities. that billions of dollars in savings from tort reform could be used to provide health insurance for the uninsured without raising taxes on those who already have insurance policies. as the administration rushes to enact a massive government takeover of health care, congress must remember that

there is the option of saving between $54 billion and more than $200 billion by embracing tort reform. that it will take the leadership to stand up to personal injury lawyers instead of taxing americans and cutting medicare benefits. according to c.b.o., under the health act which includes tort reform, premiums for medical malpractice insurance ultimately would be an average of 25% to 30% below what they would be under current law. also, the government accountability office, g.a.o. found that it's responsible for special liability premiums. the report stated that, quote, g.a.o. found that losses on medical massachusetts practice claims, which make up the largest part of insurers' cost, appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run. the g.a.o. also concluded that insurer profits are not

increasing, indicating that insurers are not profiting from excessively high premium rates and that in most states the insurance regulators have the authority to deny premium rate increases they deem excessive. the reason the administration continues to refuse to add serious medical lawsuit reform to their health care legislation remains purely political. as was recently revealed by former democratic national committee chair howard dean. at a recent health care town hall meeting, mr. dean responded to an elderly constituent who wondered why a comprehensive reform of the health care system doesn't include tort reform to lower the cost of malpractice insurance and reduce defensive medicine. mr. dean responded being remarkably candid as follows -- quote, this is the answer from a doctor and a politician. here is why tort reform is not in the bill. when you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the

more stuff you put in the more enemies you make, right? and the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth. now, that's the truth. end quote. medical malpractice premiums have risen 80% each year in some parts of the country and can cost half a million dollars a year in some specialties. regarding the offer of h.h.s. demonstration projects -- and this is what the administration has proposed -- that offer wrings hallow given the task for demonstration projects is kathleen sebelius. before she was governor of kansas and insurance commissioner of kansas, she spent eight years as the head of the kansas trial lawyers association, now the kansas association for justice. and she is also the state

executive who, according to "the new york times," quote, failed to make significant improvement in health or coverage or cost during her two terms as governor, end quote. the top contributor to president obama's presidential campaign was the wregly industry whose donation came to $43 million. more than 80% of the money given to congress by lawyers, mostly from the plaintiff's bar, went to the democrats. almost $22 million. more recently when president obama spoke to the med -- american medical association saying i am not advocating a cap, end quote. but the american people are demanding reform. a recent survey found that 83% of americans believe that reforming the legal system needs to be part of any health care reform plan. as the associated press recently reported, most americans want congress to deal with malpractice lawsuits

driving up the cost of medical care. yet, democrats are reluctant to press forward on an issue that would upset a valuable political constituency, trial lawyers, even if president barack obama says he's open to changes. the a.p. poll found that 54% of americans favor making it harder to sue doctors and hospitals from the states taking care of patients. support for limits on malpractice lawsuits cuts across political lines with 58% of independents and 61% of republicans in favor. democrats are more divided. still, 47% said they favor making it harder to sue. the survey was conducted by stanford university with the nonprofit robert wood johnson foundation. in the poll 59% said they thought at least half the test doctors order is unnecessary and ordered only because of fear of lawsuits, end quote. that's the end of the a.p. story.

madam speaker, the "usa today" editorial board also came out in support of tort reform and "usa today" wrote, a study found that 83% of its doctors practiced defensive medicine at a cost of at least $1.4 billion a year. nationally, the cost is $60 billion-plus every year, according to the health and human services department. and that's the h.h.s. of this administration. and in a 2005 study in the journal of medical association found that 93% of pennsylvania doctors practiced defensive medicine. the liability system is too often a lottery, excessive compensation is awarded to some patients and little to none to others. as much as 60% of awards is spent on attorneys, expert witnesses and administrative costs. it results in years of delay, end quote. madam speaker, discussing the need for tort reform, the president of the american

medical association said, quote, if the health care bill doesn't have medical liability reform in it, then we don't see how it is going to be successful in controlling costs, end quote. madam speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. i'd ask him to suspend for a minute. individual conversations, as there's many of them going on the floor, and i'd ask that people take their conversations off the floor or make sure you're using a very quiet voice. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: thank you, madam speaker. i'm pleased now to recognize david scott, the gentleman from georgia, who has been waiting patiently to get time here on the florida, and i'd like to yield him two minutes at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr.

chairman. certainly let me commend you for the excellent leadership you have provided on this issue. in this debate today, the one point you have been missing, and that point that we've been missing is this -- what about the american people? that's what this debate should be about. as we speak, 14,000 american citizens and families are losing their health care insurance every single day. and the number one reason they're losing it is because of the high cost of health care insurance. and one of the major reasons why we have the high cost of health care insurance is because the insurance companies do not have competition. and the biggest reason they don't have competition is because they have this shield. they are exempt from competition. that's why we passed the antitrust laws in the very

beginning. go back to john d. rockefeller and the american standard oil companies. that's what it was all about. it was so we could have that competition. now, there's been much argument on the other side about the sharing of this information. madam speaker, i call to your point and the point of this congress what the supreme court said about the sharing of information in the 1925 case of maple flooring manufacturing association vs. the united states. it it's so the pooling of statistics does not violate the antitrust laws. it is to help both large and small businesses. it is legitimate. but they said the joint coordination of future pricing of output, of marketing decisions to take meaningful choice away from customers to rob the american people of the

benefits they would receive from competition must not be allowed. that's what the antitrust provision prohibits. that's why it's important for us to remove it today for the american people. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize the gentleman from rhode island, jim langevin, for two minutes. former secretary of state. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized for two minutes. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. langevin: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4626, the health insurance industry fair competition act, which

would require the health insurance industry to comply with the same ferrell antitrust laws as -- federal antitrust laws as all the states. many rhode islanders are still out of work and simply don't have insurance coverage. the ones that do are struggling to pay for the perpetual rate increases every year. even though rhode island has strong consumer protection, this fact provides little comfort to the thousands of people who will lose their coverage because it's simply too expensive. madam speaker, we must do everything in our power to hold down the rising cost of insurance premiums, which includes ensuring healthy market competition. after all, competition is the driving force of economic prosperity. even the time of f.d.r. and some said numerous supreme court decisions, we've established the fact that there was a public policy interest in ensuring competition.

but for over 65 years, the health insurance industry has played by a different set of rules allowing them to engage in the anti-competitive practices to drive up the cost of premiums. well, this bill before us today will outlaw existing health insurance practices like price fixing, bid rigging and market allocations that drive up costs for all americans. it will protect honest competition from collusion and other destructive practices within the health insurance industry so we can achieve greater affordability, improve quality, increase innovation and more consumer choice just as the antitrust laws have done throughout the rest of the economy for over a century. madam speaker, americans can no longer afford to give insurance companies special treatment. i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the health insurance industry fair competition act so that we can finally break the vice grip that the insurance companies have on the lives of the american people and their health care. with that i thank the

gentleman, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, how much time remains on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas has 20 minutes. and the gentleman from michigan has 29 1/2 minutes. mr. smith: ok. i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas reserves his time. the gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. conyers: madam speaker, i am very pleased to recognize the most experienced member of the civil rights struggle in the 20th century, the gentleman from georgia, john lewis, a strong advocate of universal health care, and i'd yield him two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: madam speaker, thank you, mr. chairman, for yielding. madam speaker, i still believe

that health care is a right and not a privilege. and this congress must not rest until we make health care a reality for all americans. i know we will get the job done for the american people, but until that day comes, we must do what we can to make health care insurance work for people who depend on it. this bill, this piece of legislation is long overdue. the health insurance industry has been treated differently for over 60 years, and they have abused that privilege. in too many states, there is no competition and no choice for consumers. insurance companies are raising rates, denying care and dropping people when they get sick all the while making record profits.

we need to put people first and not profits. for too long insurance companies have had the upper hand. it is not fair. it is not just, and it is not right. today at this hour we say no more. it is time to repeal the antitrust exemption and put the american people first. and with that, madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, i'll yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: madam speaker, president obama's own doctor of over two decades also supports medical tort reform. david shiner was mr. obama's doctor from 1987 until he entered the white house. he vouched for the then candidate's excellent health in a letter last year.

as recently reported in "forbes" magazine, dr. schneider worries whether the health care legislation currently making its way through congress will actually do any good. particularly for doctors like himself who practice general medicine. quote, i am not sure if president obama really understands what we face in primary care, end quote, dr. schneider says. in claiming the world over for the pioneering surgeries he has and has approached his story of overcoming hardship, recently severely criticized the health care legislation before congress. benjamin carson, director of peed at rick neuro -- pediatric neurosurgery, recipient of many awards, including the presidential medal of freedom, criticized in a recent interview the current bill's lack of malpractice liability reform. he pointed to excessive

litigation, pointing out how much malpractice insurance and other forms of defensive medicine to protect against lawsuits add to medical costs. in the interview, carson suggested that tort reform must go hand in hand as part of any true health care reform. quote, we have to bring a rational approach to medical litigation, he said. we're the only nation in the world that really has this problem. why is it that everybody else has been able to solve this problem but us? simple. special interest groups like the trial lawyers association, they don't want a solution, end quote. . the president points to for-profit insurance companies. but for-profit insurance companies only make up 25% of the system and they are not that profitable. ranking 85th among all u.s.

industries. reform will redistribute the money not reduce the overall cost. there is much that can be done to make our system more efficient. tort reform is a great place to start, end quote. even prominent democrat strategist has conceded medical tort lee form is essentially -- tort reform is resentence, recently writing that c.b.o. has concluded, quote, a number of the studies found that state level tort reforms have decreased the number of lawsuits filed. nor the valu of claims and damage rewards. thereby reducing general insurance premiums. indeed premiums fell by 40% for some commercial policies. from a c.b.o. report in june of 2004, one fact remains between 1997 and 2007, medical tort cost including insurance premiums have viss risen from $15 billion to $13 billion a year.

