[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 68 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5332-S5333]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CATASTROPHE INSURANCE
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, yesterday, I introduced four
bills, 3114, 3115, 3116, and 3117 that are aimed at providing a
comprehensive solution to strengthen our Nation's property and casualty
insurance market. Without serious reform, the Federal Government will
be forced to continue to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money to
cover the costs of natural disasters in the United States. Worse,
without Federal action, property insurance soon will become more
expensive and harder to find, preventing some consumers from insuring
their homes and businesses.
As we know too well, the last few years have brought a devastating
cycle of natural catastrophes in the United States. In 2004 and 2005,
we witnessed a series of powerful hurricanes that caused unthinkable
human tragedy and property loss. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone
caused over $200 billion in total economic losses, including insured
and uninsured losses.
Recently in my own home State of Florida, eight catastrophic storms
in 15 months caused more than $31 billion in insured damages. Now
Florida is witnessing skyrocketing insurance rates, insurance companies
are canceling hundreds of thousands of policies, and Florida's State
catastrophe fund is depleted.
In short, the inability of our private markets to fully handle the
fallout from natural disasters has made our Nation's property and
casualty insurance marketplace unstable. This market instability
repeatedly has forced the Federal Government to absorb billions of
dollars in uninsured losses. This is a waste of taxpayer money,
especially when we know there are ways to design the system to
anticipate and plan for the financial impacts of catastrophes.
As insurance companies struggle to maintain their businesses, costs
are passed on to homeowners and small businesses in Florida and in
other States. In essence, the people who can least afford it are being
forced to bear the disproportionate share of the billions of dollars of
losses caused by natural catastrophes.
Many Floridians have seen their insurance bills double in the last
few years. As I travel around Florida, I hear repeatedly from my
constituents that they may soon be unable to afford property and
casualty insurance. That is a frightening proposition for people living
in a State where increasingly vicious hurricane seasons are predicted.
I am sure we all agree--consumers never should be put in the untenable
position of having to choose between purchasing insurance and
purchasing other necessities.
While our Nation's property and casualty insurance system is not yet
completely broken, it is clear that Congress needs to act now to shore
up the system. Private sector insurance is currently available to
spread some catastrophe-related losses throughout the Nation and
internationally, but most experts believe that there will be
significant insurance and reinsurance shortages. These shortages could
result in future dramatic rate increases for consumers and businesses
and the unavailability of catastrophe insurance.
Let me be clear: these issues will not just affect Florida or the
coastal States. Natural catastrophes can strike anywhere in our
country. For example, a major earthquake fault line runs through
several of our Midwestern States. We also saw firsthand the devastating
effects of a volcano eruption at Mount St. Helens in Washington State.
In the past few decades, major disasters have been declared in almost
every State. As I mentioned earlier, the Federal Government has
provided and will continue to provide billions of dollars and resources
to pay for these catastrophic losses, at huge costs to all American
taxpayers.
Congress has struggled with these issues for decades. Although we
have talked about these issues time and again, nothing much has gotten
accomplished. The most notable step Congress did take was to create the
National Flood Insurance Program. But Congress needs to do much more.
It is time for a comprehensive approach to solving our Nation's
property and casualty insurance issues.
These matters are usually within the purview of the States, and I
cannot undersate the importance of State-based solutions to these
insurance issues. Nonetheless, the Federal Government also has a
critical interest in ensuring appropriate and fiscally responsible risk
management of catastrophes.
For example, mortgages require reliable property insurance, and the
unavailability of reliable property insurance would make most real
estate transactions impossible. Moreover, the public health, safety,
and welfare demand that structures damaged or destroyed in catastrophes
be reconstructed as soon as possible.
Therefore, the inability of the private sector insurance and
reinsurance markets to maintain sufficient capacity to enable Americans
to obtain property insurance coverage in the private sector endangers
the national economy and our public health, safety, and welfare.
In order to help protect consumers and small businesses, today I am
introducing four bills as part of a comprehensive approach to fixing
our troubled insurance system. Let me summarize each of the four bills
and tell you how this integrated approach makes good policy sense.
The first piece of legislation I am introducing today is the
Homeowners Protection Act of 2006, S3117. This bill is a companion bill
to a bipartisan piece of legislation introduced by Florida
Representatives Brown-Waite, Hastings, and others.
This bill would establish a fund within the U.S. Department of
Treasury, which would sell Federal catastrophe insurance to State
catastrophe funds, like the fund I helped to set up in Florida. State
catastrophe funds essentially act as reinsurance mechanisms for
insurance companies who lack resources to compensate homeowners for
their losses.
Under this bill, State catastrophe funds would be eligible to
purchase reinsurance from the Federal fund at sound rates. However, a
State catastrophe fund would be prohibited from
[[Page S5333]]
gaining access to the Federal fund until private insurance companies
and the State catastrophe fund met their financial obligations.
Why is this good for homeowners? Because this backup mechanism will
improve the solvency and capacity of homeowners insurance markets,
which will reduce the chance that consumers will lose their insurance
coverage or be hit by huge premium increases.
Importantly, the Homeowners Insurance Protection Act of 2006 also
recognizes that part of the problem with our broken property and
casualty insurance system lies with outdated building codes and
mitigation techniques. Noted insurance experts and consumer groups have
been pointing out this problem for many years. So, under the bill, the
Secretary of the Treasury would establish an expert commission to
assist States in developing mitigation, prevention, recovery, and
rebuilding programs that would reduce the types of enormous damage we
have seen caused by recent hurricanes.
