[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 177 (Wednesday, December 19, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S13687-S13688]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          TERRORISM INSURANCE

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from New York. Before 
he arrived, I thanked him. In his presence, I thank him. The Senator 
played a very critical role in putting this product together. He is a 
new Member of the Senate, but he has already demonstrated, as others 
have pointed out, that he is very much a seasoned legislator. He brings 
from the New York legislature and from the other body years of 
experience, and it is a pleasure to do business with my colleague from 
the neighboring State of New York.
  I hesitate to use the word ``landmark'' because we haven't finished 
it, but you can sense the enthusiasm we all feel about this compromise 
and at being able to arrive at a moment where we have the names already 
as cosponsors of a substitute that demonstrates a bipartisan commitment 
to this issue.
  We don't claim perfection with this bill, but we do claim we are 
going to certainly improve the process immeasurably. My hope is that 
the leaders will find a time, if not as the first bill, as one of the 
early proposals we can bring to the floor for consideration.
  I didn't want the Senator to leave the floor because I wanted to 
change the subject briefly. I will leave the record open for others who 
may want to comment about this bill. The hour is getting late and the 
time is running short. We all want to depart.
  I want to mention the terrorism insurance bill, which is of critical 
importance to my colleague from New York. It is very important to many 
people across the country. I don't know what is going to happen with 
the so-called stimulus bill, but the terrorist insurance proposal is 
about as important a piece of legislation as this body could consider.
  We have been at this now for a couple months trying to craft a 
proposal that would allow us to bridge this time from the September 11 
events to a time when the industry would be able to calculate risk 
through the reinsurance efforts, and then through competitive pricing, 
be able to get back into this business.

  It is a very complicated and arcane subject. It is not one that is 
going to be easily understood because the subject matter is 
complicated. Suffice it to say this: A critical leg of a healthy 
economy is the insurance industry. You cannot really have a healthy 
economy without it. People can't buy a home without fire insurance. You 
can't get loans today without having proper insurance.
  The Presiding Officer, of course, brings a wealth of experience in 
this area because of his previous work in State government, where he 
dealt with insurance both in the private sector as well as a Governor. 
We have heard from Senator Nelson of Florida, also.
  I know the Senator from New York is running off, but I hope--and it 
is my fervent plea this evening with a day left--there is still time 
for us to get this matter up. We are very close. I hope that Members on 
both sides will allow a motion to proceed to go forward. Give us a day, 
if that is what we can have, to consider various amendments on this 
bill. The House already passed one.
  Bob Rubin, the former Secretary of the Treasury, when asked how he 
would calibrate the importance of this issue--and I can paraphrase his 
remarks and I think my friend from New York may have been there--said 
that this was as important, if not more important, than the stimulus 
package we have been considering.
  Our failure to address and deal with this issue could mean that small 
businesses, construction projects, all across America, come January, 
will cease. Unemployment will go longer--not of CEOs of insurance 
companies, but of construction workers, small business people, 
shopkeepers--all of whom need to have this bill if they are going to 
get the bank loans to continue to operate.
  This has to get done. If we don't do it, this body will be held 
accountable, in my view. We have known about this issue for weeks. Yet, 
we have not yet brought the matter to the floor. I hope that will 
change in the next 24 hours, because if we leave here and don't deal 
with this, more than 70 percent of these contracts are up for renewal, 
and we will create a further problem for our economy.
  So I know it is not at an issue that attracts a lot of support 
automatically. It is complicated. There is no great affection for the 
issue of insurance. Those knowledgeable about the importance of this 
issue for the strength and vitality of our economy, to leave and go 
home for the holidays and leave this unattended to, I think, is a 
problem. I think we need to come back over the next day and address 
this. We may not succeed, but you have to try. I hope this matter will 
come up on the floor so we can at least debate it and, hopefully, pass 
it.
  I know my colleague has a deep interest in the subject matter because 
of the facts concerning his own city and State. I wanted to give him an 
opportunity to comment on this as well. I am happy to yield to him or 
have him claim the floor in his own right.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator for yielding. He is so right. If 
there was ever a time when the perfect should not be the enemy of the 
good, it is on this insurance bill. If you think this doesn't affect 
you because it is the arcane Dickensian, almost, world of insurance, it 
does. My colleague is exactly right. If we don't have terrorism 
insurance, and as of January 1--less than 2 weeks away--no one will 
write terrorism insurance, then your banks, whether they be in small 
towns or in large cities, will not lend to new projects. They may not 
even refinance existing loans, and that means, as my friend has 
correctly pointed out, new projects come to a halt. No more new jobs. 
No construction jobs. No jobs that those projects create.
  Each of us in the course of these few weeks as we debated this has 
had a different view as to how to do this better. But no one disputes 
that we have to do it. I don't know hardly a person in this body--maybe 
10 of the 100--who would say we should not do anything. And so if there 
were ever a time that we all should sort of give in a little bit and 
say, well, it is not going to be done my way--if I had my druthers, I 
would have an FDIC for terrorism insurance. That is what I would do.
  Warren Buffet, from the State of the Presiding Officer, proposed 
that. But that is not going to happen. I know there is too much 
opposition in the other body and in the White House for that.
  So the proposal that the Senator from Connecticut and my good friend 
from Maryland, our chairman of the Banking Committee, and the Senator 
from Texas, the ranking member from the other side, and I, and the 
Senator from New Jersey, and so many others have put together, is sort 
of a grand compromise. Is it perfect? No. Is it a lot better than 
letting terrorism insurance lapse? You bet.
  This is a test, I say to my friend from Connecticut, for this body, 
this Congress, this Government. If in the post-September 11 world, when 
we have new necessities and new urgencies, we all cannot pull together 
a little bit to deal with the problems and instead we let rumor-
mongering, egos, or whatever else get in the way, we are going to hurt 
this country.
  This ain't beanbag, as Boss Tweed said in Plunket's book on New York 
City politics. This ain't beanbag, this is serious stuff. As my friend 
from Connecticut said, it probably means more to the country, even 
though it is more esoteric than the stimulus package in terms of the 
economy heading south. If we do not try to grapple with this difficult, 
thorny issue, it is at our own peril.
  I join my colleague in his heartfelt plea that we make an effort to 
take this bill up and deal with one of the hidden but very seriously 
vexing problems facing our economy in the post-September 11 world.
  I yield back to my friend.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I know Senator Daschle 
and others are working on this. Colleagues who are paying attention to 
this and heard the comments of our colleague from New York and myself, 
there are matters involved in this that I know are important to some 
but, in terms of the centerpiece of what we are trying to do, are 
really extraneous.
  We are talking about a brief period of time for this bill to work. I 
know there are matters others would like to use dealing with other, 
more profound, long-term issues on this bill, and I urge

[[Page S13688]]

them to hold up if they can and not allow a larger debate on those 
questions and not stop the debate on something that needs to be dealt 
with in the next 24 hours before we recess for the year.
  The President has urged us to do this. Every single industry group I 
know of beyond the insurance industry--the private sector--is calling 
on us to deal with this issue. Even the Consumer Federation has 
different ideas but understands our failure to act could create a 
serious problem. For us to not even try I think would be a huge 
mistake.
  I urge before we recess that we make an effort, starting early 
tomorrow, to give this body time to hear some of the various ideas my 
colleagues may have. I may disagree with them on those ideas, but I am 
prepared to spend the time necessary tomorrow to engage in debate on 
those ideas, resolve them one way or another, and send this bill from 
this Chamber to conference with the one adopted in the House and 
resolve it, so we can finish the business of giving the President a 
proposal that will avoid the kinds of problems the Senator from New 
York has very properly described.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________