that fact alone should ensure that yearly savings in the billions from medical tort reform would pass the credibility test, end quote. as written in the "wall street journal," quote, tort reform is a policy no-brainer. experts on left and right agree defensive medicine will bring testing procedures so as to protect joe as the health cost. the estimated dollar benefits of reform ran from a conservative $65 billion a year to perhaps $200 billion a year. in context, mr. obama's plan would cost about $100 billion annually. the president won't embrace even modest change that would do so much, so quickly, to lower cost have let the -- left the american suspicious of his real ambitions. it's also a political no-brainer. americans are onboard. polls routinely show between 70% and 80% of americans believe the country suffers from excess litigation.

the entire health community is onboard. republican says democrats are onboard. state and local governments which have struggled to clean up their own civil justice systems are also onboard, end quote. republican-sponsored legislation would make federal law the legal reforms california implemented over 30 years ago. that legislation called the health act remains the gold standard for health care legal reform and it continues to be supported by every major medical association. the health act does not limit in any way an award of economic damages and anyone responsible for harm. economic damages include anything whose value can be quantified including lost wages, including services provided by stay-at-home mothers, therapy, and lifetime rehabilitation care, and anything else for which a

receipt can be attached. only economic damages which the federal legislation does not limit can be used to pay for drugs and service it is actually reduce pain. so nothing in the health act prevents jury from awarding very large amounts to victims of medical malpractice. including stay at home mothers and children. california's reforms just like the health act capped noneconomic damages at $250,000 but do not cap quantifiable economic damages. the administration health care bill not only fails to contain any of the tort reforms the c.b.o. concluded would save at least $54 billion in health care cost, but it also contains a provision that actually deter states from enacting such reform in the future by explicitly prohibiting tort re form project funds to enact limits on damages or attorneys fees. one section of the bill states that, quote, the secretary of h.h.s. should make an incentive payment to each state that has

an alternative medical liability law in compliance with this section, end quote. then it goes on to say if the state can take advantage of such funds, only if it does not limit attorney fees or impose caps on damages, end quote. which are precisely the tort reforms c.b.o. concluded yield health care cost savings. mr. speaker, so not only does the administration's fail to contain the end of the tort reforms know which health care costs down from decades of experience, it even prohibits states that want to try such reforms from taking part in the government funded tort reform demonstration projects. this is not only--it is a federally funded bribe discouraging states from enacting real reform. of course it is a giant bailout for trial lawyers. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair would note the gentleman from texas has 13 minutes remaining.

the gentleman from michigan has 28 minutes remaining. mr. conyers: i am pleased now to recognize the -- recognize the distinguish of the house who has had insurance experience as state commissioner, earl pomeroy of north dakota, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pomeroy: i thank the chairman for yielding. for purposes of a colloquy. i want to thank chairman conyers. congressman tom pier yellow of virginia, and others for their leadership in bringing to the floor this important bill creating greater competition in the health insurance marketplace in order to promote greater affordability, improved quality, and greater consumer choice. in particular, i appreciate that the bill is narrowly taylored to repeal the mccarran ferguson antitrust exemption

overwhelm for the purpose of health i shurens. despite the wording of the bill, i have heard concerns from some that courts might interpret the bill broadly to include nonhealth lines of insurance, life insurance, long-term care insurance, even property casualty insurance. there are only two former state insurance commissioners in the house of representatives. health insurance is different than these other lines. i a appreciate your confirmation and my understanding that the bill we are not date debating does not apply to any insurance except for health insurance. and the expectation that courts will interpret it properly to not include nonhealth lines of insurance. is the gentleman's understanding of my expectation correct? mr. conyers: if the gentleman would yield. i want to commend him for clearing up something that perhaps in more reasonable

circumstances should not need to be cleared up. i still have confidence in the courts that they can read the simple understanding that when we say health insurance, we don't mean life insurance. this is getting pretty fundamental here. but of course you're correct, mr. pomeroy. it's health insurance only. no disability income insurance. no long-term care insurance, no property insurance. i yield the gentleman additional minute and ask can he yield. mr. pomeroy: i yield to the gentleman. mr. conyers: no casualty insurance, no other kind of insurance but the one plainly listed in a two-page bill.

so my confidence in the courts is unrestricted that they can get this right. and the lack of a statutory definition is intended solely to give the courts the ability to ensure that all forms of health insurance are appropriately included so that unreasonable and unofficial distinctions do not arise between two essentially equivalent kinds of insurance product and how we treated them to antitrust laws. so i'm glad that the gentleman raised this issue in the hearings. mr. pomeroy: i thank the chairman. reclaiming my time the time. i believe the chairman's words are very clear and will make a very clear part of the legislative record on this bill. i thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll

reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: , mr. speaker, i would like now to recognize the gentleman from virginia who has done so much in working with the committee on this bill, mr. pier yellow of -- perfect yellow -- pieriello of virginia. i would like to receive three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. perriello: this is a great day. this is a great day for consumers. it's a great day for competition. and it's a great day for common sense. i'm new to washington and i know that this is a town full of grays but sometimes things are as simple as black and white. this is a chance for people to decide whether they stand for patients or whether they stand for the profiteering of health

insurance monopolies. whether they stand for competition or clution. this is a victory for common sense in the midst of a health care reform debate. only inside the beltway would people argue that the best way to protect competition is protect monopolies. only inside the beltway would people try to argue the best way to help the little guy is to make sure that we protect monopolies. the status quo is not working for the smaller insurers. there are those with very good intentions who want to talk about safe harbors. but i have not had constituents come up to me and say, congress, please have more carve outs. congress, please have more exemption and exceptions. please make the bills even longer. here we have a two-page bill 24 lines long. one that is supported by conservatives and liberals alike in my district that make the simple rule. the health insurance companies should have to play by the same rules as everyone else. if two plumbers in my district get together and start to collude and set prices, they'll go to jail. why should the biggest health

insurance companies in the country not have to play by the same rules. people say to us how about a shorter bill? two pages. what about bipartisanship? twetch all of the attorneys general across the country without a single dissenting vote across party lines said we want this bill. we want more federal power for us to be able to go after these monopoly that is are sticking it to consumers. this will not solve every problem in the health care debate, but if we can't come together and agree on something this simple, pro-competition, pro-consumer, two pages long how will we ever come together on anything? it's estimated to save consumers $10 billion. in states that have removed such protections before premiums have risen at 1/5 the rate of other folks. this means real money in the pockets of working and middle class americans. voters say who is standing up for us? working and middle class americans who play by the rules instead of the special interest groups.

here's a chance for a victory for common sense and consumers. if your health insurance company and not engaged in practices you are not cocoa lewding, you have nothing to worry about. if you are, be afraid. you no longer will enjoy the monopoly you have enjoyed for 65 years. we will have no monopolies to ensure basic sense of accountability, competition, and main street values and maybe take one step forward for its bipartisanship and common sense in this health care reform debate. with that i yield. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would like to yield to paul kanjorski of pennsylvania for a unanimous consent request. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kanjorski: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert

into the record at this point a statement on the bill and i rise in support of h.r. 4626. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would recognize the distinguished member who allowed us to testify in his subcommittee on universal single payer legislation, rob andrews of new jersey, and i yield him two minutes. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. yeards: i ask unanimous consent to -- mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: i'd like to thank mr. pierriello for his leadership. the members of the house has an option this afternoon. if you believe that the two members of the house can work together to solve a problem in our health care system, then the correct vote is yes.

if you believe that there can be simple and clear solutions that do not involve thousands of pages of legislative language, then the correct vote is yes. if you believe that health insurance companies should be held to the same standard that car dealers, supermarkets, television networks, candy stores, all kinds of people are held to in this country, then the correct vote is yes. the choice here is competition versus crony capitalism. competition means the best competitors get the market share and get the business. it means that health insurance companies cannot meet behind closed doors and fix the prices of their product. we've seen enough of crony capitalism on wall street. we've seen enough of crony

capitalism in our banking industry. and i think we've seen more than enough of crony capitalism in health insurance. this is the chance for the members to come together and say, we want the insurance industry, the health insurance industry to compete for the business of the american people the same way everybody else does. it is pro-consumer, it is pro-competition, it should be profound evidence that the two parties can work together and start to solve the health care problem. i congratulate the authors. i'd urge my colleagues on both sides to vote yes in favor of this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i am now pleased to recognize betsy markey of colorado. she has done yeoman work on

this measure, and i yield her three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three minutes. ms. markey: thank you, mr. chairman, for your work on this bill. a few years ago before i even decided to run for congress, i ran a small coffee shop in fort collins. i knew my success or failure depended on my business plan and my ability to compete. none of the other shop owners needed the government to offer them some sort of special protection in order to survive. capitalism is the basis of our democracy and a competitive marketplace is at the heart of capitalism. since 1945 just two industries have enjoyed special protection from antitrust laws by the united states government, major league baseball and the health insurance industry. since americans don't rely on baseball tickets to vaccinate

their children or get cancer screenings, the gentleman from virginia and i felt it important that we tackle the special protections offered to the health insurance industry today. i consider myself a pragmatic person. i think companies should be left alone to succeed or fail based on the fitness of their business plan and on the quality of the products they offer to consumers, not because they got a special deal from washington. i believe that consumer protection laws keep our markets competitive and are crucial to our democracy and economy. and that the exceptions offered to the health insurance industry for over half a century leave the doors wide open to price fixing that can't be regulated. if any member of this body were to come and suggest that the united states government give one industry the immunity from protection and from price

