Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007
Floor Speech
FLOOD INSURANCE REFORM AND MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2007 -- (House of Representatives - September 27, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TAYLOR. I want to thank Chairman Frank, Chairwoman Waters, Chairman MEL WATT, the Democratic members of the Financial Services Committee for bringing this incredibly important bill to the floor.
Mr. Chairman, a little over 2 years ago, the Nation's worst disaster hit a number of places, including the district I have the privilege of representing. An unprecedented number of homes were destroyed, including my own. As the crow flies between my house and Senator Lott's house is 40 miles. As inconceivable as it may be, in that 40 miles between our houses, only a handful of houses within several blocks of the Gulf of Mexico remained.
A number of things occurred after that storm, most of them good. People in south Mississippi pulled together. They did what they could to take care of themselves. People from all over America came to our assistance. Congressman Gilchrest's district raised something in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $50,000 for the people of my district, as well as the people of St. Mary's County. There are so many of these things, that I can't enumerate them all. The people of St. Mary's County sent down three truckloads of Christmas presents to kids who lost everything.
To this day, there are still young volunteers and not-so-young volunteers from all over the country who come down there trying to help people rebuild their lives. About the only group that didn't try to help the people of south Mississippi is the insurance industry. You see, within days of the storm, the insurance industry issued a memo to their employees that said whenever wind and water occur concurrently, blame it all on the water.
Mr. Chairman, the United States Navy has modeled what happened that day in Mississippi, and the United States Navy tells us that for 4 to 5 hours in south Mississippi we had hurricane force winds before the water ever got there.
Under the National Write Your Own program, we count on the private sector for two things: we count on them to sell the policy, and that way our Nation does not have the administrative expense of having a sales force. But we also count on them to adjudicate the claim fairly. Those things that are wind, say the wind did it, and they have to pay. Those things that are attributed to water, you can blame it on the flood insurance, and the Nation pays.
Within days of the storm, State Farm and other companies had issued the following e-mails to their employees: Where wind acts concurrently with flooding to cause damage to the insured property, coverage for the loss exists only under flood coverage.
So, on one hand, they have a contract with the Nation that says we are going to pay if it's wind damage, the Nation is going to pay if it's flood damage. They get to adjust the claim. We don't have a Federal employee following them around. The total discretion to make this claim is with the private sector.
Put yourself in the position of that 25-year-old claims adjuster. You're looking for your Christmas bonus; you're hoping for a promotion. You can walk on that property and say what is fair, that, yeah, there was wind and there was water, or you can be a company man and you can follow the memo from company headquarters and blame it all on the water and stick the taxpayer with the bill. That is not fair to the taxpayer right off the bat, and it's not fair to the citizens.
Let me further clarify this, and I have kind of become an expert at it the hard way. Every homeowner's policy has something in it called ``Cost of Living Expenses,'' and that is if your home burns down tonight, and you have got a homeowners policy, they will pay to put you up until they fix your house. But if they deny the claim, they don't put you up.
The President came down shortly after the storm and said, you know what, if you have lost your house, or if your house is substantially damaged, we are going to get you a trailer to live in. They assigned, just in south Mississippi, 42,000 trailers; one for every family of five, $16,000 per trailer.
Then they gave another contract to an outfit called Bechtel to haul those trailers the last 70 miles, from a place called Purvis, Mississippi, down to the site where a home was, hook it up to a garden hose, plug it in, hook it up to the sewer tap. It worked out where that company got another $16,000 just for doing the very simple thing that grandmoms and grandpops and moms and dads do every weekend, which is called hooking up a travel trailer.
We are now up to $32,000 per trailer, times 42,000 times, because they decided they weren't going to pay on their homeowners claims, that the Nation would pay. Now, you can come to this floor and defend that, but I don't think you can.
So the individual who had a homeowners policy, because if you live in hurricane country, and this has happened three times in my lifetime, it's the only time I lost my house, but three times in my lifetime I have seen terrible storms. You don't know if it's going to be more wind than water or more water than wind. So you buy both policies, with the idea if I get flooded, I've got a flood policy. If it's wind tearing my roof off, I've got a wind policy. You have both.
As the chairman pointed out, our Nation spends a fortune to have hurricane hunters fly into these storms. Our Nation spends a fortune to put satellites that track storms into space. Why do they do that? To give people warning so that they don't die in the storm. Our sheriffs departments and police chiefs did a wonderful job: get the heck out of here, this is going to be a bad storm. So the logical people and the people who weren't hard-headed got the heck out of there. We lost a rocket scientist. I am certainly not going to say that man was dumb, but he built what he thought was a hurricane-proof house. He died in that hurricane-proof house.
