Congressional Record Senate — McConnell Blocks UC on $2000 Checks

Record facts

Full text

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S7966 
December 29, 2020 
One of the most important items 
that Congress failed to reach agree-
ment on was funding for State and 
local governments. States and local-
ities are struggling with increased 
costs and decreased revenues due to the 
pandemic. By this summer, my home 
State of Illinois will have lost more 
than $5 billion in revenues. I can tell 
you that this is going to cause pain and 
cutbacks. This is not money that was 
lost in our pension system, which has 
its own share of troubles; it is money 
that was directly attributable to the 
downturn in revenues because of the 
COVID–19 pandemic. It isn’t just hap-
pening in Illinois; it is happening all 
around the country—in red and blue 
States. Our neighboring State of Ken-
tucky, to the south of us, is facing the 
same hardships we are. 
Federal funding for States and local-
ities needs to be done for our great cit-
ies and great States that are strug-
gling, and I certainly hope that the 
next President, when he is sworn in on 
January 20, will take this up as one of 
his highest priorities. Our Nation’s eco-
nomic recovery is slowed down by 
budget cuts that will be necessary in 
States and localities because of this 
cutback in revenues. 
Now, 
the 
most 
widely 
discussed 
measure of the COVID–19 relief bill is a 
second round of economic impact pay-
ments. Just yesterday, the House of 
Representatives passed the CASH Act, 
which is a measure that would increase 
the direct payments to individuals— 
adults and children—from $600 to $2,000 
for those who earn less than $75,000 a 
year. The measure passed in the House 
by a vote of 275 to 174. Over the past 
several months, we have heard time 
and again from economists that we run 
the risk of doing too little, which far 
outweighs the risk of doing too much 
when it comes to this economic recov-
ery. 
The head of the Federal Reserve, 
Chairman Powell, has really instructed 
us to keep the foot on the accelerator 
so that our economy doesn’t slump 
into a recession. At a time when so 
many American families are laid off, 
unemployed, and simply struggling to 
get by, there is nothing more invig-
orating to the economy than to have a 
cash infusion. Those with limited re-
sources who are battling to pay bills 
turn around and spend that money 
quickly. They don’t salt it away for 
some future rainy day. They need it 
now. That is why we should seriously 
consider this. 
By passing this enhanced measure, 
we can restore the American public’s 
confidence in Washington and by the 
fact that we are listening and working 
together, on a bipartisan basis, to re-
spond. This measure that passed the 
House of Representatives has the sup-
port of the President, Speaker PELOSI, 
House Democrats, as well as many 
House Republicans. Leader SCHUMER 
and my Senate Democratic colleagues 
support it. So I hope Senator MCCON-
NELL—the Republican leader—and his 
colleagues in the Republican caucus 
will join us and allow us to pass this 
bill quickly this week. Let’s step up to 
the plate and get this done. The Amer-
ican people have waited too long for 
this relief. 
I, for one, am proud of my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle for coming to-
gether and passing a meaningful relief 
bill, but the time for patting one an-
other on the back is over. Let’s finish 
the job. Let’s make sure that we have 
this authorization bill for the Depart-
ment of Defense and that we come to 
the rescue of our families across Amer-
ica who need defense against the vagar-
ies of this pandemic and this economy. 
We can finally see a slight glimmer of 
light at the end of this tunnel. If we 
want to address the needs of Americans 
in crisis, it starts with passing this leg-
islation. 
I yield the floor. 
I suggest the absence of a quorum. 
The 
PRESIDING 
OFFICER. 
The 
clerk will call the roll. 
The senior assistant legislative clerk 
proceeded to call the roll. 
Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded. 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 
objection, it is so ordered. 
f 
COMPETITIVE HEALTH INSURANCE 
REFORM ACT 
Mr. DAINES. Mr. President, I rise 
today to speak about my bipartisan 
legislation, the Competitive Health In-
surance Reform Act, which I intro-
duced with my colleague Senator PAT-
RICK LEAHY. This is important legisla-
tion that will protect consumers from 