fixing, the outrage from the american public would be swift and heart felt. it's not fair that small business owners across america, many of them struggling to survive in today's economy, have to play by a separate set of rules. the underlying premise of this bill is not a partisan issue. prominent members of both parties have advocated renewable of mccarran-ferguson for years. in 2007, senator trent lott co-sponsored legislation with patrick leahy that would have repealed an even swth of antitrust legislation that would have benefited the entire health insurance industry. at the time senator lott made the astute point that if the industry were not engaging in price fixing to wouldn't have to worry about losing its antitrust exsempings. when lott testified before the judiciary committee in 2007, he said, i cannot for the life of me understand why we have

allowed this exemption to stay in place for so long. perhaps even more telling, the national association of attorneys general strongly opposes the repeal of mccarran-ferguson. one assistant attorney general noted, the most egregiously anti-competitive claims, such as making agreements to fibblingsing prices -- the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. ms. markey: i ask for an additional 30 seconds. mr. conyers: granted. ms. markey: the most egregious competitive claims such as making agreements, fixing price or reducing coverage are virtually always found under prosecution under the law. one has enjoyed an unfair advantage over another business in the united states. i don't think this has anything to do with being a republican or democrat. i think it has to deal with

being fair. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, we've heard several speakers in the last few minutes say that there are only two industries exempted from the antitrust laws, insurance and baseball. this of course is not true. there are more than 20 such exemptions. if the intent is eliminating certain exempingses, perhaps they could eliminate the union antitrust exemption. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, ms. kilroy of ohio has worked hard on this legislation, and i'd like to yield her two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. kilroy: thank you, mr. speaker, and thank you, chairman conyers, for allowing

me this opportunity. also want to give thanks to the work of my freshman colleagues, tom pierriello and betsy markey, for their work on this piece of legislation that i'm very proud to be a co-sponsor of. you know, i've been listening to this debate this afternoon, and it's very surprising and highly ironic to hear the opposition from the republican side of the aisle to a bill that would simply make the health insurance industry operate solely and in a competitive marketplace. after all, it was a great republican president, teddy roosevelt, who was the great trust buster, the one who brought antitrust principles into american injuries prudence and -- jurisprudence, as we heard from others, sponsors of this bill -- as there was

attempts to put in antitrust legislation as it relates to the health insurance industry. after all, competition is the engine that drives our economy, spurs innovation, ensures that the american consumer would receive a fair deal. but far too long, the insurance industry has been able to avoid accountability by dividing up the territories among themselves, like the robbers barrons did on the backs of americans. i support my colleagues in the competitive task force. i know we need central ohio an american business to be competitive, something this bill will help to ensure. this bill is needed because the health insurance industry is sick, and we need to fix it. we know that we have an unhealthy insurance system because we see that the signs and symptoms are there. 96% of all health insurance

markets are highly concentrated. the -- leaving consumers little ar -- or no choice. thank you. i urge my colleagues to support passage of the health insurance industry fair competition act. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 4532, an act to provide for permanent extension of the attorney fee withholding procedures under title 2 of the social security act to title 16 of such act and to provide for permanent extension of such procedures under titles 2 and 16 of such act to qualified nonattorney representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i'll yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, the former attorney general of that state, mr. lungren.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. lungren: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, as i've said repeatedly and perhaps the gentlelady from ohio just spoke didn't hear, i support the bill. i think she also heard -- well, maybe she wasn't hear to hear the ranking republican to say he is not going to vote for the bill. so let's be clear what we're talking about here. and while i do support this bill and while i think it can be perfected and while i hope that the motion to recommit will be adopted to actually make it a better bill, i would say, however, this is not the first bill we should have on the floor dealing with the overall issue of health care. the first should be the one the american people have asked us to look at and that is reform of the medical malpractice system. the interesting thing, as the gentleman from texas pointed out, that in the bill that we have in the senate and the house there is reference, as

the president of the united states said, to medical malpractice litigation alternatives. that bill does give incentives, financial incentives, federal moneys to the states if they will engage in alternatives to the litigation system in areas of medical malpractice. but as the gentleman from texas pointed out, there's a kicker in there. it says if your state dares to in any way, in any way put any limitations on attorneys' fees or on any part of the recovery in medical malpractice cases, that state will be ineligible for the funds. in other words, you will be punished relative to other states. now, the gentleman from texas referred to the landmark legislation we had in california called micra, which was adopted in the mid 1970's at a time we had a crisis in

medical malpractice premiums. we actually had an exodus of doctors, particularly in the specialties, neurosurgeons, i remember anesthesiologists, other expert specialists with high-risk practices were actually leaving the state of california because of the significant increase in premiums on a yearly basis as a result of the prehistorical data, what was happening in the courts. i do recall because i did some representation in the courts of doctors and hospitals and even a couple of plaintiff's cases but primarily defense cases that it was becoming a crisis. and so in california it came together on a bipartisan basis and we passed legislation, better known as micra,

m-i-c-r-a. we have on a sliding scale on the amount of money that can go to the attorneys. and it's a slightly higher percentage at the lower recoveries. as the recovery gets larger and larger, the percentage of return to the attorneys, percentage-wise for that segment of the recovery is less. and while putting no limitation whatsoever on recovery for loss of income and for all medical costs, there was a cap put on noneconomic damages. as one who has been in the courtroom and seen what happens, that is logical because the one area where you saw extraordinary amounts of money that really were not truly indicative of approveable damage -- i am not saying it isn't pain and suffering but

prove to be impossible and prove to be the area where you had the outrageous jury verdicts that had the impacts of distorting the system. so california adopted both of those. so in other words, the bill that has been presented by the president, democrats in the house and the senate, not only does not really deal with reform of the medical malpractice system, it takes us back more than 30 years to the position we were at then where we had not an academic exercise about the possibility of a crisis but a true crisis. we literally had a crisis in medical care in the state of california until we enacted this change. and so that is why it is at least strange to ask and to see why we don't have some litigation reform moving through our judiciary committee, the other committees that may have jurisdictions in

the house of representatives and placed on the floor. that's why it was very important for the gentleman from texas to make reference to the california system, because one that has worked and it's one that's singled out in the legislation that the president supports to be punished. . as important as this bill is -- mr. smith: i yield an additional minute. mr. lungren: as important as this bill is, we should at least be listening to the american people who have said number one on their issue list in dealing with this problem as they see it, as they understand it, as they are affected by it, is reform of the medical malpractice litigation system as it currently exists. so it's somewhat disappointing that we don't have that -- even on the horizon. i think the gentleman, the ranking member on the committee, would agree we

haven't seen anything on this subject that has been scheduled for our committee. so while i support this legislation -- let me repeat that, i support this legislation. i think it is good legislation. i think it may have a slightly bigger back than my ranking member does, although not as large an impact as suggested by the other side. i would hope that the other side would listen with open eyes, look with open eyes, and listen with open ears, on our motion to recommit because i think it will make a better bill. clear up some definitions that are not defined in this bill, and help it move in this right direction. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i would ask that you grant lynn woolsey of california, our leader in the progressive caucus in the house for so many years, two minutes.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, congressman conyers, for your great leadership. can you imagine the health care industry being exempt from the mccarran ferguson antitrust rules? right now, particularly after anthem raised the rates 39% a couple weeks ago, when their parent company has just announced that they had a -- i believe it was a $2.9 -- around $2 billion profit last quarter. last quarter. one of their subsidiaries has to raise their rates 39% to 40%. h.r. 4626 will lift the antitrust exemption that health insurance companies have

enjoyed for far too long. it will protect us from the anthems of the world. these exemptions have given the companies a near monopoly control of health insurance markets, preventing meaningful competition -- preventing meaningful competition, competition that would bring down the cost of premiums, competition that would make health care affordable for all americans which we know it is not right now. through the lifting of the insurance companies antitrust exemption and creation of an exchange, we will increase competition. the insurance industry will then have to control their costs, control their premiums, control their co-pays because they will have competition. another important way to increase competition is to give the american people a choice. a choice of a public health insurance option. an option that will compete with private health insurance companies and bring down the

costs of peopleums and the cost of coverage. their c.b.o., the congressional budget office, has stated a public option would save at least $25 billion if we included that right now in our health care bill. that $25 billion could be used for subsidies to ensure affordability of all health insurance plans. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, at this time we have no other speakers on this side. i'm prepared to close at the appropriate time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to ask that you grant two minutes to the distinguished gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. chairman conyers, thank you so very much.