The point is that the few folks who stayed behind almost all died, but the few folks who stayed behind had their claims paid because they could sign an affidavit and say I saw my roof fly off before the water got there, I saw my windows fly in. And, by the way, I was 10 miles
inland that day and the windows in my brother's house flew in. The insurance companies paid wind claims in all 82 counties of Mississippi, all the way to Memphis, Tennessee; but they are somehow trying to convince this Congress that the wind somehow miraculously leap-frogged over the coast and they shouldn't have had to pay where it hit first.
Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do with this is tell the people of America, the 52 percent of the people that live in coastal America, that if you build the house the way you should, if you pay your premiums, if you buy this additional coverage, if your house is destroyed in the course of a hurricane or substantially damaged in the course of a hurricane, you don't have to be there with a video camera to record whether it's wind or whether it's water. You paid your premium, you built it right, you are going to get paid.
One of the gentlemen mentioned that the insurance companies have settled 90-something percent of the claims. Let me address that.
I was pretty busy, as you might guess, after the storm. I put off meeting with my adjuster for 2 weeks. By the time I met with my adjuster, I had heard dozens, if not hundreds, of my constituents as I am going around passing out MREs, told me, ``They already told me they are not going to pay me. I had a homeowners policy. They are not going to pay me.''
So by the time they came to my house, I asked my agent, Please don't say a word. Each one of my steps is about 3 feet. Let's just count the steps until we find my roof. We paced off about 150 of them, 450 feet. I showed them my roof and pointed out it was tin. I reminded them that tin doesn't float. I showed them the holes where it had been ripped through the bolts.
I said, This is my roof. I am the only guy in this neighborhood that has this style roof. This is my roof, and it is 450 feet from where my house used to be. Now let's walk back to where my house used to be. Miss, what do you have to say? This to the claims adjuster.
The first words out of her mouth, I see no evidence of wind damage. We are, however, prepared to pay your flood claim. To which I reminded her that was very sweet of State Farm. That is not their money; that is the Nation's money. What about the claim for that roof that flew over there?
What we are trying to do with this is prevent the need for my constituents, your constituents, anyone who lives in coastal America, to have to stay behind with a video camera to record the destruction and possibly die with these claims. If you build it right, if you pay your premiums, then you get paid. Pretty simple. Under the PAYGO rules of this House, it will pay for itself. It has to. It is written in the law.
Lastly, we quit putting the insurance companies in a position where they can bilk the taxpayers for billions of dollars. What some of you may not know, something I will be entirely grateful for, is because so many homeowners claims weren't paid in south Mississippi of people who lived outside the floodplain, who had homeowners insurance but didn't get paid, in one of the appropriations bills after Katrina, $4 billion in taxpayer dollars was included to pay those people's insurance claims. The taxpayers paid for what State Farm, Nationwide, and Allstate should have paid.
So when people say this is some sort of raid on the Treasury, I see it as just the opposite. This is creating a program where the Nation won't have to ride to the rescue next time because people will have bought insurance ahead of time, in a program that pays for itself, in a program that says if you built it right, if you pay your premiums, an act of God destroys your house, you are going to get paid.
I can't think of anything that is more fiscally responsible. I can't think of anything that is more right for the citizens. And I would remind my colleagues that the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Realtors, and the National Association of Bankers, when given the opportunity to look at this bill in its totality, have endorsed this bill as it is written, including the wind versus water language to allow people to buy all-perils insurance.
I thank the chairman for his leadership on this. No one can say they have been blindsided on this issue. The hearings on this issue began in January. The debate on this issue started the week after the storm. There has been ample opportunity for people to weigh in on this issue.
I very much thank again the chairman, Ms. Waters, Mr. MEL WATT, for the opportunity to bring this to the floor and the opportunity to right an egregious wrong against the American people.
Lastly, I would like to remind people that even with Katrina, the insurance industry made $42 billion in profits the year of Katrina. So while they are simultaneously telling their employees, don't pay the individual, while they are sticking the bill to the citizen, if you have any doubt in your mind why flood insurance lost so much money, it is because they made so much money that year. We are trying to correct that. I hope you will help us.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to remind the gentleman from Georgia that what this is all about is getting the companies to live by their contract.
Thousands of my constituents, including one of the most powerful Members of the United States Senate and a Federal judge, had to hire lawyers and engineers to get fairness from their insurance companies. If they're going to do that to a powerful Senator or if they're going to do that to a Federal judge, what kind of chance does a schoolteacher, a chief petty officer, a high school football coach have?
