[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 78 (Thursday, June 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5503-S5513]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002--Continued

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask to address the House--I mean the 
Senate. I am still used to the House, I am sorry. I had 18 years there. 
I ask to address the Senate on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I spoke briefly a bit earlier on this legislation, but 
now that we are getting pretty close to try to tie the final knot and 
get the bill done, I do want to address it once again.
  First, again, I thank my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, 
who has worked so long and hard on this legislation. I also thank the 
chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator Sarbanes, who has been a 
good, careful guider, and Jon Corzine, my colleague, as well.
  The four of us have been laboring on this proposal for a very long 
time. I hope we can actually pass legislation tonight.
  This is extremely important legislation. But it is deceptive. We are 
not getting many calls. When you walk into your local townhall 
meeting--or if I go into one of my favorite places, McGillicuddy's Pub, 
on Quentin Road, they don't say: Hey, Charlie, what's doing on 
terrorism insurance? It is not an issue on the lips of the average 
citizen. But it affects the average citizen, and greatly.
  The reason is very simple: Without terrorism insurance, large numbers 
of construction projects will not go forward. Banks will not lend 
unless they can have terrorism insurance. And insurance companies, 
while they are offering terrorism insurance in many cases, are offering 
that insurance at such a high rate that many projects are simply not 
going forward.
  What does this mean for the national economy? It is a slowly bleeding 
cut on the arm of our economy. But every day, when a new project is not 
refinanced, when a new proposal to build something large and grand does 
not go forward, is a day our economy is hurt.
  The reason is very simple. Since 9-11, we fear terrorist attacks, and 
we fear them on large concentrations of economic power, of economic 
wealth. They could be in cities--my city, of course, has many of 
these--but they could also be not in cities, Disney World or Disneyland 
in Florida and California. The Hoover Dam, every stadium, no matter 
where it is in the country, is suffering effects. We have heard from 
the owners of baseball and football about how their costs are 
dramatically rising. And it will continue to occur. In fact, it will 
spread. The dramatic increases in costs, the failure to do new projects 
will continue unless we do something.
  I know there are some who believe: Well, the Government should not be 
involved. I strongly disagree.
  The Government has always been involved in cases of war. We have 
always been under the rule that in cases of war the Federal Government 
will step in.
  Well, since 9-11, the rules of war have been redefined. Terrorism is 
war. So if I had my druthers, I would have a one-page bill, something 
similar to what I worked out with Secretary O'Neill, that would say: 
Should, God forbid, the next terrorist incident occur, the Federal 
Government will step in.

  That is what we would do in the case of war. If, during World War II, 
the Germans or the Japanese had hurt the American homeland, that is 
what would have happened; the same thing with Korea, and the same thing 
when we faced the cold war with Russia. I don't know why it is any 
different now, but some have had objections. They don't want to see the 
Federal Government's role expand, even though if there was ever a place 
that role should be needed, and make sense, it is here. They have 
opposed that.
  So we came up with a compromise. The Senator from Connecticut, 
actually, the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm, and myself had a 
compromise that was put on the floor in late December. We tried to have 
a balance between those of us who believed the Government should be 
fully involved and those of us who felt--on the other side, mainly--the 
Government should not be involved at all. We came up with a proposal.
  Unfortunately, it did not come forward, not because of objections to 
the proposal but, rather, it ran up against the age-old whirlpool, if 
you will, of tort reform.
  It ran up on the shoals of tort reform, as many other proposals have 
in this body in recent years, and nothing got done. I was delighted to 
see the McConnell amendment defeated for the main reason that had it 
passed, we would not have had a bill. It seems we have stepped past 
probably the greatest impediment to the proposal, and now we have other 
issues. I want to talk about one of those.
  Before I do, I want to make a few points. First, I want to talk about 
my city of New York and give people some examples. Examples could occur 
in their cities as well. I have talked to my friend from Illinois, 
Senator Durbin. The same thing is happening in Chicago. I have talked 
to real estate leaders in Dallas and Houston and San Francisco and Los 
Angeles. In all of our large cities, the same thing is occurring.
  Let me cite some examples: 4 Times Square, one of our newest, most 
beautiful buildings known as the Conde Nast building, is in litigation 
with its lender due to the absence of terrorism insurance coverage. The 
lender, La Salle Bank and CIGNA, had threatened to invade the lockbox 
into which rents are deposited in order to buy $430 million in 
terrorism insurance, the amount of the mortgage. The insurer for the 
portfolio held by the owners of 4 Times Square has refused to write 
coverage for this building claiming it is high profile. Even if the 
$430 million of coverage was available, it wouldn't cover any of the 
environmental risks, nor would the owner's equity of $450 million on 
this $880 million be covered.
  In downtown New York, a 1 million-square-foot office building could 
not obtain refinancing for the underlying mortgage of approximately 
$200 million because terrorism insurance was unavailable. Finally, a 
lender agreed to go forward if the owner committed to pay $1 per square 
foot for stand-alone terrorism insurance coverage. At the same time 
that the owner faced that additional $1 million drain on cashflow, he 
had to absorb an increase in his regular insurance from $110,000 to 
$550,000. That additional cost did not cover mold or biological or 
nuclear or chemical events whether terrorist-generated

[[Page S5504]]

or otherwise. The owner now has a $1,440,000 additional expense.

  A major REIT with properties in central business districts from New 
York to California can get only $250 million of insurance for the 
entire portfolio. And if there is one more terrorist incident--God 
forbid--it is likely that even this limited terrorism coverage will be 
lost given its not uncommon 30-day cancellation clause.
  A major residential and mixed use owner-builder renewed their all-
risk insurance a few months earlier than the expiration date for that 
carrier and was about to lose its treaty agreement for reinsurance and 
could only write $5 million. The list can go on and on and on of 
buildings that couldn't get terrorism insurance, that had to pay so 
much that it virtually made them noneconomic, of new projects not 
started.
  To simply and blithely say the market will come in and cover this is 
not true. Just last Friday, another drain on the body economy of my 
city, but this is happening in other cities as well, Moody's put 12 
buildings in New York City on watch for possible downgrading of their 
bonds, the whole cost of financing, because of terrorism insurance. 
These include some of the premier properties in New York, including the 
Exxon building, the Bankers Trust building, Celanese building, the 
Conde Nast building, Rockefeller Center, the Marriot Marquis Hotel--the 
list goes on.
  So anyone who thinks this is not a problem, anyone who thinks the 
market is solving this problem on its own is simply not understanding 
what is occurring.
  I am not the only one who thinks this. I ask unanimous consent to 
print quotes from others in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Economic Dislocation Resulting From the Terrorism Insurance Market 
                                Turmoil

       President Bush Calls For Action:
       ``If people can't get terrorism insurance on a construction 
     project, they're not going to build a project, and if they're 
     not going to build a project, then someone's not working. We 
     in Washington must deal with it and deal with it in a 
     hurry.'' (Source: President Bush during a White House 
     gathering on terrorism insurance 4/8/2002)
       New Congressional Study Finds Lack of Terrorism Insurance 
     Risky to Economy; among the study's principal findings:
       ``The market for terrorism insurance remains limited.
       ``Only a small number of insurers are actively providing 
     stand-alone terrorism insurance policies.
       ``When available, coverage for terrorism losses is 
     expensive, terms of coverage are restrictive and policy 
     limits are often insufficient.
       ``The problems associated with terrorism insurance pose a 
     significant threat to sustained economic growth.
       ``The lack of terrorism insurance is stopping some business 
     deals, such as real estate and construction projects where 
     terrorism insurance may be necessary to obtain financing.
       ``The high cost of terrorism insurance (when available) 
     diverts resources from other more productive uses, negatively 
     affecting investment and jobs.
       ``Low coverage limits in terrorism insurance policies mean 
     that businesses are bearing a huge amount of risk themselves. 
     In the event of another attack similar to that of September 
     11th, insurance payments will not be available to the same 
     degree to rebuild.'' (Source: Joint Economic Committee, 
     United States Congress, ``Economic Perspectives on Terrorism 
     Insurance'' 5/23/02)
       Top Officials Warn of Continued Terrorist Risk:
       ``I think we will see that in the future, I think it's 
     inevitable.'' (Source: Quote from FBI Director Robert Mueller 
     when asked of the possibility the U.S. could expect walk-in 
     suicide bombers, Wall Street Journal Online 5/20/02)
       ``Terrorism is an evil, pernicious thing, and it is one of 
     the biggest challenges we've ever faced as a nation.'' 
     (Source: Vice President Dick Cheney as quoted in the Wall 
     Street Journal Online 5/20/02)
       ``Senate Majority Whip Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said June 4 on 
     the Senate floor that action on the legislation is needed to 
     maintain stability of the country's economic infrastructure. 
     `One issue we must seek to work on quickly, expeditiously, is 
     getting a bill out of this body to address the growing 
     problem of a lack of insurance coverage due to the threat of 
     terrorist attacks,' Reid said. Pointing to a similar move by 
     Moody's Investors Service May 31, Reid urged a compromise on 
     the legislation and called on the White House to assist in 
     moving the legislation. `Significant building projects, if 
     not already on hold, could be placed on hold until the 
     terrorism insurance issue is resolved,' Reid said.'' (Source: 
     Banking Daily 6/6/02)
       ``In just facing the facts, we have to recognize that 
     terrorist networks have relationships with terrorist states 
     that have weapons of mass destruction, and that they 
     inevitably are going to get their hands on them, and they 
     would not hesitate one minute is using them,'' Rumsfeld said. 
     ``That's the world we live in.'' (Source: Defense Secretary 
     Donald Rumsfeld as quoted in the Washington Post 5/22/02)
       ``The FBI also heightened anxiety levels in New York by 
     advising officials that landmarks there could be terrorist 
     targets. Officials said the advisory was based on the same 
     kind of uncorroborated information that has led to other 
     notices to law enforcement in recent weeks about threats to 
     banks, nuclear power plants, water systems, shopping malls, 
     supermarkets and apartment buildings.'' (Source: The 
     Washington Post 5/22/02)
       ``We believe the Congress should enact a federal terrorism 
     risk insurance backstop in a timely fashion for four primary 
     reasons. First, lack of coverage and high premium rates imply 
     a drag upon our economy and a burden to the nascent recovery, 
     including the potential for a loss of even more jobs. Second, 
     the cost of lost and postponed investment opportunity is 
     potentially large for future economic growth. Third. inaction 
     paralyzes the private sector. Finally, the economic impact of 
     another terror attack could be even greater than the 
     September 11 attacks.''(Source: Lawrence B. Lindsay, 
     Assistant to the President for Economic Policy in a letter to 
     Steve Bartlett and Edward C. Sullivan--3/18/02)
       Federal Officials Sound the Alarm:
       ``I think there is still great urgency to pass the 
     [terrorism insurance] bill. I think there is a very important 
     level of exposure here that needs to be addressed.'' (Source: 
     Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle remarking on the issue at 
     the National Press Club 5/22/02)
       ``[Insurance] is a crucial aspect of a fairly large segment 
     of the economy. In this case, it is impossible for insurance 
     to [determine the risk for terrorism insurance] The 
     problem is really the types of real estate activity being 
     held up, whether delays in construction and building and 
     that sort of thing are having a significant impact on the 
     economy.'' (Source: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan 
     Greenspan, to the House Financial Services Committee 2/27/
     2002)
       ``There is a real and immediate need for Congress to act on 
     terrorism insurance legislation. The terrorist attacks on 
     September 11 have caused many insurance companies to limit or 
     drop terrorist risk coverage from their property and casualty 
     coverage a move that leaves the majority of American 
     businesses extremely vulnerable. This dynamic in turn 
     threatens American jobs and will wreak havoc on the entire 
     economy in the case of future attacks.'' (Source: Treasury 
     Secretary Paul O'Neill in a statement issued on 4/8/2002)
       ``The disruption of terrorism coverage makes it more 
     difficult to operate, acquire or refinance property, leading 
     to diminished bank lending for new construction projects and 
     lower asset values for existing projects.'' (Source: letter 
     to Congress from Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, National 
     Economic Council Director Lawrence Lindsey, Office of 
     Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels, and Council of 
     Economic Advisors Director Glenn Hubbard on 6/10/02)
       ``A fundamental necessity for a strong economy is 
     confidence. The lack of confidence lingers in some parts of 
     our economy, because of a lack of terrorism insurance. 
