Transparent Insurance Standards Act of 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am especially grateful to the ranking member for allowing me this opportunity.

First, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the gentlewoman from New York and the other gentleman from Texas regarding our colleague, Mr. Neugebauer. From the day that I walked into this Chamber, he has been nothing but a paragon of gentlemanliness toward myself and my colleagues. In fact, every freshman receives a flag flown over the Capitol that Congressman Neugebauer has had flown. And wouldn't you know it, small world category: 2,000 miles away, he happened to be good friends with my uncle, which I didn't even know until he arrived here. He will be missed. He is a testament to how you can see the world completely differently, yet be able to treat one another with respect.

Mr. Speaker, I am a little uncomfortable because this is the second time in a week I have risen to oppose a proposal by my friend from Missouri who I think actually is trying to do the right thing and with whom I have dealt in good faith and who has dealt in good faith with us. But I do, in fact, rise to oppose this bill because in some cases it goes too far, in some cases it won't work, and in some cases, frankly, it doesn't go far enough.

It goes too far in terms of stealing the money from the SEC reserve to pay for this. Its costs and those associated with its implementation should not be borne by another enforcement agency whose job it is to keep us safe.

It won't work in terms of its reporting requirements: all of these expensive requirements that require the rate on the SEC, the transparency, the reporting. Anybody who knows anything about negotiations knows you can't post a public notice about what you intend to do and hope to be successful on the outcome.

I happen to have been a professional on both sides of the labor management negotiations table, and I can tell you, the last thing in the world you want to do is post your playbook. That would be a little bit like the football team saying: Come here, defense; let me tell you what we are going to do.

That would, in fact, be the net effect of this particular approach.

The objective: to maintain the integrity in the McCarran-Ferguson Act is the right one. It is the wrong approach.

In some cases it, frankly, doesn't go far enough because, the truth is, we ought to have these international discussions and negotiations for international firms; but this bill would only apply to the IAIS. There are a lot of international forums where insurance is at the table. The fact of the matter is, the State regulators ought to be at those tables as well.

Look, there is a better way. I offer it to you. It is a bill I have introduced, which is H.R. 6436, that takes a principle-based approach.

It merely says that the State-based insurance regulators have got to be at the table, and we have to protect that system. It is a principle- based, not a top-down, command and control heavy bureaucracy approach to achieving the same objective while at the same time ensuring that we provide adequate protection and regulation for international insurance companies, but respecting the State-based system.

I don't know why we can't get the win-win here. You know, I find it ironic that my legislation, H.R. 6436, actually enjoys broad-based support among the stakeholders: the regulated and, yes, the regulators.

The State-based insurance regulators believe that this is the best approach to take, and it is the one I think is a win-win for everybody.

It achieves everybody's objectives. That is not what H.R. 5143 will do.

H.R. 5143 goes too far in some cases, won't work in others, and doesn't go far enough in others. So I hope that you will reject it, provide us with an opportunity to continue to negotiate in good faith, and get to win-win because win-win is possible in this circumstance.

I, once again, thank the ranking member very much for this opportunity.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source