i keep thinking about that movie "casablanca" and the guy learn, i am shocked to learn that the republican party that has championed itself the free market economy would oppose a measure that would in fact allow for competition. now, a lot has been said on the floor today, but the fact of the matter is, i spent eight years in my life as the insurance commissioner in california, and i'm here to tell you that the insurance companies using the exemption from the antitrust laws, are able to conspire to fix prices on premiums and on payments to doctors. that has been proved in cases, national cases brought by states and by private attorneys as well as by the attorney general of new york. similarly they are able to vertically integrate. in a case that took place in new york where united health care owns a company called eugenics which sets the

reimbursement rates, they are able to have a serious conflict of interest. the normal reimbursement rate, the more co-pay to consumers. so there are a variety of practice that is take place in the insurance industry that are anti-competitive, anti-consumer. what we are doing here is very simple, very, very straightforward. it is this. under the antitrust laws that have been in place since teddy roosevelt, it is the long history of people pushing back against the powerful interest groups. in this case the powerful interest groups of the insurance industry. it's time for us to simply say, you must compete as every other part of the economy must. vertical integration to their detriment of consumers not allowed. price fixing on stemming the products not aloud. -- allowed. not able to use that market power to set payments on doctors and hospitals. the proof is there. with regard to the state's

ability to do this, yes, many states do have antitrust laws and we are thankful for that, but the federal government, the federal attorney general is precluded from involving in the matter of competition in this industry. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'm pleased now to recognize a former member of the house judiciary -- judiciary committee, the gentlelady from ohio, betty sutton, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. sutton: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman, for the time. i rise in strong support of this bill to repeal the antitrust exemption for its health insurance companies. for far too long the health insurance industry has been exempted from playing by the rules that most other american businesses must live by. since 1945, they have been operating beyond the reach of these important consumer

protection laws. and the result has been excessive consolidation in the health insurance industry and the insurance companies taking advantage of honest ordinary americans. this legislation will finally put an end to insurance company collusion and bring much needed competition to the industry. according to the consumer federation of america, repealing these antitrust exemptions will save consumers more than $40 billion in insurance premiums. and i, for one, want consumers to save that money. the families that i proudly represent have the right to be confident that the cost of their insurance and the actions of their health insurance providers reflect competitive market conditions not collusion. this bill is an historic step to ensure competition in the insurance industry and provide access to quality, affordable health care for all americans. now who would be against that? the choice is clear and easy. it's a two-page bill easily

understood, hard to mischaracterize. a vote for the bill is a vote for our constituents. a vote against the bill is doing exactly what the insurance industry wants. let's think about that. for our constituents versus for the health insurance industry. it's an easy choice and i urge people on both sides of the aisle because the american people need all of us to be on their side. i urge us all to vote for this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to recognize john boccieri of canton, ohio, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. boccieri: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. the american people have asked for common sense in their government, but all too often it's just not that common. you see, our friends on the other side have asked for simplestity and substance and

competition in the health care debate, but only in washington would we argue that competition doesn't reduce costs. only in washington will we argue that we haven't had time to read a two-page bill. only in washington would we argue process over results for consumers. what does it mean for consumers in ohio? well, let me tell you, small businesses in ohio, their premiums have rose about 129%. 7.4 million neem ohio get their insurance on the job. averaging about 13,000 bucks. small businesses make up 72% of all business in ohio while only 47% of them can afford to offer health insurance for their people. we have seen 400 mergers in the health care industry over the last 14 years, so 95%, according to the department of justice, health insurance markets are highly concentrated means there is collusion. it's simple economics. we increase competition, we

lower prices. on this matter we have to know who will stand with on this hour. are we going to stand for families or are we going to stand for monopolies? are we going to stand for competition or stand for price fixes and collusion? are we going to be congress men and women who stand for consumers and open markets or are we going to be congressmen who stand for collusion and corruption in the industry? they are not all bad actors out there, but this day, this hour, we need to stand with consumers. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i do not see any other requests for time. i'd like to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. conyers: this has been an important debate and i'd like to take this opportunity to

commend the leader of the republicans in the house and especially on the judiciary committee, lamar smith. we have had a very civil debate. i think in the course of the incredible amount of time that we have been allotted for this bill, that we reached the same on most issues. there are more things we agree on both sides of the aisle than there are things that we may have differences about. and i attribute it to the good will and the cooperation of my republican colleagues on the house judiciary committee. i also solicit their vote, but i will respect any way they may

choose to dispose of this matter and our friendship will not be diminished or impaired in any way whatsoever. lamar smith mentioned the fact that there were other exemptions. and to be perfectly candid, i do not know that there were more than two exemptions, and it turned out there are. as a matter of fact, there are 27. but many of them, and i haven't researched this yet, but many of them are partial exemptions. many of them are very small exemptions that apply to -- are very limited in terms of the economic scope of our reach in

the united states. but they never the less exist. mr. smith may remember that the baseball antitrust exemption was given very close scrutiny only two or three years ago. and it reminded them of the fact that their conduct hadn't always been such that deserved a continuation of the exemption. and i'm hopeful that the baseball will feel deserveant. here in the field of health care, i think it's hard to defend any argument that health

insurance industry deserves or requires or needs an exemption. . and for that reason i'm urging all my colleagues to examine this two-page bill and scrutinize it. let's see if we can get a refreshingly large bipartisan vote that could lead the american people to reflect about the fact that we can be liberals and conservatives without ran core or animosity -- ranker or animosity. and that's the appeal that i offer to my colleagues on the

other side. there are those that wonder if this would create some kind of a chill or curtail creativity if this exemption were removed, and i don't think that that is very logical. we think that the antitrust laws are fairly elementary. they don't conspire against competition. they don't try to reserve creativity. we want competition, and it is the exemption from antitrust liability that this becomes a

very, very -- becomes very, very critical. so i reserve the balance of my time, and i yield to the gentleman before we introduce the speaker to close on the debate. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, first of all, let me thank chairman conyers for his comments. he is always gracious. he's right, we've had a good discussion about this particular piece of legislation. i want to say that he and i have a very good working relationship on the judiciary committee as well. though in regard to this bill, mr. speaker, i have to say that as much as some might hope that it did something or hope that

it accomplished something or might wish that the bill did something or might pretend that the bill did something, the congressional budget office disagrees. folks may wish upon a star but this bill is a dim bulb. the congressional budget office says that, quote, whether premyumes would increase or de-- premiums would increase or decrease because of this legislation is not known. the magnitude of the effects will be quite small, quite small. so, mr. speaker, what's the point of this bill? c.b.o. goes on to say that premium reductions from this bill are likely to be small because, quote, state laws already bars the activity that would be prohibited under this law if this bill was enacted, end quote. so again, mr. speaker, what's the point of this bill? i could list all the reasons

why this bill is ineffective, useful, unproductive, pointless, futile and meaningless. instead, i'd like to point out something that we could do to drive down health care costs. last october the c.b.o. concluded that a tort reform package consisting of reasonable limits on affirmative laws lawsuits would reduce the federal budget deficit by an estimated $54 billion over the next 10 years. that $54 billion in savings from tort reform could be used to provide health insurance for many of the uninsured without raising taxes on those who already have health insurance policies. also, according to the c.b.o., under the republican sponsor of the tort reform act says it will ultimately be an average of 25% to 30% below what they would be under current law.

end quote. and a g.a.o. report stated that, quote, losses on medical malpractice claims, which makes up the largest part of insurer's costs, appear to be the primary reason of rate increases in the long run, end quote. mr. speaker, rather than spend time on a bill that the c.b.o. said would yield a quite small, if any, change in health care premiums, you should instead take up a bill the c.b.o. concluded would save us $54 billion. the american people deserve real health care reform, not a feeble substitute. mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, i'd like to yield to the gentleman from maryland, mr. frank kratovil, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. kratovil: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, mr. speaker, for months we have been debating how to improve the health care system. we've focused on two major goals. one is increasing the number of those who have coverage and the second major goal is doing what we can to reduce the cost for those that do. one way obviously to accomplish these goals is to increase competition. in fact, it's one of the few areas where in this debate we have seen bipartisanship. there have been recommendations, various recommendations on how to do that. one is the bill we have today. there have been other suggestions, allowing for competition across state lines. the point is we all know that one of the ways to accomplish the major goals that we seek to accomplish is to create competition, and that is what this bill does. we need to ask the question of why would we allow this exemption to continue when we do not do that for other industries? why would we do that when no other public interest is

involved in doing so? this is the silver bullet. emp agrees that in order to improve our -- everyone agrees that in order to improve our health care system we must increase competition. that's not a partisan issue. that's what this bill does. and for that reason i ask my colleagues to support it, and i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: mr. speaker, nancy pelosi is the first female speaker of the house in american history. she's the third ranking person in our federal government. and we are all honored to recognize her for one minute at this time. the speaker pro tempore: the honorable speaker is recognized. the speaker: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i thank the chairman for his generous remarks and for his tremendous leadership on bringing this important legislation to the floor. mr. conyers is well-known as a champion of the people, and today he demonstrates that once

again. this house of representatives, mr. chairman, is called the people's house. and you are a leader in the people's house. today we live up to that name. by passing legislation that increases leverage for people. by changing the playing field, a playing field that's been dominated by the insurance industry for over 65 years, and now it's the people's turn. the insurance companies will now be playing on the people's field. mr. conyers, thank you for your ongoing leadership, fairness, for competition, for a better deal for the american people. i also want to commend congresswoman -- chairwoman of the rules committee, louise slaughter, for her ongoing and persist sent insistence that this legislation come to the floor. when he served in the legislature in new york she was fighting this fight. this antitrust exemption was

passed again over 60 years ago and was supposed to last three years. 65 years later we are on the floor of the house to finally repeal the special exemption that insurance companies have that no other industry except major league baseball has in our country. i also want to commend mr. defazio, who has been a champion on this issue from -- congressman defazio from oregon. he's worked with our new members of congress, and they have been our source of energy to move this legislation. congresswoman betsy markey of colorado, congressman tom pierriello of virginia, the author of this bill, we're grateful to them for their courage. the insurance companies don't want this bill but the american people do. another new congressman, congressman garamendi, former

insurance commissioner in the state of california, played a role from the state -- start when he arrived. i believe this legislation has many republican supporters as well. so that, of course, is really a source of confidence to us as we go forward into the health care debate. one year ago we began this debate on health care. quality, affordable health care for all americans. we got a running start on it in a recovery package with big investments in basic biomedical research and to health information technology. so we are on the cutting edge of science and technology. we had a running start on it by passing the schip in a bipartisan way, state children's health insurance program insuring 11 million children in america. and then the debate has gone on from the summit the president had a year ago in a bipartisan way to a summit he will have

tomorrow as well. but in the meantime, this very important piece of legislation is before us today. i've always said that any health care reform had to make the triple a test. it had to have affordability for the middle class, accessibility for many more people and accountability for the insurance companies. accountability for the insurance companies. no longer would they have it all their way, and that's what this legislation does. we had this on the agenda and then the snows came and we had to put it off. in between when we all got snowed out or snowed in, anthem in california announced it was going to raise their rates 39%. 39% for health insurance. over the past decade, insurance rates have gone up over 150%.

and this continues. in michigan, kansas, other places in the country these insurance rates have gone up because the insurance companies simply have not been accountable. and this has worked to the disadvantage of the american people. so, again, i commend all of those who played a part in bringing this to the floor. to the bipartisan discussion that took place in committee that has been mentioned, and for hopefully the strong bipartisan support we will see today. but, again, i want to come back to chairman conyers because he is the person when speaking out for other people. chairman of the judiciary committee, a very prestigious position, one with a great deal of responsibility to make sure that the pledge we take each day, with liberty and justice for all, is lived up to and today we are providing much more competition, much more freedom for the american people by expanding their choices with this important legislation.

i urge our colleagues to support the legislation, once again, salute all who made it possible to bring this before the people's house today. thank you, mr. chairman, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: on that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1098, the previous question is ordered. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. third reading. the clerk: a bill to restore the application of the federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. smith: i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: mr. smith of texas moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 4626, to the committee on the judiciary. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection? >> is this the one that was previously noted and delivered a couple hours ago? is that the motion to recommit? mr. smith: yes. the speaker pro tempore: and the motion is at the desk. mr. defazio: yes. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the request? mr. defazio: no. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes in support of his motion. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i support this motion to recommit on h.r. 4626, the health care industry fair commission act. as stated in my earlier comments, this legislation does

little if anything. however, if you're going to do nothing, you might as well do it better. this motion corrects three drafting errors that create problems with the bill. first it adds a definition for health insurers that was absent from the base bill. if we are going to eliminate mccarran-ferguson for subinsurers, we should clarify who those insurers are. second, this has a data provision that mr. lungren added. it is necessary to ensure that small and medium health insurers can in fact compete in the marketplace. third the motion to recommit includes language that protects the activities of state insurance commissions. the majority say this will be protected by the state doctrine. but if congress is going to repeal a 65-year-old law, should we make it clear that we don't want this to undermine state insurance commissions? finally, the motion to recommit

includes a g.a.o. study on the impact of this legislation on competition in the health insurance market. specifically the g.a.o. must report on whether or not this legislation has enhanced competition resulting in lower prices and new competitors in the market. let's put political rhetoric aside and see what the bill really does. we shouldn't be afraid of the truth. in short this motion to recommit includes definitions and clarifications that the majority has already included in earlier versions of this legislation that either were reported federally by the judiciary committee or were passed by the full house. this isn't much of a bill but let's try to improve what little there is. mr. speaker, i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from california, mr. lungren, a senior member of the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: meek, i would like to refer to that part of the motion to recommit that deals with the amendment that i offered and it was contained in the bill that passed out of the judiciary committee. it simply allows historical data

to be utilized by insurance companies large and small. this is something that is requested by the small insurance companies, this is something supported by the american bar association, the representative who testified before our subcommittee on behalf of or in support of the underlying legislation supported this amendment so that in fact small insurers would not be disadvantaged. let's get this right. there are some who have told me on the other side that we don't need this because it will be allowed by the u.s. justice department. we -- or by the courts the we ought not to wait for that. we ought to give some real solid certainty to insurance companies, particularly the small insurance carriers so if we wish to permit the collection of historical data, let's make it clear what we intend. just because we haven't brought forward on this floor some answer to the medical malpractice litigation issue is no reason for us to commit

legislative malpractice here. we ought to do our job, we ought to not pass it on. now there are a few people who don't think that historical data should even be allowed. if that's the way they feel, i understand it. most members i've spoken to believe it ought to be allowed, they understand the absolute he is eps of it in terms -- essence of it in terms of the continued existence of small insurers across the country. let's get it right, i have the language, virtually the same that was contained in the majority's health care bill, that passed just a couple of months ago, it's the same as contained in the bipartisan bill that came out of our committee and most importantly it is the same language contained in the various bills presented to this house by the late great jack brooks, chairman at that time of the house judiciary committee, about whom members on the other side have waxed eloquently and in tribute to him i would hope they would support my motion to

re-- or the gentleman's motion to recommit that contains my amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon rise? mr. defazio: i rise in opposition of the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman. simple question before the house today, should the health insurance industry live under the same anti-trust rules and have the same consumer protections as are provided for every other major industry in america? without special exceptions, without carveouts, without loopholes? no more collusion to get together, to conspire, to limit markets' coverage and rates. now they say there's a study out there that says this won't save money. that study was actually based on the language they're offering. yes. if we provide these loopholes, it well may not bring down

rates, but if we don't vote for their loopholes we will bring down rates. the consumer federation of america says we'll save $10 billion in rate pair premiums -- payer premiums if we adopt this amendment straightup without their loopholes with that i turn to the gentleman, john, you're up, you're up. >> i thank you, mr. speaker, directly to mr. lungren's proposed amendments, actually there are three major elements. if you look at those major elements, they do in fact give the insurance industry the opportunity to collude because that is the data that sets future prices for consumers as well as payments for doctors. i know this business. i was the insurance commissioner in california for eight years and i know that if an insurance company is able to collude in collecting, compiling, classifying or disseminating historic data and determining a lost development factor and

using actualary services they have the power to collude. this is an incredible loophole. it should never be allowed and its finer point having to do with the collect commissioners collecting data, nowhere are states -- this ought not be put forth. i ask for a no vote on this. mr. defazio: i yield to mr. weiner. mr. weiner: you got got to love these republicans. i mean, you guys have -- the republican party is a wholly owned subsidiary of an insurance industry. that's a fact. they say, this isn't going to do enough but when we propose an alternative to provide constitutions, they're against it. they say that when we want to strengthen state insurance commissioners and they'll do the job but when we did that in our national health care bill they said, we're against it. they said they want to have competition and when we proposed

requiring competition, the republicans are against it. they're a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. that's the fact. and now -- >> mr. speaker. i ask the gentleman's words be taken down. mr. weiner: you really don't want to go here, mr. lungren. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from new york will please take a seat. the clerk will report the words.

mr. weiner: for the purpose of amending my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman seeking unanimous consent to withdraw his words? mr. weiner: i ask request unanimous consent to substitute other words. the speaker pro tempore: that would involve the withdrawal. does the gentleman -- mr. weiner: i ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the request? without objection, so ordered. mr. weiner: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon has three minutes remaining. the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. weiner: make no mistake about it, every single republican i have ever met in my entire life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. that is why -- mr. lungren: mr. speaker, i ask the gentleman's words be taken

down once more. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from new york will please take a seat. the clerk will report the words.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. weiner: i move to withdraw the offending comments. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, is there an objection? run run -- mr. lungren: observing the right to objection. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. lungren: has it's chair ruled as to whether the gentleman's words are inappropriate under the rules of the house and the precedence of the house? the speaker pro tempore: there has been no ruling at this time. the gentleman moves to withdraw his previous -- mr. lungren: i withdraw my reservation. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from oregon has two minutes and 50 seconds remaining. mr. defazio: ok. a minute and a half, go for it. mr. weiner: i thank you very much.

the point is simple, there are inequities in the present way we distribute insurance, the way we distribute health care. there are winners and there are losers. the winners are the insurance industry and our efforts to reel in the insurance profits new york city just because they shouldn't make profits, they're doing what they're supposed to, but what they're drog is driving up taxes, they're driving our economy into the ground and we need competition and choice to deal with that. that's what this legislation does and the motion to recommit undermines it. and i've heard a couple of times today, we have an effort for bipartisanship here. no, there is not bipartisan on this fundamental issue. and that is the people who sit on this side at the risk of offending anyone generally support the idea of standing up for the american people in their daily battles against high insurance and the people generally speaking who sit on this side of the chamber and specifically speak as well in a lot of cases simply won't permit that to happen and haven't for a generation. well, that's going to end now. that is going to end because we are going to have competition, we are going to make sure that there are regulations and we're

going to make sure the american people aren't gouged. that's what the american people stand for. and time and time again people say, well, i don't mind this bill, i just want to weaken it to the point where the meaningless and then i heard my good friend from texas say, well, this doesn't do anything but every single time we've tried to do something like a tiny sliver of competition called a public option, said, no, we can't with stand competition, we can't have that. enough of the phonyness, we are going to solve this problem because for years our republican friends have been unable to and unwilling to. deal with it. mr. defazio: i thank the gentleman for those remarks. in summary, we have a very -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman from oregon has a minute and a half remaining. mr. defazio: yes, thank you. we have before us a simple question. will we repeal a 62-year-old artifact that is a special favor for the insurance

industry, an exemption from the laws of the land of antitrust which are designed to promote competition, to protect consumers? you can't have a free market society when people can collude, when they limit the marketplace, when they dominate urban areas and entire states. one company. consumers have not much of a choice in america. they have to eat those huge rate increases or not. we can take a meaningful step here today to bring down the cost of health insurance for all americans. the consumer federation of america says this will save consumers $10 billion next year. and they say that's nothing. well, say that to your consumers at home if you vote against this bill. creating these loopholes undermines the entire effort here today. we do not need these loopholes. we need this industry to play by the same rules as every

other industry in america. vote against the motion to recommit and vote for competition and consumer protection for all americans in health insurance. with that i yield back the balance of my time. mr. lungren: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. mr. lungren: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. lungren: i have a unanimous consent. i'd like to ask unanimous consent and revise and extend my remarks. i said the late jack brooks. he is late but -- he is great but not late. the speaker pro tempore: all time has expired. without objection, the question is on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is -- mr. smith: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas asks for the yeas and nays. the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays

will rise. a sufficient number having are en, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 20, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five-minute votes on passage of h.r. 4626, if ordered, suss suspension of the rules with regard to house resolution 1085. this will be 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.]