I note that this bill covers not just hurricanes, but catastrophes
such as earthquakes, cyclones, tornados, catastrophic winter storms,
and volcanic eruptions. These are disasters that can--and do--occur in
many different States. Again, every State and every taxpayer is
affected by this problem, not just Florida.
This bill has widespread support from a broad range of stakeholders,
including ProtectingAmerica.org, a national coalition of first
responders, businesses, and emergency managers. This organization is
cochaired by former FEMA Director James Lee Witt, one of the most
respected names in disaster prevention and preparedness.
The second bill I am introducing today is the Catastrophe Savings
Accounts Act of 2006, S. 3115. The companion bill was introduced in the
House of Representatives by a bipartisan group of Members including Tom
Feeney and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
This bill proposes changing the Federal Tax Code to allow homeowners
to put money aside--on a tax-free basis--to grow over time. If and when
a catastrophe hits, a homeowner could take the accumulated savings out
of the account to cover uninsured losses, deductible expenses, and
building upgrades to mitigate damage that could be caused in future
disasters. Homeowners could even reduce their insurance premiums
because their tax-free savings would allow them to choose higher
deductibles.
The benefits of this approach are pretty straightforward and very
consumer friendly. Homeowners would be encouraged to plan in advance
for future disasters, and they wouldn't be taxed to do it. Moreover,
homeowners wouldn't be as dependent on insurance companies to help them
out immediately after a disaster. As one expert has noted, why should a
consumer continue to give insurance companies thousands of dollars each
year when the consumer could deposit the same amount of money annually
in a tax-free, interest-bearing savings account controlled by the
consumer?
The third bill I am introducing today is the Policyholder Disaster
Protection Act of 2006, S. 3116. This bill was introduced in the House
of Representatives by Mark Foley and has eight cosponsors.
Under this bill, insurance companies would be permitted to accumulate
tax-deferred catastrophic reserves, much the way that homeowners would
be permitted under the bill I just discussed. Depending on their size,
insurance companies could save up to a certain capped amount, which
would grow over time.
Our current Federal Tax Code actually provides a disincentive for
insurance companies to accumulate reserve funds for catastrophes. Under
the current system, insurance companies can only reserve against losses
that already have occurred, instead of future losses. The United States
is the only industrialized nation that actually taxes reserves in this
way. It is time for reform, so that consumers are better protected.
Make no mistake though--this bill is not a giveaway to the insurance
companies. Instead, the Policy Disaster Protection Act of 2006 would
strictly regulate when and how insurance companies could access their
reserves, to make sure the money is used only for its intended
purposes.
If implemented correctly, this bill could result in approximately $15
billion worth of reserves being saved up by insurance companies, which
later could be spent to pay for policyholder claims and to keep
insurance policies available and affordable. Consumers could feel more
protected knowing that their insurance company would have the money
saved to help them out after a major disaster. Moreover, this approach
should help make the insurance market more stable and less prone to
insurers going bankrupt.
Finally, the fourth bill, S. 3114, that I am introducing as part of
my comprehensive reform package is the Commission on Catastrophic
Disaster Risk and Insurance Act of 2006.
Under this bill, Congress would create a Federal commission--made up
of a cross-section of the best experts in the Nation--to quickly
recommend to Congress the best approach to addressing catastrophic risk
insurance. The experts on the commission would be required to analyze
the three bills that I am introducing today, along with other potential
approaches to reforming our insurance system.
Creating a Federal commission is not always the best answer,
especially if it can slow down reform efforts. But in this case, the
opposite would occur. I say that with cofidence--because I am following
a successful model that I used when I was insurance commissioner for
the State of Florida in the 1990s. After Hurricane Andrew devastated
South Florida in 1992, I created a nonpartisan commission comprised of
university presidents.
I asked the Florida commission to study the problems with the
property and casualty insurance market and recommend what legislative
reforms were necessary to restore health to Florida's system. Within
months, the commission acted--breaking through the deep political
logjam and inertia--to recommend the legislative reforms that
ultimately became State law.
That model worked then, and I think it can work now on a Federal
level. Without the work of an expert, neutral commission to help guide
us in these incredibly complex matters, I fear that Congress will never
find the consensus necessary to reform the system and bring stability.
Let me emphasize again what we need to accomplish to reform our
current insurance system and to effectively plan for catastrophic
losses.
We need a comprehensive approach that will make sure the United
States is truly prepared for the financial fallout from natural
disasters. We need a property and casualty insurance system that is not
forced to spend valuable taxpayer dollars after a catastrophe strikes.
We need a system that protects consumers and small businesses from
losing their insurance policies or being forced to pay exorbitant
insurance rates. We need ways to encourage responsible construction and
mitigation techniques. And we need a system that helps insurance
companies use their resources in cost-effective ways so that they will
not go insolvent after major disasters.
Our American economy depends on a healthy property and casualty
insurance system. By enacting meaningful reforms, we can ensure that
our economy remains protected and remains the most resilient economy in
the world. I know this complicated process won't be easy for us--but
let's roll up our shirtsleeves and get it done.
I request that the four bills I discussed--S. 3114, S. 3115, S. 3116,
and S. 3117--be printed in the Congressional Record.
____________________