     [Congressional failure to pass terrorism insurance 
     legislation is hurting the economy.] People are delaying, 
     postponing, canceling major construction projects because 
     they can't get terrorism insurance.'' (Source: Treasury 
     Secretary Paul O'Neill, as quoted by Bloomberg News 2/21/
     2002)
       Construction Industry Hemorrhaging Jobs, AFL-CIO Calls For 
     Action:
       ``Employment in construction fell by 79,000, after seasonal 
     adjustment. Much of April's job loss was in special trades 
     (-61,000), though general building contractors and heavy 
     construction lost 12,000 and 6,000 jobs, respectively. 
     Following the turn of the business cycle in March 2001, 
     construction employment was relatively flat through the end 
     of the year. So far in 2002, however, the industry has lost 
     155,000 jobs.'' (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics News 
     Release, May 2002)
       ``President Bush, like all of us here today, realizes that 
     as long as terrorism is a threat, new job-creating projects 
     are being delayed or canceled because we do not have adequate 
     insurance coverage or workers compensation coverage 
     available. The unions of the building trades and our members 
     join with him in urging the Senate to pass terrorism risk 
     insurance legislation without delay. The unavailability of 
     terrorism risk insurance is hurting the construction 
     industry by making the cost and risk of undertaking new 
     building projects prohibitive. Building projects are being 
     delayed or canceled for fear that they may be future 
     terrorist targets. Lenders are refusing to go forward with 
     previously planned projects where terrorism insurance 
     coverage is no longer available. As a result, construction 
     workers are losing job opportunities. In addition, workers 
     compensation premiums have increased because state laws do 
     not allow companies to exclude terrorism risk from workers 
     compensation insurance.'' (Source: Speech by Edward C. 
     Sullivan, President, Building and Construction Trades 
     Department, AFL-CIO 4/8/02)
       ``According to new figures compiled by the Census Bureau, 
     compared to March 2001, non-

[[Page S5505]]

     residential construction was off by 19 percent, while office 
     building construction suffered a 32 percent drop over the 
     last year.'' (Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
       Difficulty Obtaining Adequate Terrorism Coverage, Moodys 
     May Downgrade:
       ``Moody's Investors Service has placed the ratings of 
     classes from 14 commercial mortgage backed transactions on 
     watch for possible downgrade due to concerns about terrorism 
     insurance coverage. Moody's stated that the lack of, 
     insufficiency of, or near term expiration of terrorism 
     insurance coverage is the cause for these reviews for 
     downgrade.'' (Source: Moodys Investor Service Press Release 
     5/31/02)
       ``Billions of dollars in commercial mortgage-backed 
     securities, or CMBS, may face ratings downgrades by the end 
     of this month if terrorism insurance legislation continues to 
     stall in the Senate. `If Congress doesn't pass something soon 
     we will have to start downgrading bonds by Memorial Day,' 
     said Sally Gordon, vice-president and senior credit officer 
     at Moody's Investors Service in New York, which monitors 
     about $350 billion CMBS.'' (Source: Dow Jones Newswires 5/3/
     02)
       ``The National Football League and individual teams and 
     stadiums have experienced difficulty acquiring terrorism 
     coverage. The Miami Dolphins and New York Giants have joined 
     the ranks of other teams around the country that have lost 
     terrorism coverage in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.'' 
     (Source: Bureau of National Affairs 4/9/2002)
       ``Today, terrorism insurance can be purchased; although it 
     has a higher premium, higher deductible and lower limit of 
     coverage. High-risk assets the ones that serve the most 
     people face such steep cost increases and diminished 
     coverage, that it often makes sense to purchase only a 
     fraction of the original coverage or no coverage at all. 
     And that's if terrorism insurance can even be purchased.
