In an embarrassment to the chairman of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, the House Insurance Committee of Rep. Mike Oxley’s home state legislature on May 10 passed a resolution asking the Congress not to enact legislation that would impose federal standards on insurance regulation.
The panel voted 14-1 to ask the state legislature to pass the same resolution and send it to the leadership of both parties of Congress. Derrick Seaver, representing Minter in Rep. Oxley’s 4th District, is a sponsor of the resolution.
Rep. Oxley, R-Ohio, chair of the Financial Services panel, did not respond to several requests for comment, according to a committee aide. But a veteran industry lobbyist, Joel Wood of the Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Washington, called the resolution “misguided,” and said it was unlikely to have any impact on the committee’s decision whether to act or not act on the legislation, the State Modernization and Regulatory Transparency Act (SMART).
Reps. Oxley and Baker are on target to release a new draft of the bill sometime this summer, according to industry lobbyists.
It is unclear what the full Ohio legislature will do with the draft resolution. The House Financial Services Committee is currently working with industry trade groups and the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Kansas City, Mo., asking for input title by title, in hopes of creating a consensus on the bill.
The resolution contends that “State legislatures are more responsive to the needs of their constituents and more knowledgeable regarding the market conditions in their own states and the necessary insurance products and regulations to meet those market conditions.”
The resolution noted that premium levies in Ohio totaled $404 million in 2003, and contended that the proposed federal law “would undermine state sovereignty, threaten the power of state legislatures, governors, insurance commissioners and attorneys general to oversee, regulate and investigate the insurance industry….” It also said the SMART bill would “limit the states’ ability to protect the interests of their constituents….”