Mr. SUNUNU. Mr. President, I wish to speak to the legislation before us and in particular to address some of the remarks that were made earlier by Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts. He raised concerns about the State of New Hampshire and suggested that this legislation would be bad for the State of New Hampshire and that the State of New Hampshire had already enacted legislation identical to this. I think it is wrong for someone to provide information that is not entirely accurate. I think that is inaccurate, and it is not inaccurate in some very key areas.

First, the bands that were discussed that were enacted in the State of New Hampshire were much smaller than the rating bands contemplated in this legislation, and they did it in New Hampshire without any transition period. Those are two very significant, specific differences between this legislation and what was attempted in New Hampshire.

Second, as with any legislation, it cuts both ways. There were some employers that saw increases in their premiums 2 and 3 years ago that some claimed were a result of the legislation in New Hampshire, but many businesses--in fact, the NFIB would suggest the majority of businesses--in New Hampshire saw some great relief because they are the smaller businesses that we are talking about, those who would be allowed to improve their negotiating position through the provisions in this bill. Moreover, this isn't a debate about one State. This is a debate about providing increased access--increased access--to plans that are negotiated by associations, by the members of small businesses and, as a result, negotiating lower prices.

Finally, there was discussion about community rating and how objectionable it is that there will be an ability to differentiate on price based on a number of factors. I think the truth is, when you force that kind of price control, you force adverse selection because if I tell you that you have to charge the exact same price to anyone, no matter what region, circumstance, or situation, then the insurer will automatically market to the healthiest people because they won't want to take on the additional costs associated with those who might have significant needs that result in higher prices.

So if you go to price control, which is exactly what the other side is suggesting, forcing the same price for everyone no matter who is covered, businesses will naturally--naturally--only market to those who are healthy and, as a result, reduce the accessibility and availability of health insurance to those who might need it most.

It is a dramatic, unintended consequence, and that is the exact outcome that will be the result of the policies that are being suggested by the other side. We need to be accurate in what we represent. This is a good bill for small business and, as a result, it is an excellent bill for New Hampshire because in New Hampshire, small businesses make up over 95% of all firms with employees. If we want to do something about the uninsured, the majority of whom are working as self-employed or for small businesses, we need to take up the exact kind of provisions that are in this bill: Increased access of health insurance for those working in the smallest firms.

###