{"database": "openregs", "table": "congressional_record", "rows": [["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1944", "1996-10-21", 104, 2, null, null, "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)\n\n[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 143 (Monday, October 21, 1996)]\n[Extensions of Remarks]\n[Page E1944]\nFrom the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]\n\n             THE INTERSTATE INSURANCE RECEIVERSHIP COMPACT\n\n                                 ______\n\n                        HON. CARLOS J. MOORHEAD\n\n                             of california\n\n                    in the house of representatives\n\n                        Monday, October 21, 1996\n\n  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, the Interstate Insurance Receivership\nCompact is the product of the efforts of a group of state insurance\nregulators and legislators that were concerned about the problems that\nhave been presented by the administration of multistate insurance\nreceiverships. After examining the compact and its plan of operation, I\nbecame convinced that the compact would make an important contribution\nto the regulation of insurance by the States. As a result, I introduced\nHouse Joint Resolution 189 for the purpose of granting the explicit\nconsent of Congress to the compact. I have come to believe, however,\nthat the Interstate Insurance Receivership Compact does not actually\nrequire congressional consent to be valid.\n  The compact has now been adopted by four States, in addition to my\nhome State of California, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, and New\nHampshire. The compact is in the process of organizing its commission\nand establishing its rules so that it can fulfill its intended purpose\nof facilitating the open, fair, and efficient administration of\ninsurance receiverships that have a multistate impact.\n  A hearing on House Joint Resolution 189 took place before the\nCommercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee of the Judiciary\nCommittee of the House of Representatives on September 18, 1996. The\ntestimony presented at the hearing, and the written submissions\nreceived both before and after the hearing, were, without exception,\nsupportive of the compact and in some cases, enthusiastic. Testimony\nwas personally presented by Senator Leo Fraser, of New Hampshire, a\nlegislator who was instrumental in advocating the compact concept, and\nRobert Lange, director of insurance of the State of Nebraska and the\nfirst chairman of the compact commission.\n  Written testimony was submitted by Peter Gallanis, special deputy\nreceiver for the State of Illinois. In addition, Gov. Jim Edgar, of\nIllinois, and Gov. Ben Nelson, of Nebraska, wrote to Judiciary Chairman\nHenry Hyde and expressed their active support for the agreement.\nSignificantly, no opinions to the contrary were expressed at the\nhearing.\n  A number of important points were made in support of the compact.\nFirst, the purpose of the compact and its operation are fully\nconsistent with the State regulation of insurance as set forth in the\nMcCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. The compact facilitates and enhances\nwhat the States are already doing. It merely allows them to do so more\nefficiently.\n  Second, the terms of the compact clearly establish that there is no\nusurpation of any Federal prerogative by the compact and there is no\nunlawful delegation of State authority to the compact or its\ncommission. The drafter of the compact carefully provided that each\nState would have the opportunity and ability to withdraw from the\ncompact if it should decide to do so. In addition, each State has the\nability to opt out of a rule promulgated by the compact commission if\nthat State finds the rule to be undesirable.\n  Interstate compacts have made an important contribution to the\nability of the States to govern and to regulate, and, therefore, to the\nconstitutional system of federalism. Many compacts have received\nexplicit congressional consent. Many others have not received consent\nbecause the law, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, does not\nrequire it. The testimony, letters of support, and the language of the\ncompact itself have now convinced me that the Interstate Insurance\nReceivership Compact is one of those compacts that does not require the\nexplicit consent of Congress.\n\n                          ____________________"]], "columns": ["granule_id", "date", "congress", "session", "volume", "issue", "title", "chamber", "granule_class", "sub_granule_class", "page_start", "page_end", "speakers", "bills", "citation", "full_text"], "primary_keys": ["granule_id"], "primary_key_values": ["CREC-1996-10-21-pt1-PgE1944"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.3206710573285818, "source": "Federal Register API & Regulations.gov API", "source_url": "https://www.federalregister.gov/developers/api/v1", "license": "Public Domain (U.S. Government data)", "license_url": "https://www.regulations.gov/faq"}