anticompetitive practices by repealing 
the outdated antitrust exemption for 
the health insurance industry. This bill 
has wide bipartisan support, as well as 
a strong history of near-unanimous 
congressional consensus, having passed 
the House of Representatives three 
times, most recently this September. 
In 1944, the Supreme Court ruled in 
United States v. South-Eastern Under-
writers that the business of insurance 
was a form of interstate commerce. 
This meant that the health insurance 
industry would be subject to Federal 
antitrust laws under the Commerce 
Clause of the Constitution. The insur-
ance industry began raising uncertain-
ties about whether this meant that 
States would no longer have authority 
to regulate insurance. When Congress 
acted to reaffirm this State authority, 
in the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the in-
surance industry managed to add a 
last-minute special-interest loophole 
that exempted the business of insur-
ance from Federal antitrust laws. 
It has become clear that this anti-
quated exemption has effectively given 
insurance companies the power to 
collude to drive up prices, restrict com-
petition, and deny consumers choice. 
The large health insurance companies 
of today have taken advantage of this 
exemption to abuse the market and ar-
tificially inflate healthcare costs. As a 
result, consumers are paying higher 
prices to get basic healthcare services, 
which couldn’t be a worse outcome in 
the middle of a major pandemic. 
I recognize concerns have been raised 
about whether this legislation might 
impair or create uncertainty regarding 
the authority of State insurance regu-
lators. I appreciate hearing from all 
stakeholders and wish to put those 
concerns to rest by making clear the 
intent and scope of the bill. This legis-
lation merely amends a peripheral pro-
vision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act 
containing an antiquated exemption 
from Federal antitrust laws as it ap-
plies to health insurance companies. It 
does not in any way interfere with, su-
persede, or abrogate the authority pro-
vided and guaranteed by the McCarran- 
Ferguson Act to State insurance regu-
lators to regulate the health insurance 
industry. 
This legislation would ensure that 
health insurance companies would be 
subject to Federal antitrust laws in the 
same way as the rest of the American 
economy, including other regulated 
sectors. Most importantly, as this bill 
does not disturb any of the authority 
provided to State insurance regulators 
under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, it 
does not empower Federal authorities 
to interfere with, supersede, or prevent 
states from regulating the health in-
surance industry however they see fit. 
Simply put, this legislation would 
give the Department of Justice and the 
Federal Trade Commission authority 
to apply antitrust laws to anticompeti-
tive practices in the health insurance 
industry. Furthermore, it is the intent 
of the authors of this legislation that 
the DOJ and FTC notify and work with 
states on investigations they have re-
ceived or are undertaking that involve 
health insurance entities in their state. 
The Competitive Health Insurance 
Reform Act will restore full trans-
parency, promote oversight, and en-
courage competition within the health 
insurance industry. I look forward to 
this legislation being signed into law 
by the President. 
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I appre-
ciate Senator DAINES joining me to 
clarify the intent of the Competitive 
Health Insurance Reform Act of 2019. 
This legislation, which Senator DAINES 
has introduced with Senator LEAHY, 
would modify the McCarran-Ferguson 
Act by eliminating the health insur-
ance industry’s exemption from Fed-
eral antitrust laws. That sounds like a 
good idea, but it has implications for 
longstanding State regulation of the 
insurance industry. 
States have had the primary respon-
sibility for the regulation of health in-
surance since the 1940s. Given my past 
experience as commissioner of Maine’s 
Department of Professional and Finan-
cial Regulation, I know firsthand that 
State insurance regulators do a good 
job of responding to the needs and con-
cerns of their insurance consumers. To 
protect consumers, State insurance 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:00 Dec 30, 2020
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\G29DE6.018
S29DEPT1
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with SENATE

