Floor Statements

The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Spector).

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Hagel), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Roberts), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Alexander), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo) would have voted ``yea.''

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), and the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch) would have voted ``nay.''

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Bond), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Chambliss), the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Corker), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alaska (Ms. Murkowski), the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens), and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), and the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison).

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg), the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe).

Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe) would have voted ``yea.''

What is the order, Mr. President?

Mr. President, I wish to withhold until the Senator from Pennsylvania makes his brief remarks.

Mr. President, may I get some time under the agreement?

Probably 5 or 6 minutes. How much would you have left then? I don't want to eat up all your time.

Mr. President, let me say at the beginning, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Vermont and his comments on our effort here; also, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, whom I have discussed this issue with several times over the past year.

Let me begin at the beginning of this effort. I thank my colleagues for this bipartisan effort. It shows what we can do when we work together. Now, we have a long road to go, but this is being introduced as a bipartisan measure with leaders from both sides and leaders of the Judiciary Committee joining in cosponsoring this legislation.

How did I get interested in this area? Well, it is like so many things in my life that go back only until August 29, 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devastated my hometown and the area of my State that I love so much, Mississippi and the gulf coast area. I had been active in years gone by actually in the insurance area. I had done some law practice in that area. I had done some defense work. But I never had become steeped in the laws that apply to the industry because most of the time I was dealing with an automobile accident case or something of that nature.

Well, after Hurricane Katrina we learned a lot of lessons, and we found a lot of new concerns in areas where we had to take action. One of the commitments I have made to the people--and to the Senate because the Senate has been so good in helping us in our recovery effort, in changing the laws where applicable, the Stafford Act, in providing funds. But one of the commitments I made as a result of that is to make sure we take a look at what happened to us. What did we learn from Katrina? What can we do to have more laws and the right things in place after the next natural disaster--and there will be one--or any kind of catastrophic disaster? We learned that the laws were not what they should be. They needed to be changed. We have changed them some and we need to change them some more. We learned the Federal agencies weren't necessarily set up properly to do what needed to be done in the aftermath of a disaster. We had questions about homeland security and the Federal Emergency Management Administration and how the military, the Coast Guard, and everybody interplayed together. So we have been trying to make those corrections.

We need to ask ourselves: Do we need to give some additional thought to how

we deal on a national level with the coverage of people or how we help them recover? Do we need a national catastrophic insurance program? I don't know that I am satisfied I know the answer yet, but I think we need to ask that question in advance.

I also found, to my absolute horror, something I should have known, which is that the insurance industry is not covered by antitrust laws. They have a waiver. I said: How could that be? I remember hearing discussion over the years about the McCarran-Ferguson Act, but I never focused on it. When I realized that ratesetting and actually policy actions by the industry were not covered by antitrust laws, I was stunned. I understand you need a lot of information to decide on rates, but that information can be used back and forth to in effect set rates as an industry without making sure that it is not done in an anticompetitive way. Do you mean that under this exemption, that companies could collude on what actions they take or, even worse, what actions they don't take, which is what we got into after Hurricane Katrina? We had companies basically saying: Oh, no, no, you are covered by Federal flood insurance. We don't have to pay under the household policies for wind damage.

So as I got into it, I found that this happened back in 1944. At that point, there was regulation of the insurance industry, but there was a case styled the United States v. South Eastern Underwriters Association which caused a change in how insurers were regulated. Then the Congress immediately acted and said: Oh, no, we are going to say that federal antitrust laws do not apply to this industry.

Soon the courts got into this issue and took a look at what happened. They looked at the record. There were no hearings in the Senate. It was passed quickly on a voice vote, and it went quickly through the House. The conference report was debated for 2 days by the Senate, and most of the debate, as I have looked at it, looks as though everybody thought this was going to be a temporary moratorium. However, that is not the way the courts have interpreted the laws.

Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurers are exempt from antitrust scrutiny, so long as they are regulated by State law. Then you get into a patchwork of State laws: Do the States actively regulate them? Is there a process for antitrust activities to be considered?