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 anget 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-sponr 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 ed 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 bipartan 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.

the house will be in order. the house will be in order. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on

motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed -- recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.con.res. 238, i have a motion at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the concurrent resolution. the clerk: house concurrent resolution 238, recognizing the difficult challenges black veterans face when returning home after serving in the armed forces, their heroic military sacrifices and their patriotism in fighting for equal rights and the digny i ty of the

people in the nation. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members will be asked to take their conversations outside. pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cao, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i move to suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 238 and yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: i rise in support of house concurrent resolution 238, the critical and essential role of black vetens -- veterans in the civil rights movement, sponsored by the gentleman from north carolina, mr. kissell. i want to thank my colleagues in the house and especially on the committee of veterans' affairs, ms. corinne brown of florida, in particular, for being original co-sponsors and

bringing this to the house floor as quickly as we did. i want to recognize the national association for black veterans, the naacp and other organizations for their continued hard work to ensure equality of rights for all persons. the proposed resolution honors the heroic sacrifices of black veterans and recognizes the role they played in the civil rights movement. it also recognizes the difficult challenges black veterans faced when returning home after serving in the armed forces and encourages the department of veterans' affairs to continue working to benefit any disparities. i note that this resolution derived from a similar unabridged resolution from the naacp in its centennial convention, which i had the privilege to attend and participate. this resolution represents a small token of gratitude congress can provide for these veterans who have sacrificed so much for their country, often in the face of tremendous

challenges, and serves as a reminder that we have a long way to go. i yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kissell: mr. speaker, i rise in full support of house concurrent resolution 238 and would like to thank chairman filner and representative brown and others that made this bill possible. as a son of a world war ii veteran and coming from a part of north carolina that has a high proportion of veterans and as a student of history, we take full honor and pride in any opportunity to talk about our veterans and what they've done for our nation throughout history. it is with great pride that during this black history month that we have the opportunity to recognize the contributions of the veterans of -- the african-american veterans and what they've done for our

nation. throughout history, they have answered the call from the revolutionary war on, african-americans have fought for this nation, often as second class citizens and often coming home as veterans and not enjoying the full benefits of the rights of the nation. throughout the years, african-americans have answered the call of frederick douglass who said every man who could to enlist to get an eagle on their button a musket on their shoulder and the star spangled banner over their head. throughout the year, we have seen great heroic acts from african-americans, whether individually or as part of a unit, and to recognize some of these today, i would like to bring forth the 369th infantry, the harlem hill fighters, who during world war i went to europe and were loaned to the french to fight with them and

they fought for 191 straight days without replacements, without giving up any ground, and without losing any of their members as prisoners. the french so appreciated the 369th, they gave them the highest honor the french can give any unit of the military. individuals such as dory miller who won great fame while he worked in the mess in the west virginia, the battleship west virginia, on december 7, 1941, he rose to the decks and fought back in the great epic battle of parole harbor and became a national hero. jackie robinson. he fought for his nation and he fought against the segregation of the military. long before he took on the battle of integrating professional baseball.

the famous tuskegee airmen, led by captain benjamin miller. the tuskegee airmen who fought in the airplane designated the p-51rk the mustang. they had the famous red tail. so the red tails became famous in the air over europe during world war ii that our bomber crews always looked for the red tails because there was not a single bomber lost to enemy fighters while the red tails were protecting them. in the 92nd infantry, the only all-black infantry to fight in italy, many members of which won the congressional medal of honor, a military unit, there was a direct descendant of the buffalo soldiers of the ninth and 10th cavalry that was active from 1866 until the early 1890's. but all too often, these veterans once again had to come

home and be treated as second class constituent zens and even after harry truman issued the executive order to integrate the military, it was not until many years later that we saw equity even begin to be approached. so many of these veterans came home and took permanent roles in civil rights movement and meant so much to their communities and to this nation as we move forward. mr. speaker, so oftentimes, while we look at the big picture of our legislation and our resolutions, we always know that it comes back to individuals. i would like to take a moment of personal privilege to talk about a family from my hometown in north carolina. a family -- a mother that was a lady who was extraordinary. many sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters

that contributed so much to our community, still do she had four sons that served our nation. pete and jimmy and lee and dan. they're my friends. jimmy and i are members of the same church. let's talk about dan for a second. a veteran of the korean war. he was in the air force. he worked at the school i attended when i was in elementary school and he had the patience to answer many questions for myself and my friends about his service and why i grew to know dan as a friend and a man as many things, i thought of him first and foremost as a veteran because he represented, as we are honoring here today, the african-americans that went and served their nation and then came back an served our community. this resolution recognizes the accomplishments of these veterans, it also recognizes that -- the inequities that have been in the veterans -- the v.a. system for too long

and calls upon the v.a. to always try to make sure these equities in terms of benefits and how the illnesses are treated that we iron these out and make those equal as we move forward. i reserve the time and -- i reserve our time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from louisiana. for what purpose does the gentleman rise? mr. cao: request for as much time as i may consume in support of house resolution 248. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cao: i rise in support of house resolution 238, a resolution in honor of african-americans and their sacrifice on behalf of the nation. it is appropriate in this last week of black history month that we honor and recognize the contributions of black americans who fought in the armed forces for our nation's freedom from the time of the

american revolution through today's fighting force. . this resolution lists individuals which faced their combat. clearly, these brave warriors are rooted in the love of freedom itself. they fought to help unite america become and remain that which our founding fathers envisioned, the shining city on the hill and the beacon of freedom and hope for all people. i would like to thank the sponsor of this legislation, mr. kissell of north carolina, as well as chairman filner, ranking member buyer, and ms. brown for their work in bringing this legislation to the floor so quickly. african americans have contributed greatly to our nation and also to the state of louisiana, in particular.

for centuries, serving in the armed forces even at a time when they were not free. had it not been for the service of african americans in 1814 -1815 in the battle of new orleans, which was the battle for new orleans, the united states would not have the new orleans we know and love today. today, there are more military veterans who are african americans than any other minority group. i'm proud to represent new orleans which has a large population of african americanses in the armed forces. i urge that all of my colleagues support house resolution 238. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: we have no further speakers and i'm prepared to close, if the gentleman yields back.

mr. cao: i will yield back the balance of my time the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i thank the speaker. we have heard and i thank the gentleman from north carolina for his personal story that black citizens of our country have made incredible sacrifices for our nation. yet, even with that or even with those sacrifices, many black veterans face many challenges for civil liberties at home and while serving. this resolution, which i want to recognize, mr. speaker, because he's in the gallery, joe wiener, black veterans of america and i thank him for all his work for equality for all americans. this resolution, which recognizes the soldiers and pates who helped the fight and

serve as a testament to their great spirit and determination. we heard about jackie robin son. as a member of the army, he once suggested that he was in two wars, one against the foreign enemy, the other against prejudice at home. charles hamilton houston who served as a first lieutenant during world war i boldly stated after encountering racism, i made up my mind, i would study law and fight for men who could not strike back. and he became a civil rights lawyer and chief strategist behind brown versus board of education. seeing this paradox for fighting for liberty and freedom abroad and experiencing the denial of basic rights at home, black veterans were often in the forefront of the leadership of the civil rights movement. civil war veterans became champions for equal pay in the

military and world war ii and korean war veterans organized drives. black veterans brought deeper meaning to the word democracy. their actions and activism on behalf of civil rights emboldened many others to participate in the southern christian leadership conference and other organizations and activities and transformed the face of democracy in america. even though we have made great progress, black americans who were once denied the right to serve side by side with other americans, have achieved some of the highest ranks. benjamin o. davis junior, who led the tuskegee airmen and general colin powell, the first black joint chief of staff, just to name a few. unfortunately, today, black veterans are more likely to be homeless, more likely to receive

less than honorable discharges and suffer from disparities in treatment for cronig illnesses such as respiratory abuse, diabetes and cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder. i urge passage of this resolution in the hope that will not only recognize those who blazed the trail for us, but will increase awareness of the need to continue the advancement of civil rights and liberties for all americans. i urge the v.a. specifically to recognize the unique struggle of many minority veterans and assure all the benefits they earned and deserved. passing this legislation is the least we can do for these veterans who have done so much for our country. i urge passage of this legislation and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house concurrent resolution 238.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- mr. filner: i ask for the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: i might remind you that we normally do not refer to people in the gallery. mr. filner: i did it through the speaker, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 of the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from rise? mr. filner: during the debate on house concurrent resolution 238, each member have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, general leave is granted. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does gentleman rise? >> i request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, today is the 100 birthday in sen see, sarah moore green. he has been both a national leader and leader in her

hometown of knoxville and attends many events dressed like a fashion model and served on the national board of directors for the naacp and been a delegate to republican and national conventions. my father served as mayor of knoxville for six years. during that time, knoxville received the all-american city award primarily because it has the most peaceful integration of any major city. saro moore green and my father led the effort. mrs. green has touched thousands of lives and blazed through her years as a teacher and work in the community. she has helped countless young and old. the hundreds she taught and thousands who attended the sarah moore green elementary school. this nation is a better place today because of my friend, sarah moore green, a great american. thank you, mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and add extraneous material. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. you have one minute. mr. mcgovern: mr. speaker, i want to express my deepest sorrow and outrage at the death of tomaio. in prison since 2003, he had been on a hunger strike for three weeks. yesterday he died at the prison clinic. he paid the ultimate sacrifice for his commitment to changing cuba's system. he commands our respect. no one has starved himself to death in a cuban prison in 40 years. surely the government could have intervened earlier to prevent this tragedy. his death is on their conscience. i continue to believe if we are truly going to do a better job, then we need to be closer to the cuban people and need to travel freely to the island to meet and

learn from them and they from us. i hope that day comes soon so we can tell all the cuban people we remember the sacrifice of orlando tomaio. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. neugebauer: permission to address the house for one minute, revise and stepped my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. neugebauer: thank you, mr. speaker, last week, i was in my district traveling across the district to ask the people of the 19th congressional district how do we move america away from entitlement mode that we are moving towards and move back towards a better mode. people want to know what we're going to do about jobs. but what they do know is we can't continue what we have been doing go and that is a government who wants to tax, spend and tax too much mortgaging the future of our future generations.