       ``The federal government warns another terrorist attack is 
     possible, and insurance policies have 30-day cancellation 
     clauses. Thus, after another major attack, availability is 
     expected to disappear. Separately, capacity and concentration 
     issues for insurance companies are expected to arise, even in 
     the absence of another terrorist attack. There are only a few 
     companies providing terrorism coverage for high-risk assets 
     and at least one has announced it is reaching its threshold 
     for tolerance.'' (Source: Merrill Lynch Research Report, 
     Mortgage Backed Research, 5/17/02)
       ``While acknowledging the insurance market and risk of 
     terrorism is an evolving situation, rating agencies would 
     gain comfort from a federal terrorism insurance program or an 
     improvement in the insurance market. We have heard that the 
     insurance market is more likely to evolve into a capacity-
     constrained market than it is to satisfy insurance neene is 
     relying on the amount and the quality of insurance to counter 
     balance the increased risk of terrorist attacks then one must 
     also recognize that insurance policies covering terrorist 
     acts have exclusions for losses due to atomic, biological or 
     chemical terrorism.'' (Source: Merrill Lynch Research Report, 
     6/5/02)
       ``Premiums on standard property and casualty insurance have 
     jumped by as little as 10 percent and by as much to 300 
     percent for owners of large urban commercial properties. They 
     are scrambling to find coverage from a single insurer for 
     properties worth more than $25 million, bond rating service 
     Standard & Poor's said in a recent report. The rift between 
     lenders and owners will likely deepen, investors and analysts 
     say, until more affordable terrorism policies are available--
     or the government steps in.'' (Source: Reuters 5/27/02)
       Wells Fargo Forced to Place Nearly $1 Billion Worth of 
     Construction Loans on Hold:
       ``Wells Fargo & Company, one of the largest real estate 
     lenders in the country, currently has three real estate 
     projects that are ready to be funded. The only obstacle to 
     moving these projects forward is the unavailability of 
     terrorism insurance. They are: A $600 million commercial real 
     estate project in Manhattan. A $260 million retail project in 
     Queens, NY. A $120 million commercial project in Oakland, CA. 
     (Information supplied by Wells Fargo & Company 4/8/2002)
       Bond Markets Stall on $7 billion in Commercial Loans:
       ``The Bond Market Association announced April 18 that 
     according to a survey of its members who deal in commercial 
     mortgage-backed securities, due to the high cost or 
     unavailability of terrorism insurance for property owners, 
     this year large lenders have placed on hold or canceled 
     more than $7 billion in commercial mortgage loans.'' 
     (Source: Bureau of National Affairs 4/22/2002)
       Hyatt Puts 2,500 Jobs On Hold, Seeks Terrorism Insurance:
       ``The Hyatt Corporation has purchased a site for a new 
     office building in downtown Chicago at a cost of roughly $400 
     million. The company is now trying to obtain financing for 
     this project but is being told that nobody will make loans 
     without insurance for terrorism, yet adequate terrorism 
     insurance is unavailable. As a result, construction on the 
     project has not been able to begin. The project will lead to 
     the creation of 2,500 jobs if the Hyatt Corporation can get 
     insurance and proceed with the project.'' (Source: Bureau of 
     National Affairs 4/9/2002)
       The Problem of the Underinsured:
       ``Officials in Georgia's Gwinnett County, an Atlanta 
     suburb, have been able to find only $50 million of terrorism 
     insurance coverage for a $300 million portfolio of properties 
     that includes the county jail and sewage treatment 
     facility.'' (Source: Washington Post, 4/8/2002)
       ``The New York Metropolitan Transit Authority has $150 
     million of terrorism insurance to cover its bridges and 
     tunnels, assets worth $1.5 billion.'' (Source: Washington 
     Post, 4/8/2002)
       ``Some property owners are opting to go without [terrorism 
     insurance] coverage. In the long-term, [the] limited or 
     complete lack of terrorism insurance coverage threatens a 
     property owners ability to get financing for new projects or 
     to refinance existing properties.'' (Source: summary of 
     remarks by Tony Edwards, general counsel of the National 
     Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Dow Jones 1/15/
     02)
       Building Projects Placed on Hold:
       ``In downtown Chicago, Pritzker Realty Group LP cannot get 
     financing to build an office building because the project 
     does not have terrorism insurance.'' (Source: Washington 
     Post, 4/8/2002)