Over the years, many have advocated the repeal of this antitrust exemption. The Judiciary Committee had hearings on this last summer. The American Bar Association's antitrust section noted that the organization for nearly 20 years has supported repeal of this exemption. Look, there is a unique role for States to deal with insurance questions and needs in those States, but my question beyond that is: Should the Federal Government have the right to make sure there are not anticompetitive activities, to make sure there is no colluding? I think we need to take a serious look at that. This legislation would do that. It would take away that exemption. It would make the insurance industry subject to the same coverage of almost every other corporation in America: antitrust legislation.

I know my time has expired. I thank the Chair for his leniency. I thank Senator Leahy for doing this. I look forward to having the hearings and testifying. This is wrong, Mr. President, and the Senate in a bipartisan way should, and I believe will, correct it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I wish to withhold until the Senator from Pennsylvania makes his brief remarks.

Mr. President, may I get some time under the agreement?

Probably 5 or 6 minutes. How much would you have left then? I don't want to eat up all your time.

Mr. President, let me say at the beginning, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Vermont and his comments on our effort here; also, my colleague from Pennsylvania, Senator Specter, whom I have discussed this issue with several times over the past year.

Let me begin at the beginning of this effort. I thank my colleagues for this bipartisan effort. It shows what we can do when we work together. Now, we have a long road to go, but this is being introduced as a bipartisan measure with leaders from both sides and leaders of the Judiciary Committee joining in cosponsoring this legislation.

How did I get interested in this area? Well, it is like so many things in my life that go back only until August 29, 2005, when Hurricane Katrina devastated my hometown and the area of my State that I love so much, Mississippi and the gulf coast area. I had been active in years gone by actually in the insurance area. I had done some law practice in that area. I had done some defense work. But I never had become steeped in the laws that apply to the industry because most of the time I was dealing with an automobile accident case or something of that nature.

Well, after Hurricane Katrina we learned a lot of lessons, and we found a lot of new concerns in areas where we had to take action. One of the commitments I have made to the people--and to the Senate because the Senate has been so good in helping us in our recovery effort, in changing the laws where applicable, the Stafford Act, in providing funds. But one of the commitments I made as a result of that is to make sure we take a look at what happened to us. What did we learn from Katrina? What can we do to have more laws and the right things in place after the next natural disaster--and there will be one--or any kind of catastrophic disaster? We learned that the laws were not what they should be. They needed to be changed. We have changed them some and we need to change them some more. We learned the Federal agencies weren't necessarily set up properly to do what needed to be done in the aftermath of a disaster. We had questions about homeland security and the Federal Emergency Management Administration and how the military, the Coast Guard, and everybody interplayed together. So we have been trying to make those corrections.

We need to ask ourselves: Do we need to give some additional thought to how

we deal on a national level with the coverage of people or how we help them recover? Do we need a national catastrophic insurance program? I don't know that I am satisfied I know the answer yet, but I think we need to ask that question in advance.

I also found, to my absolute horror, something I should have known, which is that the insurance industry is not covered by antitrust laws. They have a waiver. I said: How could that be? I remember hearing discussion over the years about the McCarran-Ferguson Act, but I never focused on it. When I realized that ratesetting and actually policy actions by the industry were not covered by antitrust laws, I was stunned. I understand you need a lot of information to decide on rates, but that information can be used back and forth to in effect set rates as an industry without making sure that it is not done in an anticompetitive way. Do you mean that under this exemption, that companies could collude on what actions they take or, even worse, what actions they don't take, which is what we got into after Hurricane Katrina? We had companies basically saying: Oh, no, no, you are covered by Federal flood insurance. We don't have to pay under the household policies for wind damage.

So as I got into it, I found that this happened back in 1944. At that point, there was regulation of the insurance industry, but there was a case styled the United States v. South Eastern Underwriters Association which caused a change in how insurers were regulated. Then the Congress immediately acted and said: Oh, no, we are going to say that federal antitrust laws do not apply to this industry.

Soon the courts got into this issue and took a look at what happened. They looked at the record. There were no hearings in the Senate. It was passed quickly on a voice vote, and it went quickly through the House. The conference report was debated for 2 days by the Senate, and most of the debate, as I have looked at it, looks as though everybody thought this was going to be a temporary moratorium. However, that is not the way the courts have interpreted the laws.

Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, insurers are exempt from antitrust scrutiny, so long as they are regulated by State law. Then you get into a patchwork of State laws: Do the States actively regulate them? Is there a process for antitrust activities to be considered?

Over the years, many have advocated the repeal of this antitrust exemption. The Judiciary Committee had hearings on this last summer. The American Bar Association's antitrust section noted that the organization for nearly 20 years has supported repeal of this exemption. Look, there is a unique role for States to deal with insurance questions and needs in those States, but my question beyond that is: Should the Federal Government have the right to make sure there are not anticompetitive activities, to make sure there is no colluding? I think we need to take a serious look at that. This legislation would do that. It would take away that exemption. It would make the insurance industry subject to the same coverage of almost every other corporation in America: antitrust legislation.

I know my time has expired. I thank the Chair for his leniency. I thank Senator Leahy for doing this. I look forward to having the hearings and testifying. This is wrong, Mr. President, and the Senate in a bipartisan way should, and I believe will, correct it.

I yield the floor.

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

The following Senator was necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas).

The following Senator was necessarily absent. The Senator from Kansas, Mr. Brownback.

The following Senators were necessarily absent: the Senator from Florida (Mr. Martinez) and the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich).

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, for allowing me to go next in line so I can speak briefly about my colleague from the State of Mississippi. I thank Senator McConnell for his remarks, and Senator Reid. They did a magnificent job summing up the character of this great Senator from Mississippi.

Senator Cochran and I have been in the Congress together now for-- this is our 35th year. We came together in the House of Representatives in 1973. He moved over to the Senate in 1978. He was elected, and came here in 1979, and eventually I tagged along with him again.

Senator Cochran and I go back to the 1960s. We were both students at the same university, the University of Mississippi. His wife Rose and I were in the same class, and we worked together in student activities. I always felt I had a special friendship with Senator Cochran because of my friendship also with his wife Rose.

Our parents were schoolteachers--both his mother and father and my mother. We both started out as Baptists, and I think we still are, in a way. Just right down the line, we have a lot in common. In fact, some people wonder how I get as many votes as I do in Mississippi. It is because I think some people get confused between Thad and Trent, and I am known in some areas as Thad Lott, but it seems to work. I benefit by standing in the reflection of his great stature in our State of Mississippi.

I am very proud of my colleague from our State. We have had some great Senators from our State, but Senator Cochran is rising to the level of the stature of the best of those. So I am very proud of the record he has achieved here, the number of votes he has cast, and I am hoping that he will cast 10,000 more before he decides to leave this great institution.

But I must say on a very personal note, I have never been more proud of my colleague from Mississippi than I was in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and 2006. His quiet, steady, methodical, rational effort to help us get what we needed to recover from that major disaster was an incredible thing to watch. The respect he has in this institution on both sides of the aisle helped him to lead the way in getting the help we needed for our State. I was belated in doing it, but I will never quit doing it, when last fall

I thanked the Senate--the Congress--for what they did do for us after that hurricane. Everything Senator Cochran and I and others from our State asked the Congress to do, they did it, and we will always be in debt.

On the 1-year anniversary of that cataclysmic event in our State, he and I were sitting on the same platform as the Sun came up in Biloxi, MS, on August 29, 2006--a hot morning. A year earlier, the water had been about--probably 25 feet from where we were sitting. The surge was that high, or more. There were many of us on that platform: mayors, supervisors, Congressmen, the Governor. We were all taking deep bows for all the money we had brought to the people of this devastated area.

Finally, I had about all I could stand, including taking my own bows, and I finally rose and said: It is fine to share the credit, and there are many of us here who have done our best. But most of us could not be taking credit for what has happened if it were not for the man sitting right behind me on this platform, Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi.

It is an incredible thing we have experienced in terms of pain and suffering but also in honor and in glory and in appreciation for what has happened since then. So I hope there are many other high-water marks in his great career, but none will ever be appreciated so much as the service he gave to our State and to our country in the aftermath of that hurricane.

Thank you, my colleague. It is a pleasure serving with you.