congressional_record: CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1944
Data license: Public Domain (U.S. Government data) · Data source: Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API
This data as json
| granule_id | date | congress | session | volume | issue | title | chamber | granule_class | sub_granule_class | page_start | page_end | speakers | bills | citation | full_text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1944 | 1996-10-21 | 104 | 2 | THE INTERSTATE INSURANCE RECEIVERSHIP COMPACT | HOUSE | EXTENSIONS | ALLOTHER | E1944 | E1944 | [{"name": "Carlos J. Moorhead", "role": "speaking"}] | [{"congress": "104", "type": "HJRES", "number": "189"}] | 142 Cong. Rec. E1944 | Congressional Record, Volume 142 Issue 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996) [Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)] [Extensions of Remarks] [Page E1944] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] THE INTERSTATE INSURANCE RECEIVERSHIP COMPACT ______ HON. CARLOS J. MOORHEAD of california in the house of representatives Monday, October 21, 1996 Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, the Interstate Insurance Receivership Compact is the product of the efforts of a group of state insurance regulators and legislators that were concerned about the problems that have been presented by the administration of multistate insurance receiverships. After examining the compact and its plan of operation, I became convinced that the compact would make an important contribution to the regulation of insurance by the States. As a result, I introduced House Joint Resolution 189 for the purpose of granting the explicit consent of Congress to the compact. I have come to believe, however, that the Interstate Insurance Receivership Compact does not actually require congressional consent to be valid. The compact has now been adopted by four States, in addition to my home State of California, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, and New Hampshire. The compact is in the process of organizing its commission and establishing its rules so that it can fulfill its intended purpose of facilitating the open, fair, and efficient administration of insurance receiverships that have a multistate impact. A hearing on House Joint Resolution 189 took place before the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives on September 18, 1996. The testimony presented at the hearing, and the written submissions received both before and after the hearing, were, without exception, supportive of the compact and in some cases, enthusiastic. Testimony was personally presented by Senator Leo Fraser, of New Hampshire, a legislator who was instrumental in advocating the compact concept, and Robert Lange, director of insurance of the State of Nebraska and the first chairman of the compact commission. Written testimony was submitted by Peter Gallanis, special deputy receiver for the State of Illinois. In addition, Gov. Jim Edgar, of Illinois, and Gov. Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, wrote to Judiciary Chairman Henry Hyde and expressed their active support for the agreement. Significantly, no opinions to the contrary were expressed at the hearing. A number of important points were made in support of the compact. First, the purpose of the compact and its operation are fully consistent with the State regulation of insurance as set forth in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. The compact facilitates and enhances what the States are already doing. It merely allows them to do so more efficiently. Second, the terms of the compact clearly establish that there is no usurpation of any Federal prerogative by the compact and there is no unlawful delegation of State authority to the compact or its commission. The drafter of the compact carefully provided that each State would have the opportunity and ability to withdraw from the compact if it should decide to do so. In addition, each State has the ability to opt out of a rule promulgated by the compact commission if that State finds the rule to be undesirable. Interstate compacts have made an important contribution to the ability of the States to govern and to regulate, and, therefore, to the constitutional system of federalism. Many compacts have received explicit congressional consent. Many others have not received consent because the law, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, does not require it. The testimony, letters of support, and the language of the compact itself have now convinced me that the Interstate Insurance Receivership Compact is one of those compacts that does not require the explicit consent of Congress. ____________________ |