3.0.0 1150 2023-01-11T13:20:19Z 2023-01-11T13:20:19Z House H HR 2011-03-17 112 [Pages H1985-H1986]From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]By Mr. GOSAR:H.R. 1150.Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuantto the following:Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. ``The Congress shall havePower * * * To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, andamong the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.''Further, pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in UnitedStates v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S.533, 552-53 (U.S. 1944), insurance is constitutionallysubject to Congressional regulation. As set forth by theCourt:Our basic responsibility in interpreting the Commerce Clauseis to make certain that the power to govern intercourse amongthe states remains where the Constitution placed it. Thatpower, as held by this Court from the beginning, is vested inthe Congress, available to be exercised for the nationalwelfare as Congress shall deem necessary. No commercialenterprise of any kind which conducts its activities acrossstate lines has been held to be wholly beyond the regulatorypower of Congress under the Commerce Clause. We cannot makean exception of the business of insurance.Speaking directly on the power of Congress to regulateinsurance, or to exempt the insurance industry frommonopolistic practices under the Sherman Act, the Courtexplained:Whether competition is a good thing for the insurancebusiness is not for us to consider. Having power to enact theSherman Act, Congress did so; if exceptions are to be writteninto the Act, they must come from the Congress, not thisCourt.United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association,322 U.S. 533, 561 (U.S. 1944). This bill eliminates theexemption created by Congress, under powers expresslyenumerated in the Constitution. As for the proscription onclass action suits based on antitrust legal theories againstinsurers, the Constitution does not guarantee the right to aclass action lawsuit. Rather, individuals are simplyguaranteed an individual jury trial under the SeventhAmendment. There is no collective right to a civil legalremedy. This act preserves private rights of action broughtby aggrieved individuals and therefore comports with theSeventh Amendment and maintains enforcement of the publicgoals by the appropriate public entities, the states or thefederal government.That the Interstate Commerce Clause has been construed togrant Congress the power to regulate unfair oranticompetitive business practices that harm interstatecommerce, was recently commented upon by the U.S. SupremeCourt in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005):The Commerce Clause emerged as the Framers' response to thecentral problem giving rise to the Constitution itself: theabsence of any federal commerce power under the Articles ofConfederation. For the first century of our history, theprimary use of the Clause was to preclude the kind ofdiscriminatory state legislation that had once beenpermissible. Then, in response to rapid industrial[[Page H1986]]development and an increasingly interdependent nationaleconomy, Congress ``ushered in a new era of federalregulation under the commerce power,'' beginning with theenactment of the Interstate Commerce Act in 1887 and theSherman Antitrust Act in 1890.Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Finally, this Billrespects the Tenth Amendment and preserves the rights of eachstate to establish and enforce their own anti-trust or unfaircompetition statutes, and it narrowly construes theInterstate Commerce Clause to actions that involve actualcommerce, a product that is purchased and sold, administeredand utilized across state lines, and has a clear effect onnational commerce. In this manner, this Act would satisfyeven Justice Thomas' concurring view of the InterstateCommerce Clause, set forth in United States v. Lopez, 514U.S. 549, 586-87 (1995), that the Commerce Clause empow[...]]]> hsju00 Judiciary Committee House Standing hsju12 Over-Criminalization Task Force Subcommittee Referred to 2011-06-01T13:12:56Z Referred to 2011-03-17T13:02:25Z 2011-06-01 hsju12 Over-Criminalization Task Force Subcommittee 1 House committee actions Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet. Committee 2011-03-17 Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. IntroReferral H11100 2 House floor actions hsju00 Judiciary Committee 2011-03-17 Introduced in House IntroReferral Intro-H 9 Library of Congress 2011-03-17 Introduced in House IntroReferral 1000 9 Library of Congress G000565 Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-1] Paul Gosar R AZ A. 1 N J000255 Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] WALTER JONES R NC B. 3 2011-05-13 False D000399 Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-25] LLOYD DOGGETT D TX 25 2011-05-13 False M001159 Rep. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA-5] Cathy McMorris Rodgers R WA 5 2011-05-13 False L000573 Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID-1] Raul Labrador R ID R. 1 2011-05-26 False S001148 Rep. Simpson, Michael K. [R-ID-2] MICHAEL SIMPSON R ID K. 2 2011-05-26 False E000172 Rep. Emerson, Jo Ann [R-MO-8] JO EMERSON R MO ANN 8 2011-05-26 False V000108 Rep. Visclosky, Peter J. [D-IN-1] PETER VISCLOSKY D IN J. 1 2011-05-26 False G000550 Rep. Gingrey, Phil [R-GA-11] Phil Gingrey R GA 11 2011-05-26 False Y000031 Rep. Young, C. W. Bill [R-FL-10] C. W. Young R FL Bill 10 2011-07-08 False Q000023 Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5] Mike Quigley D IL 5 2011-07-08 False M001149 Rep. Michaud, Michael H. [D-ME-2] Michael Michaud D ME H. 2 2011-07-08 False B000911 Rep. Brown, Corrine [D-FL-3] CORRINE BROWN D FL 3 2011-07-08 False H001046 Rep. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM-1] Martin Heinrich D NM T. 1 2011-07-08 False C001066 Rep. Castor, Kathy [D-FL-11] Kathy Castor D FL 11 2012-05-29 False Health Civil actions and liability Competition and antitrust Health care costs and insurance Insurance industry and regulation Health 00 2011-03-17 Introduced in House 2011-05-03T18:08:11Z Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2011 - Amends the McCarran-Ferguson Act to provide that nothing in that Act shall modify, impair, or supersede the operation of any of the antitrust laws with respect to the business of health insurance.

Applies prohibitions against using unfair methods of competition to the business of health insurance without regard to whether such business is carried on for profit.

Prohibits class action lawsuits on any claim against an insurer for a violation of the McCarran-Ferguson Act, except suits by: (1) the United States or any state, or (2) named individual claimants for their particular injuries.

]]> Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2011 Display Title Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2011 Official Title as Introduced To restore the application of the Federal antitrust laws to the business of health insurance to protect competition and consumers. Introduced in House IH Short Titles as Introduced Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act of 2011 Introduced in House 2011-03-17T04:00:00Z https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-112hr1150ih/xml/BILLS-112hr1150ih.xml 2011-06-01 Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet. text/xml EN Pursuant to Title 17 Section 105 of the United States Code, this file is not subject to copyright protection and is in the public domain. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress This file contains bill summaries and statuses for federal legislation. A bill summary describes the most significant provisions of a piece of legislation and details the effects the legislative text may have on current law and federal programs. Bill summaries are authored by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress. As stated in Public Law 91-510 (2 USC 166 (d)(6)), one of the duties of CRS is "to prepare summaries and digests of bills and resolutions of a public general nature introduced in the Senate or House of Representatives". For more information, refer to the User Guide that accompanies this file.