PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 470.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Oct 7, 1994
Insurance Competitive Pricing Act of 1994 - Amends the McCarran-Ferguson Act to eliminate the antitrust exemption applicable to the business of insurance, except with respect to specified activities including conduct involving: (1) historical loss data; (2) loss development; (3) standard policy forms; (4) insurance manuals; (5) public necessity market mechanisms; (6) historical underwriting capacity risk pools; (7) building inspections; (8) worker's compensation experience rating; (9) trending (i.e., the projection of developed losses to estimate current and future risks of loss) during a three-year transition period; (10) educational activities of a national or affiliated State trade association whose members are insurance agents; and (11) independent reports by an agent to a local trade association. Specifies that, subsequent to the transition period, the independent purchase of a trend factor by a person engaged in the business of insurance from a person not engaged in providing insurance (and not affiliated with a person engaged in providing insurance) shall be presumed not to violate the antitrust laws. Preserves current law regarding applicability of the non-antitrust aspects of the Federal Trade Commission Act to the business of insurance. Directs the Attorney General to: (1) publish in the Federal Register, and make available to the public, historical underwriting capacity risk pool notifications; (2) issue letters in response to requests for a business review letter regarding the application of the antitrust laws to specified activities of an underwriting capacity risk pool of which a person engaged in the business of insurance is, or intends to become, a member; (3) conduct a study to determine the effect of this Act on such business; and (4) report to specified congressional leaders summarizing the results of the study.
People & committees
Rep. Brooks, Jack B. [D-TX-9] · D–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 470.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-853.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-853.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended).
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 2, 2021. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.9 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.9 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.9 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.9 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.