The fact of the matter is they have not lived up to their responsibilities. That's what brings this bill to the floor today.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CULBERSON. Reclaiming my time. When people have more of their own money to spend, the economy grows because they invest and we are rewarding people for hard work and productive behavior.
Other than Social Security and Medicare, which are noble, good programs that have helped this Nation, other than those two, has there ever been a piece of legislation exposing the American taxpayer to greater potential liability than this boondoggle that you are putting before the House today? And I gladly yield some of my time, Mr. Taylor. Can you identify a bigger boondoggle than this one?
Mr. TAYLOR. Sure. No more than I challenge the question as to whether or not this is a boondoggle. We have recognized a problem; we are addressing it in a means that pays for itself.
On the other hand, when the Republican majority controlled this House, they brought a prescription drug benefit to the floor.
Mr. CULBERSON. Which I voted against.
Mr. TAYLOR. Which increased the liability of the taxpayers for over $1 trillion and had no funding mechanism. And then they held the vote open for 3 hours to twist arms to pass it. So, sir, that is it.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TAYLOR. Since you were in the business, you know that if you have a federally backed mortgage and you live in a floodplain, you have to buy flood insurance. The wind policy will be totally voluntary. It is an option to those people who wish to purchase. There is nothing in the law to require people to buy the wind policy.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Taylor:
In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment made by section 7(a)(2) of the bill, in subsection (c)(7)(A), after ``residential properties'' insert the following: ``, which shall include structures containing multiple dwelling units that are made available for occupancy by rental (notwithstanding any treatment or classification of such properties for purposes of section 1306(b))''.
In the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment made by section 7(a)(2) of the bill, in subsection (c)(7)(A)(ii), before the semicolon insert the following: ``, which limit, in the case of such a structure containing multiple dwelling units that are made available for occupancy by rental, shall be applied so as to enable any insured or applicant for insurance to receive coverage for the structure up to a total amount that is equal to the product of the total number of such rental dwelling units in such property and the maximum coverage limit per dwelling unit specified in this clause''.
In section 8 of the bill, strike paragraph (3) and insert the following:
(2) in paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``$500,000'' each place such term appears and inserting ``$670,000''; and
(B) by inserting before ``; and'' the following: ``; except that, in the case of any nonresidential property that is a structure containing more than one dwelling unit that is made available for occupancy by rental (notwithstanding the provisions applicable to the determination of the risk premium rate for such property), additional flood insurance in excess of such limits shall be made available to every insured upon renewal and every applicant for insurance so as to enable any such insured or applicant to receive coverage up to a total amount that is equal to the product of the total number of such rental dwelling units in such property and the maximum coverage limit per dwelling unit specified in paragraph (2); except that in the case of any such multi-unit, nonresidential rental property that is a pre-FIRM structure (as such term is defined in section 578(b) of the National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C. 4014 note)), the risk premium rate for the first $500,000 of coverage shall be determined in accordance with section 1307(a)(2) and the risk premium rate for any coverage in excess of such amount shall be determined in accordance with section 1307(a)(1)''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 683, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee for allowing this amendment to be considered and hopefully for his help on it.
Mr. Chairman, anyone who has traveled to south Mississippi or south Louisiana after the wakes of Hurricanes Rita and Katrina know we have an incredible housing shortage. Today, 19,000 Mississippi families are still living in FEMA trailers. They are grateful for the trailers. They would rather be someplace else. Part of that problem is, in particular, for renters. In addition to homes being destroyed, a heck of a lot of rental properties were destroyed.
Prior to this amendment, if you are a condo owner or building a condo, you can build a condo with as many number of units as you would like, and each one of those units can be insured up to the value of the Federal flood insurance program. If it is 100 units, each one of them can be insured up to $250,000. On the other hand, if you are considering building rental property, you have two strikes against you. Number one, in the wakes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this private sector that so many people are saying are being so good to us have now said that just for wind insurance it is going to be $300 per unit per month even for a modest apartment.
Secondly, if you are considering building a building, you can insure that building for only $500,000. Whether it is one unit or 1,000 units, you can only get $500,000 worth of coverage for that entire building. It is a disincentive for the private sector to rebuild and to build the sort of housing that we need.
This amendment is all about parity. If we, as a Nation, can insure condominiums for folks who can afford to buy them, then we, as a Nation, ought to be making available insurance for folks who can't afford a condo but who need to rent a place to live.