ask the number of business people, why aren't you hiring more people or expanding your plant. the answer was, congressman, it's too uncertain right now. congress is talking about raising our taxes, imposing insurance on us, talking about more regulation, raising the cost of energy in this country. and if you continue down that road we can't create new businesses and we'll have to lay off people if we move in that direction. so, mr. speaker, what we have to do is quit doing what we have been doing and get back to making america the great nation it is by empowering the people and let people do what they know to do and that is create jobs and take away the unserpt of the business environment that is causing many businesses across the country either to lay off people or not to hire people. madam speaker, mr. speaker, we need to empower america and quit entitling america. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. moran: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: i'm on the floor to request that president obama include in tomorrow's discussion at the health care summit the issue of medical malpractice reform and defensive medicine, the kind of reform that will relieve business owners facing higher insurance premiums. we have to reduce health care costs. if we do not control the costs, then any reform effort will fail as the cost of health care and therefore the cost of insurance will increase. defensive medicine, where doctors order every possible test under the son for fear of being sued costs us more than 650 billion or 26% of our annual health care spending. these cost increase for doctors gets shifted to the patient. and mr. president, if you are serious about improving patient care and reducing costs, add

medical malpractice reform at your health care summit tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: are there any other requests for one-minutes? the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. pitts of pennsylvania for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following persons may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material, myself, mr. poe, for march 3, mr. jones, march 3. mr. murphy from pennsylvania today, mr. young from florida, today. mr. lewis from california, today. mr. kingston, today.

mr. thompson, today. mr. shuster today, mr. moran for today and mr. fleeling frelinghuysen for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house to revise and stepped their remarks and include extraneous materials, mr. cummings, maryland, ms. woolsey of california, ms. delauro. mr. defazz yeoh -- defazio. and ms. kaptur from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. .

the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 8, 2009, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. cummings of maryland. ms. woolsey of california. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: thank you. the united states is reaching a bleak milestone in afghanistan. the death toll for our troops is now 996. or it was when this paper was written. it is inevitable we'll reach the 1,000 mark. how much further are we going to go in this? under these circumstances, the american people have the right to demand that the afghan government do everything it can to stop violent extremism in their country and to keep our

troops safe. so far the afghan government has not lived up to its responsibility. our ambassador in afghanistan, carl ikenberry, wrote a cable to the state department in which he said that president karzai, and i quote him, is not an adequate strategic partner and continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, government, -- governance, or development, unquote. he also wrote that when it comes to corruption, karzai has a record of inaction and grudging compliance. this is outrageous, mr. speaker, because this government corruption undermines our go very effort in afghanistan and puts our troops at risk. when the afghan people see the corruption in their government they ask, and they should ask, why should we help the americans defeat the taliban when our government isn't any

better than the taliban? "the washington post" just recently -- well, yesterday, i think, revealed a deplorable example of the afghan government's shady dealings. it was written by andrew hegin and entitled "kabul bank feeds crony capitalism in afghanistan accounts. it describes the afghan political elite and the kabul bank. the government has poured tens of millions of dollars of public money into that bank. at the same time, the bank has made shady, multimillion dollar loans to members of president karzai's family, his government, and his supporters to buy luxury villas in dubai. the article calls this, this is maathai call it. they call it chronic capitalism

that enriches politically connected insiders and dismays the afghan people. president karzai's older brother and former vice president both have dubai villas. but they're registered under the name of shiccon farmud, the chairman of the bank. presumably, this is to hide the goodies the big shots have gotten. the bank has plenty of money but the vast majority of this money flows into the hands of a tiny minority. some of it through kickbacks and inside deals. that's from the article. for the country's political security and the business elite. the bank also helped pay for president karzai's recent reelection campaign which was filled with charges of fraud. the bank's support for karzai wasn't surprising, why should it be? the bank is partly owned by

karzai's older brother and the brother of his vice-presidential running mate. and at a time when most afghans are desperately poor, the kabul bank is spending $30 million to build a fancy new headquarters. mr. speaker, the american people have a right to ask, is this what our soldiers are dying for? is this what we're spending tens of billions of dollars of our tax dollars for? so that well-connected elites in afghanistan can enjoy luxury villas in dubai? we cannot allow this to continue. i've been d demanding we change our mission in afghanistan to focus on smart security for a long time now. one of the cornerstones of smart security is an emphasis on better governance. improving governance in afghanistan is just as important, mr. speaker, as any military operation.

actually, it's more important. that's why president obama must insist that president karzai and his cronies clean up their act and do it quickly, -- and do it quickly. without honest government, we will never defeat violent extremism in afghanistan and the death toll for our troops will not stop. i yield back. >> mr. -- the speaker pro tempore: mr. moran of kansas. mr. moran: i rise today to recognize kansas state university's proud campaign. it was founded in fall of 2006 as an effort for students to help other students. this year's event will be celebrated this saturday, february 27, in the missouri- kansas state men's basketball game. s that great concept that reflect ours kansas values of family, community, and stewardship. there are many people who take college experience for granted.

leaving home to pursue education is not a given for many pam falies. certain -- for many families. certain amounts of financial support are needed to ensure a student's success. sometimes bad things happen and students' families fall on hard times. it's heart breaking to see their hard work jeopardized by events beyond their control. the k-state proud campaign was started in an effort to keep the struggling students in school. it was started by students, for students. students continue to organize and execute k-state's proud activities. the organizers are anna and grant. there are no benefactors or trust funds paying an annuity that funds the tuition for a struggling student. this program allows these kids to collect money from their peers and distribute to those most in need. as a society, we should take a step back and look at what k-state's proud has

accomplished. they have had a genuine compassion for complete strangers. they do more than paying lip service to the concept of charity. they put their money where their mouth is. for a $10 donation, the donor received a k-state proud t-shirt to be worn for the designated basketball game. special thanks should be given to g.t.m. for donating the t-shirts. at the -- the quarter million dollars raised by k-state proud over three years emphasizes the enormous influence it's had on the student body. the results are real and undeniable. it allowed a student whose hometown of greensburg, which was destroyed by a tornado, to stay in school despite the enormous loss of life and property. it provided support to a cancer survivor who would have had a difficult time completing a college degree. they also provide the

recipients with an emotional boost to overcome their struggles. money is a necessity but knowing that someone recognizes your pain and is there to support you is a -- is very powerful as well. this sense of community that we're all in this together has made k-state proud a huge success. some people worry about the future of our country. when i see the k-state proud movement at work, i realize there's a new crop of compassionate, principled leaders preparing themselves to better our state and nation. kmbing-state proud has become a model of other you're -- for other universities searching for a way to unite the student body. people know how special k-state university is. it's only fitting that the rest of the country learns how special it is as well. i urge you to tune in to the basketball game this saturday and witness the student body's commitment to each other. i use the word proud many times in these remarks. i'm a proud father of two current kmbing-state students,

i'm proud to be associated with such great ambassadors for our states. i'm proud to be a kansan. in this case, i'm proud to be a k-state kansan. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: ms. delauro of connecticut. for what purpose do you rise? ms. delauro: to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. delauro: i rise in support of the equality for women farmers act a bill ann herber and myself have introduced. -- anne shoe and myself have intro-- ann eshoo and myself have introduced. it provides a process for women farmers who have experienced discrimination to have access to funds provided by the congress. it requires the f.d.a. to have much-needed reforms to end this

discrimination in their loan system forever. according to the u.s. department of agriculture there are approximately 300,000 women farm operators across the united states, over 17% of the family farm population. s the largest group of minority farmers in the country and their numbers are growing. yet the census data reveals that they have been consistently underreported by usda over the past 15 years. worse, it is estimated 43,000 women farmers have been discrim in atorially denied more than -- discriminatorily denied loans and loan services from the usda over the years. by usda's own reckoning, women have seen less than their fair share of laws in the country. thousands of women have gone to local offices of farm security over the years to file loan applications, ask for this government's help in sustaining their family farm bus there,

the differences often end. many women have been told that money or applications have run out though men seem to be finding them with no trouble at all. others were told to return to the loan office with their fathers or husbands or brothers so that the men could file the applications on their behalf. still others were told that, quote, farming is not for women. or saw their application filed in the trash right before their eyes. some were subjected to crude or horrible advances by loan officers who demand sexual quid pro quo in return for approving their loans. this is not right. it's beneath us and it must end. to his credit, secretary vilsack has nirbletted a task force to look into these and similar civil rights issues at usda but we need to move quickly in the congress so that these women can get the resources they need to preserve their family farms in this