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S7967 
December 29, 2020 
regulators hold probing hearings on 
rate requests which often lead to lower 
rates being approved. Most State insur-
ance regulators have consumer protec-
tion advocates who resolve disputes be-
tween insurers and individual con-
sumers. State regulators do not tol-
erate unfair or anticompetitive prac-
tices. As the National Association of 
Insurance Commissioners wrote to the 
leaders of the Senate and the Senate 
Judiciary Committee, ‘‘The potential 
for bid rigging, price-fixing and market 
allocation is of great concern to state 
insurance regulators and we share your 
view that such practices would be 
harmful to consumers and should not 
be tolerated. However, we want to as-
sure you that these activities are not 
permitted under state law. Indeed, the 
state insurance regulators in all states 
actively enforce their antitrust rules 
and review rates to ensure they are ac-
tuarially justified, sufficient for sol-
vency and nondiscriminatory.’’ 
Based on this experience, I have con-
sistently raised concerns about legisla-
tion that could interfere with the cur-
rent State-level regulation of insur-
ance and could ultimately harm Maine 
consumers and smaller insurers. These 
concerns extend to the Competitive 
Health Insurance Reform Act. 
While the bill does not directly mod-
ify the portion of McCarran-Ferguson 
that affirms State regulatory author-
ity, it, however, does add a layer of 
Federal review, and we need to ensure 
that in doing so we do not create in-
creased confusion, cost, and possible 
conflicts between State and Federal ef-
forts. 
This is why it is very important to 
make clear Congress’s intent that 
along with the changes specified in the 
bill, it is Congress’s expectation that 
the Department of Justice and the Fed-
eral Trade Commission must notify 
State bureaus of insurance and attor-
neys general of any complaints or in-
vestigations they have received or are 
performing that involve entities in 
their 
state. 
I 
appreciate 
Senator 
DAINES’ willingness to join me today to 
ensure this intent is clearly stated in 
the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. 
Given the agreement to provide for-
mal clarification of the expectation 
that DOJ and FTC shall provide notifi-
cation to States regarding complaints 
or investigations they have received or 
are performing, I will withdraw my ob-
jection to passage of this legislation. 
Thank you. 
f 
CONFIRMATION OF ERIC J. SOSKIN 
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, for over 
40 years, inspectors general have acted 
as independent, nonpartisan watchdogs 
tasked with preventing and uncovering 
fraud, waste, and abuse in the Federal 
Government. Simply put, inspectors 
general make sure government is doing 
what it’s supposed to do. To accom-
plish this immense task, inspectors 
general must be experienced in over-
sight, trusted by both political parties, 
and ready to hit the ground running on 
any audits, investigations, and other 
reviews of their agencies. 
Unfortunately, the nominee for in-
spector general that we considered last 
week does not meet this basic test. 
The Department of Transportation is 
charged with ensuring that America 
has the safest, most efficient and mod-
ern 
transportation 
system 
in 
the 
world, so that Americans are able to 
travel safely and efficiently by road, 
rail, or air. The Department has an an-
nual budget of over $87 billion and em-
ploys over 55,000 personnel, with a foot-
print in every State. 
The DOT inspector general must be 
ready to oversee the full range of these 
activities, from every dollar that funds 
our highways to every safety decision 
issued by DOT regulators. To meet this 
task, the office employs over 400 per-
sonnel, with an annual budget of over 
$94 million. 
Eric Soskin, the nominee for DOT in-
spector general, is not qualified to 
oversee an agency of this size and 
scope, or to lead the activities of one of 
the largest Offices of Inspector General 
in the Federal Government. Mr. Soskin 
does not have any experience managing 
large 
organizations. 
He 
has 
never 
worked in an Office of Inspector Gen-
eral, and he does not have experience 
in many of the basic activities of such 
an office, like audits or inspections. Al-
though he has legal experience, he has 
not focused on DOT or transportation 
issues at any point in his career. 
While I appreciate Mr. Soskin’s serv-
ice at the Department of Justice and 
his enthusiasm for the position, he 
simply lacks the qualifications to en-
sure DOT is fulfilling its responsibil-
ities. 