Like every amendment that I have offered and every amendment that has been made in order, it has been judged by the Congressional Budget Office that this amendment will pay for itself. It has no impact on the Treasury.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TAYLOR. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to encourage the gentlewoman, let's deal with the facts. If you have an organization that is opposed to this amendment, name the organization. But let's don't suppose for anyone whether they are for it or against.
Secondly, Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the committee.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlewoman's remarks. I would like to mention to the gentlewoman, and add for the Record, the support for this bill, including the wind language, from the National Association of Realtors, National Association of Homebuilders, National Association of Bankers.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
Washington, DC, September 26, 2007.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: On behalf of the more than 1.3 million members of the National Association of REALTORS (NAR), I ask for your vote in favor of H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007, when it is considered by the House of Representatives on Thursday, September 27.
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) offers essential flood loss protection to homeowners and commercial property owners in more than 20,000 communities nationwide. The bill, as written, will help protect homeowners, renters and commercial property owners from losses sustained from flooding. NAR strongly supports the following changes to the NFIP contained in the bill including:
Extending the NFIP for five years;
Ensuring that the 100-year flood maps are updated as expeditiously as possible;
Increasing coverage limits to $335,000 for residential and $670,000 for commercial properties;
Supporting education of tenants about the availability of flood insurance while providing flexibility to property owners and managers in the manner of providing such notice;
Adding coverage for living expenses, business interruption, and basement improvements;
Extending the pilot program for mitigation of severe repetitive loss properties; and
Studying the impacts of eliminating subsidies on homeowners, renters and local economies.
It is critical that flood insurance remain accessible for all individuals who own or rent property in a floodplain. I urge you to vote in favor of H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007, on Thursday.
Sincerely,
Pat V. Combs,
2007 President,
National Association of Realtors.
--
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF HOME BUILDERS,
Washington, DC, September 26, 2007.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVES: On behalf of the 235,000 members of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), I am writing to express our support for H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 as amended by the Manager's Amendment, which includes much-needed technical improvements to the underlying bill.
As you know, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma radically disrupted the lives of those living on the Gulf Coast. After the storms' passing, many homeowners found themselves in dispute with their property insurance companies over whether water or wind was the primary cause of damage to their homes. After much debate, one proposed solution which has emerged to address this conflict is to expand the authority of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to include wind coverage.
NAHB is pleased that the bill incorporates new language to provide wind insurance coverage for home owners. H.R. 3121, as amended by the Manager's Amendment, would provide a needed addition in expanding the availability and affordability of property insurance in high hazard areas. Additionally, it references the mitigation requirements of consensus-based building codes as a measure to lessen the potential damage caused by a natural disaster and thus further ensure the financial stability of the NFIP.
NAHB remains concerned about the overall solvency of the NFIP, but we also view this program as not simply about flood insurance premiums and payouts. The NFIP is a comprehensive tool to guide the development of growing communities while simultaneously balancing the need for reasonable protection of life and property. The specific method Congress uses to achieve this balance could potentially impact housing affordability as well as the control local communities have over their growth and development. NAHB believes that H.R. 3121 strikes the proper balance in protecting the NFIP's long-term financial stability while ensuring that federally-backed flood insurance remains available and affordable.
As this new NFIP expansion moves forward, NAHB encourages Congress to limit the amount of the program's fiscal exposure to ensure its financial sustainability and to require premiums for the new multi-peril coverage to be risk-based and actuarially sound. NAHB commends the work of the House Financial Services Committee in crafting legislation to preserve and enhance this important federal program, and we urge your support for H.R. 3121, as amended by the Manager's Amendment, when it comes to the House floor this week.
Thank you for your attention to our views.
Sincerely,
JOSEPH M. STANTON.
--
September 26, 2007.
To: Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.
From: Floyd Stoner, Executive Director, Congressional Relations & Public Policy, ABA.
Re: Support for H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007.
I am writing on behalf of the members of the American Bankers Association (ABA) to express our support for H.R. 3121, the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007, scheduled to be considered by the full House later this week.
Since 1968, nearly 20,000 communities across the United States and its territories have participated in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in these communities.
Losses from three large hurricanes (Katrina, Rita, and Wilma) in 2005 have left the NFIP more than $23 billion in debt to the Treasury. There is no way that the NFIP can reasonably repay this debt and provide payment for future losses under the current rate structure. The likelihood of additional flood events and resulting claims against the program make reforms vital.
This legislation would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to update the flood maps, and it would provide a phase-in of actuarial rates for commercial properties and non-primary residences. ABA supports these efforts as being necessary to sustain the program over the long term.
