[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 10]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13645]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           CHURCH PLAN PARITY AND ENTANGLEMENT PREVENTION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                           HON. JOHN R. THUNE

                            of south dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, June 26, 2000

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for S. 
1309. This bill clarifies that church sponsored employer benefit plans 
are not subject to state insurance laws.
  Because church plans are exempt from the Employee Retirement Income 
Security Act of 1974, they do not benefit from the explicit preemption 
of state insurance regulation that secular self-insured health plans 
enjoy. Many service providers have been reluctant to do business with 
church benefit programs for fear that they themselves may violate state 
insurance rules barring contracts with unlicensed entities. In 
addition, state regulators occasionally raise questions about the legal 
status of these benefit programs. These complications have caused 
churches to contract with numerous service providers in order to comply 
with recent federal mandates on church plans.
  S. 1309 remedies this problem by clarifying that church plans are not 
insurance companies for state law purposes. Congress has already 
addressed a similar problem for church sponsored employee benefit plans 
under federal securities laws, extending the exemptions enjoyed by 
secular plans and preempting state securities regulation of church 
plans.
  Just this year, my own state of South Dakota enacted an exemption for 
church plans from its insurance laws--making my State the fourth state 
to so act. I commend the Director of Insurance, Darla Lyon, the State 
Legislature and the Governor for working hard to protect the health 
care benefits of church workers and to assist them in accessing 
discounted providers. South Dakota has now joined Texas, Florida and 
Minnesota in clarifying that church benefit plans are not insurance 
companies. It makes little sense to suggest that church benefit 
programs spend their resources to enact 46 more state exemptions. The 
pending bill will provide these programs the legal certainty they need 
in every state.
  More than one million clergy, lay workers, and their families are 
presently being denied access to discounted service providers because 
of the ambiguous position of church plans under state law. S. 1309 
corrects this problem.
  I urge adoption of the pending bill.

                          ____________________