troubled economy. unfortunately, the subject of discrimination by usda loan and credit officers is not a new one. congress was moved by the long standing complaints that we addressed the situation in the 2008 farm bill that urged the bush administration to settle those discrimination laults brought by women and other minority farmers. last week, the obama administration announced it has reached an agreement to settle the remaining claims for african-american farmers who experienced similar discrimination. i applaud the administration for recognizing the need to settle these important claims, i'm dismayed they didn't come forth with a comprehensive proposal to settle for women, hispanic and native american farmers who suffered similar prejudice. it's time for us to own up to the mistreatment of women and other norlte farmers as well. they had to deal with needless,

mindless discrimination as they try to preserve their family farms. this congress should grant them compensation. this bill will establish a compensation fund for these farmers and sets up special master in the federal mediation and conciliation service to process, review and conciliate their claims. it would award those whose applications were denid or not acted on $5,000 in damages. for those whose damages are greater than those denid application, the special master may award adigal damages based on the application of a formula described in the legislation. for those who will seek to apply for loans and loan management in the future, the legislation will ensure that their requests are finally considered equally with all others. it's a matter of fundamental fairness and action cannot come soon enough for these women who have suffered under these

discriminatory practices so -- practices so join me in being part of these solutions. we can make usda a better resource for our nation's family farmers for generations to come regardless of their gender, race, or origin. from our earliest day the small family farm has been considered the bedrock of this nation, the fount of its virtue and citizenship. those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of god, wrote thomas jefferson. if he ever had a chosen people. our founding fathers believed our government should be there to help america's family farmers, not undermine them at every turn. thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. . mr. poe: i wish to claim mr. burton's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: we hear how great the

stimulus bill was and howell it has worked. it has been one year or so, so let's see where some of that stimulus money got spent. in buffalo, new york, state university got about $400,000 to study the effects of drinking malt liquor while smoking pot. for three weeks, 100 people are paid $45 a day of taxpayer money to drink malt liquor and smoke a little marijuana. this is paid for by americans throughout the country. taxpayers are footing a bill for other parties like the one in boca ra ton, florida, but this one is not for people but for lab myself. that's right. atlantic university is getting $15,000 for two researchers to measure how alcohol affects a mouse's motor functions. i wonder where the peta people are on this one. is that jobs saved or jobs cre

created. in nebraska, another wasteful bridge project. we had the cornhusker kickback and now we are building a bridge. this $7 million bridge is so 168 people don't have to wait so long to cross a railroad track. sounds like we are wasting money. that is $43,000 per person waiting for that train. and the u.s. forest service is getting $2.8 million to spend on wildfire management in washington, d.c. but the problem is, washington, d.c. doesn't have a national forest, but that doesn't make any difference to the bureaucrats. in washington, you don't need a forest to get a wildfire fund, you just need out of control spending. and the florida department of transportation, and this is my favorite one of all, is spending

$3.4 million in stimulus funds to build a turtle tunnel in tallahassee, florida. $3.4 million, that is four times as much as the average american will earn in its entire life. about but it is doling ut out funds for turt -- turtles to cross. for that money, we could get the turtles limbos to cross that street. the housing authority in oklahoma, here's another one, received $135,000 in stimulus money for remodel homes and businesses at the tar creek superfund site. the most obvious problem with that scenario is the tar creek superfund site is scheduled to be destroyed. it's going to be remoddled and then destroyed. only the federal government would spend money to fix up a

home and then a few years later pay to tear it down. mr. speaker, this whole philosophy of the stimulus project is a flawed premise. it's the idea that we can take taxpayer money and give it to the government and then the government can decide how special folks, special projects will get that money and spend that money for government-make work programs. these aren't real jobs, but jobs that the taxpayers have to pay for, jobs that aren't permanent that will go away. real jobs aren't created by uncle sam. real jobs are created by the private sector. we call those people small business communities. they can make real jobs where other taxpayers don't have to pay for those jobs. and that's when more businesses have more of their own money rather than paying taxes to the federal government so the federal government can decide to get this stimulus money. the american people are fed up. they are telling washington,

stop the spending. they are saying no. stop the spending. stop the wasteful projects. stop the fraud. stop the abuse. stop borrowing money, money that we don't have, so we borrow it. and of course, we borrowed from our friends, the chinese. 60% of our debt is owned by the chinese. and of course, some day, there is going to be a day of reckonning. we are going to have to pay back that money in the form of taxes or people yet to be born. the white house seems to want to spend the people into the poor house. mortgage off their homes, the mineral rights and then pay for this massive spending bill. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. mcdermott of washington. for what reason do you rise? wocks. you have five minutes. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, after more than seven years on

fixing health care, the congress is on the brink of passing sensible comprehensive reform legislation. we are extremely close to getting americans access while reducing the deficit. after a year of trying to instill fear in the american public, about the democratic approach to fixing our broken health care system, my republican colleagues have really entered the debate. i commend my colleagues from wisconsin for putting forward the republican plan. the sweeping republican bill lets the public know where their party truly stands. their bill would radically reorganize the health care system and the social security system. once again, they want to spend more time hating government than helping people. the republicans want to give seniors a voucher. if you qualify, you will get a

little check and then you are on your own to deal with the insurance companies and wall street. the republicans wished the american people the best of luck. if you aren't lucky enough to outsmart wall street and the insurance executives with the rules stacked against you, well, that's too bad. under the republican plan, you will likely end up stimpinging poor but they think you'll love the free market choices you'll have on the way down. sadly the republican plan is filled with the same old policies to dismantle medicare and social security that they have been putting forward for decades. to understand the clear difference between the different approaches, let's look at health care. health care is big and a complex part of our economy and it needs thoughtful and commonsense approaches. instead, the republicans have put forward a plan that would put more americans at risk,

drive millions into bankruptcy, lock in the skyrocketing costs and enrich the insurance companies. in the republican plan, insurance companies could get richer while americans get poorer and sicker. the republican approach to health care has two parts. first the republicans would give american seniors a voucher for health care and do nothing to keep the insurance companies from taking them to the cleaners. the republican plan would do away with the medicare program as we know it today, which many seniors rely on. the hypocrisy of the republican plan is maddening. they say one thing and do another approach is reprehensible. they want to dismantle medicare and denounce the democratic plan to stop wasteful spending. the second part puts health

savings accounts. they have existed for years. these accounts are small and history shows that many americans underfund them or can't use them. when illness strikes, any significant co-payment or deductible can wipe out a family's savings in a minute. finally, the republican plan does more to take our health care system down the road to ruin, it goes another step and privatizes social security. after the wall street meltdown, the crazy lesson the republicans learned was to trust wall street with the future. this week, we learned by 2019, national health care spending will be over 19% of our economy, $4.5 trillion. if we don't act to control those costs now, people will no longer be able to afford the essentials like housing and food. when the public has to deal with the market to satisfy basic

needs, the government has to make sure the system is fair and that all americans have access. when it comes to health care retirement, we have to have commonsense rules. we must finish the job on health care and we are going to do it tomorrow at the white house. the republicans have shown the public their plan and it's not the solution. they are a rehash of old theories that make things worst. we have to pass commonsense health reform that is on the table and protect social security from crazy theories. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- mr. jones of north carolina. >> mr. speaker. mr. paul: i ask unanimous consent that i claim the gentleman's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. so ordered. mr. paul: thank you, mr. speaker. my topic for this evening is now

assassinations. when we have allowed ourselves to become? are we no longer a nation of laws? have we become instead a nation of men who make secret arrests? are secret prisons now simply another tool of the federal government law enforcement? is secret rendition of individuals now permitted out of misplaced fear? have we decided that the writ of habeas corpus is not worth extending? is torture now an acceptable tool for making us safe? unfortunately, the single answer to all of these questions from the leaders of our country and to many of our citizens appears to be yes. and now we are told that assassination of foreigners as well as american citizens is legitimate and necessary to provide security for our people. it is my firm opinion that nothing could be further from the truth.

secret arrests, secret renditions, torture and assassinations are illegal under both domestic and international law. these activities should be anathema to the constitutional republic. the real threat doesn't arise from our failure to torture but rather desense advertising our nation to the neglect of our civil liberties fought and died for over the centuries is the threat. the concept of habeas corpus existed before king john was forced in 1215 by his rebellious barons to sign the mag in a carter. this expression of individual liberty which has survived 800 years greatly influenced the writing of our constitution and our common law heritage. today, we hardly hear a whimper from the american people or our

government as our cherished liberties are eradicated. instead, we have a government that deliberately or contest traits needless fear and makes people insecure enough to ignore the reality of their lost liberties. the latest outrage is the current tration's acknowledgement that we now have a policy that permits assassination, not only of foreign suspects, but of american citizens as well. of course, the cia has used secret assassinations in a limited fashion for decades despite international and moral law. when done secretly as done in the past, our government recognized that assassination was illegal and wrong. frightingly, the policy is now explicit. national intelligence director, dennis blair, in open testimony before the house intelligence

committee on february 3 of this year, acknowledged that american citizens can, indeed, be assassinated at our government's discretion. the u.s. government attempted to assassinate al-waki and this was secret and he doesn't deserve individual rights and some unknown individual in the administration has the authority to declare him a threat and therefore a legitimate target for assassination. yes, i know, he is probably a very bad person. yes, i know that only a few persons are on the assassination hit lit. i know that artificially generated fear makes a large number of americans inclined to applaud this effort that will make us safe. if this becomes standard operating procedure and a permanent precedent is established, let me assure you that this abuse