I am most troubled, however, by the 
increasing politicization of inspectors 
general by the President and by the 
majority. 
Since 1981, this body has confirmed 
over 150 inspectors general; until last 
week, all but two of these nominees 
had been confirmed by unanimous con-
sent, a voice vote, or a unanimous 
vote. The reason for this is simple: To 
do their jobs, inspectors general must 
be trusted by each member of Congress 
and by every American, regardless of 
political party. 
Until this Congress, when an inspec-
tor general has faced significant oppo-
sition, 
the 
Senate 
either 
worked 
through any concerns or declined to 
advance the nomination. The majority 
did not force through partisan or un-
qualified nominees. That is how we 
have upheld this institution. That is 
how we have maintained trust in the 
independence, qualifications, and in-
tegrity of inspectors general. 
This Congress, we held our first 
party-line vote in 40 years to confirm a 
deeply 
partisan 
inspector 
general 
nominee. We have now confirmed yet 
another inspector general on a party- 
line vote during a lameduck session, 
with a nominee who was already re-
jected by nearly half of the Commerce 
Committee and as well as on the Sen-
ate floor. 
The inspector general is a position 
that continues across administrations. 
It is one with tremendous authority to 
look at every agency record, to inter-
view any employee, and to carry out 
criminal investigations. We cannot 
transform this institution into one of 
Democratic inspectors general and Re-
publican inspectors general. This is not 
and cannot become a political position. 
Inspectors General hold government 
accountable to the law and to the 
American people. And it is our respon-
sibility to protect this institution and 
reject any nomination that will under-
mine their independent, nonpartisan 
work. 
f 
MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE 
RECEIVED DURING ADJOURNMENT 
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED 
Under the authority of the order of 
the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Sec-
retary of the Senate, on December 22, 
2020, during the adjournment of the 
Senate, received a message from the 
House of Representatives announcing 
that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
BEYER) had signed the following en-
rolled bills: 
H.R. 1240. An act to preserve United States 
fishing heritage through a national program 
dedicated to training and assisting the next 
generation of commercial fisherman. 
H.R. 4031. An act to amend the Federal 
Water Pollution Control Act to reauthorize 
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and 
for other purposes. 
H.R. 5458. An act to modify the boundary of 
the Rocky Mountain National Park, and for 
other purposes. 
H.R. 5852. An act to redesignate the Weir 
Farm National Historic Site in the State of 
Connecticut as the ‘‘Weir Farm National 
Historical Park’’. 
H.R. 6535. An act to deem an urban Indian 
organization and employees thereof to be a 
part of the Public Health Service for the pur-
poses of certain claims for personal injury, 
and for other purposes. 
H.R. 7460. An act to extend the authority 
for the establishment by the Peace Corps 
Commemorative Foundation of a commemo-
rative work to commemorate the mission of 
the Peace Corps and the ideals on which the 
Peace Corps was founded, and for other pur-
poses. 
Under the authority of the order of 
the Senate of January 3, 2019, the en-
rolled bills were signed on December 
24, 2020, during the adjournment of the 
Senate, by the Acting President pro 
tempore (Mr. BLUNT). 
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED 
Under the authority of the order of 
the Senate of January 3, 2019, the Sec-
retary of the Senate, on December 24, 
2020, during the adjournment of the 
Senate, received a message from the 
House of Representatives announcing 
that the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
BEYER) had signed the following en-
rolled bill: 
H.R. 133. An act making consolidated ap-
propriations for the fiscal year ending Sep-
tember 30, 2021, providing coronavirus emer-
gency response and relief, and for other pur-
poses. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
03:00 Dec 30, 2020
Jkt 019060
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4637
Sfmt 0634
E:\CR\FM\A29DE6.009
S29DEPT1
dlhill on DSK120RN23PROD with SENATE

File and source

File

CREC_SENATE_2020-12-29_CASH-ACT-UC-BLOCK.pdf

Size

204,075 bytes

SHA-256

5242aba316498dbabfefb39c4bbf2038f00c71cf4aceb26d8f3d76f67f367baf

Our copy

CREC_SENATE_2020-12-29_CASH-ACT-UC-BLOCK.pdf

Original

www.govinfo.gov