H.R. 3121 also would increase the penalties for non-compliance in placing flood insurance, from $350 per violation to $2000 per violation. We are pleased that the legislation would provide a ``safe harbor'' for an institution which is in non-compliance due to circumstances beyond its control (such as outdated mapping by FEMA). We also are pleased that the legislation would provide institutions with an opportunity to correct non-compliance before a penalty is assessed and place a reasonable limit for total penalties per institution/per year.
We urge you to support this important legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Taylor:
At the end of the bill, add the following new section:
SEC. 30. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO WINDSTORM AND FLOOD.
Section 1345 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4081) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(d) Requirements for Write-Your-Own Insurers Relating to Windstorm and Flood.--The Director may not utilize the facilities or services of any insurance company or other insurer to offer flood insurance coverage under this title unless such company or insurer enters into a written agreement with the Director that provides as follows:
``(1) PROHIBITION ON EXCLUSION OF WIND DAMAGE COVERAGE.--The agreement shall prohibit the company or insurer from including, in any policy provided by the company or insurer for homeowners' insurance coverage or coverage for damage from windstorms, any provision that excludes coverage for wind or other damage solely because flooding also contributed to damage to the insured property.
``(2) FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY.--The agreement shall provide that the company or insurer--
``(A) has a fiduciary duty with respect to the Federal taxpayers;
``(B) in selling and servicing policies for flood insurance coverage under this title and adjusting claims under such coverage, will act in the best interests the national flood insurance program rather than in the interests of the company or insurer; and
``(C) will provide written guidance to each insurance agent and claims adjuster for the company or insurer setting forth the terms of the agreement pursuant to subparagraphs (A) and (B).''.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 683, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, in the course of today's debate, a lot of Members are learning a lot about insurance that they kind of wish they didn't know. Unfortunately, a lot of folks in my district learned a lot in the wake of that storm that they wish they knew.
As I have told you before, the United States Navy has modeled Hurricane Katrina. According to the United States Navy, there were four to five hours of hurricane force winds that hit south Mississippi before the water ever got there. Now, that is a fact from the United States Navy.
We have a policy under the National Write Your Own Program where we as a Nation allow the private sector to sell that policy, even though we back it. That is not a problem. It cuts down on administrative costs. We also have a line in that contract, though, with those private firms that says you will do a fair adjustment of the claim.
Think about it. I can't think of any other person that can send a bill to the Federal Government, up to $250,000, plus another $100,000 for contents, and no one ever questions it. And yet we gave the insurance industry this incredible responsibility, and I can tell you, they misused it. But it says there has to be a fair adjustment. That is the law.
Unfortunately, in the policies that they wrote for people, that were multiple pages thick, buried in that policy is something called ``concurrent causation,'' which says, in effect, that after those four to five hours of hurricane force winds hit south Mississippi, if on a residence there's a single two-by-four left standing, the roof is gone, the windows have been blown in, the curtains are gone, the house is gone, if there's one two-by-four left standing, then there is a concurrent causation of wind and water, and they don't have to pay. It's in their policies.
Under oath there have been insurance agents who admitted they didn't even know it was in the policy. If the insurance agents didn't know, do you think an individual has a chance?
There is an extremely influential Senator on the other end of the building, a law degree from the University of Mississippi; he didn't know it was in there. Federal Judge Lou Garrolla, a Federal judge, he didn't know it was in there. If an extremely influential U.S. Senator, if a Federal judge doesn't know, what chance does a corrugated box salesman have? What chance does a shrimper have, a housewife, a school teacher?
The fact of the matter is that's wrong. The taxpayers ended up paying the bill that the insurance company should have paid because they stuck it to the taxpayers through the flood insurance policy every time.
This amendment would tell the insurance companies that if they want to do business with our Nation through the Federal flood insurance program, that they can no longer have a concurrent causation clause in their contract because it's completely contrary to the contract they have with our Nation that says it's going to be a fair adjustment of the claim.
If after 4 hours of hurricane force winds the house is almost gone, but there's one board left, and a wave comes along and knocks that last board down, under their rules, the taxpayers pay. Under what is fair and right, they ought to pay for what the wind did and let the taxpayers pay for what the water did.
We recognize there's a problem, we are addressing that problem, and only a shill for the insurance industry can turn around and say that this is right. If you really are concerned about the Treasury, then you ought to be concerned about the Treasury being ripped off by insurance companies by letting their agents be the sole determining factor of who's going to pay and sticking our Nation with the bill. This is an opportunity to close that loophole and to right an egregious wrong.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source