GLOBAL INSURANCE 8940 BROOKVILLE ROAD SILVER SPRING, MARYLAND 20910 301-588-2870 STATEMENT ON HR 1 by BARRY L. MERSKY March 11, 1985 Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment for the record on HR 1, with particular focus on the By 1982, I was an established insurance agent who was First, I believe that the crime insurance now offered In my 1982 testimony, I gave many examples of stores which I may have overstated my case. Recovery For the April 1, 1982, testimony, see the "Housing and Urban-Pural were marginal or under capitalized or collapsed for reasons beyond the fact that they were victims of crime. For those examples where I said that they could not operate without insurance, the key word is affordable insurance. By 1985, the current and proposed FCIP premiums will not help retain any businesses in urban, underserved areas. Finally, I do not believe that the FCIP can currently attract businesses or help keep businesses in high crime areas. I heard nothing statistical at the March 11, 1985 hearings, to make me believe that businesses (or residents) would leave or not settle in an area because of the non-availability of crime insurance. I therefore conclude that since the FCIP is no longer meeting its mandate to provide affordable insurance so that high crime areas will not be deserted by business or residents, the FCIP not be renewed. The second reason the FCIP has outlived its usefulness is because I believe that the private sector can better serve this underserved (or underclassed?) market. By "better serve", I mean be more responsive to the real needs of businesses and residents in the urban areas. In my remarks of 1982, I was quite candid about the administrative problems of the existing FCIP. I have concluded that these problems are inherent to the Program and can never be corrected. Claims adjustment by Federal standards, can never be fair to all small businessman; some small businesses will always suffer as a result of the It is possible that fewer businesses will be bureaucracy. harmed by slow claims adjustment or billing errors or protective device requirements, if they promulgated by a financially interested party (private industry) instead of a well-intended but ultimately unresponsive bureaucrat. For many years I have waited for the administrative burdens of the FCIP to be shaken down or eliminated. Since the problems I outlined in 1982 seemingly cannot be ameliorated, I urge you not to renew the FCIP. In conclusion, I ask both Democrats and Republicans to look closely at the FCIP. As an insurance agent who has been intimately involved and interested in this Program since its inception, I believe that the reasons for its existance are no longer valid. Since it is neither truly affordable nor compassionately administered, it has no usefulness or national constituency. In light of other national problems, such as budget deficits, the Federal Crime Insurance Program does not merit Congressional funding or approval. WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF SHELDON L. SCHREIBERG COUNSEL TO THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL OF HUD MANAGEMENT AGENTS March 14, 1985 FOR THE HEARING RECORD ON H.R. 1 HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON BANKING, FINANCE AND URBAN AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES |