Expressing opposition to any federal legislation that would create an optional federal charter for insurers.
Impact
The resolution points out that allowing insurers to opt out of state regulations could have significant negative repercussions. It emphasizes that state lawmakers possess a unique understanding of their constituents' needs, enabling them to respond effectively to changing market conditions. An optional federal charter is portrayed as a potential threat to consumer protection, possibly allowing insurers to evade laws that have been designed to safeguard policyholders and ensure financial solvency.
Summary
HR798 is a resolution expressing opposition to any federal legislation that would create an optional federal charter for insurers. The resolution highlights the importance of state insurance regulators, who have been providing effective consumer protection and industry oversight for over 150 years. Proponents of the federal charter argue that it would allow insurers to operate more flexibly; however, the resolution counter-argues that this would undermine the rigorous protections and tailored regulations that states can offer based on local market needs.
Contention
One major point of contention mentioned in the resolution revolves around tax revenue implications. The measure suggests that implementing a federal charter could ultimately remove around $14 billion in premium taxes and fees from state budgets, which are crucial for funding state services. Furthermore, the document warns that a dual regulatory system would likely lead to confusion and create a more complex regulatory framework, potentially promoting inefficiencies in the industry.
Final_notes
The resolution also references the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945, which affirms the states' roles as primary regulators of insurance. It argues that there is no compelling reason to alter this established regulatory framework, suggesting that the proposed federal legislation is not only unnecessary but may also complicate the current system of regulation that has historically functioned effectively.
Expressing support for the Texas attorney general to bring an action against a federal agency to assert any claim the attorney general determines is justiciable to prevent the agency from violating federal law.
Urging Congress to amend federal law to allow states to provide for the consolidation of federally funded workforce development services with federally funded social safety net services.