       ``Casino developer Steve Wynn has halted plans to build a 
     $2 billion development in Las Vegas that would create 16,000 
     new jobs because he cannot buy enough terrorism insurance to 
     satisfy his lenders.'' (Source: Washington Post, 4/8/2002)
       Many Insurers Not Willing to Write Commercial Property 
     Insurance:
       ``Wells Fargo is threatening to throw a $275 million 
     securitized mortgage into default unless terrorism insurance 
     is arranged for the collateral property the Opryland Hotel 
     and Convention Center in Nashville.'' (Source: Commercial 
     Mortgage Alert 5/31/02)
       ``The result of 9/11 was a sizable reduction in the number 
     of available insurers willing to write commercial property 
     insurance.'' (Source: Christopher Ewers, vice president of 
     March Risk & Insurance Services, the brokerage for the Golden 
     Gate Bridge 3/23/2002)
       ``However, the limited capacity that Lloyd's and other 
     commercial insurers have available to write this business 
     will not be sufficient in the near-term to satisfy the 
     growing coverage gap in the United states economy.'' (Source: 
     Saxon Riley, Chairman, Lloyds of London 4/18/02)
       Difficulty in Assessing Terrorist Risk:
       To date, terrorists have not behaved predictably, and no 
     study we have seen suggests they will do so. We do not 
     believe insurers have a reasonable basis for underwriting the 
     risk at this time. At best, they can limit the amount of 
     capital they expose to risk. Source: Alice D. Schroeder, 
     senior U.S. non-life equity insurance analyst for Morgan 
     Stanley Dean Whitter & Co., testifying before the House 
     Financial Services Committee 2/27/2002)
       ``Due to the changes in insurance coverage since issuance, 
     the risks related to potential terrorist actions have been or 
     in the near term may be transferred to the 
     Certificateholders. While acknowledging that these risks are 
     very difficult to quantify, a spokesman for the rating agency 
     said, `we believe that ignoring the risks would be 
     inappropriate given the events of September 11th and 
     continued government warnings of the likelihood of future 
     terrorist attacks. While the probability of a major downgrade 
     or default because of a terrorist attack remains fairly 
     remote, the overall risk in these transactions has clearly 
     increased.' '' (Source: Moodys Investor Service Press Release 
     5/31/02)
       Lack of Terrorism Coverage Constricts Lending:
       ``I have to assume that nobody in their right mind is going 
     to lend $300 million, $400 million, $500 million if there's 
     no terrorism coverage.'' (Source: GMAC Commercial Holding 
     Corp. Chairman and CEO David E. Creamer, as quoted in the 
     Philadelphia Business Journal 2/27/2002)
       ``Last year at any point in time we had a large number of 
     single high-profile transactions to work on, and now we 
     don't.'' (Source: Tad Phillipp, managing director of Moodys 
     Investors Service, referring to lenders becoming wary about 
     financing real estate deals, as quoted in the Wall Street 
     Journal 1/11/02)
       Transportation in Crisis:
       ``Considering the fact that trucking moves the majority of 
     the freight in America, a crisis like this is a real problem 
     for the national economy.'' (Source: American Trucking 
     Association President and CEO William J. Canary, as quoted on 
     ATAs website)
       ``Amtrak was unable to obtain terrorism coverage when its 
     $500 million property insurance policy came up for renewal on 
     Dec. 1. Amtrak believes that only limited amounts of 
     terrorism coverage are available today, and that limited 
     coverage is at extremely high rates.'' (Source: Bureau of 
     National Affairs 4/9/2002)
       A Growing Chorus Calls For Action:
       ``The story is only half-told right now. Over the year it 
     will grow in magnitude.'' (Source: Marty DePoy, speaking on 
     behalf of the Coalition to Insure Against Terrorism, which 
     includes the National Association of Real Estate Investment 
     Trusts, the U.S. Chamber, the National Football League, the 
     National Retail Federation, and the Association of American 
     Railroads, among several other diverse organizations 2/13/02
       ``The entire market that provided workers compensation 
     catastrophe reinsurance has dried up.'' (Source: Timothy P. 
     Brady, managing director, Marsh, Inc., as quoted in the Wall 
     Street Journal 1/9/02
       ``[Higher insurance costs, higher deductibles and fewer 
     insurance choices are] going to affect the cost of doing 
     business for all companies. It might take a while to hit

[[Page S5506]]

     the bottom line, but its something that affects the total 
     company.'' (Source: James Shelton, regional risk manager at 
     Manpower Inc., in Glendale, WI, as quoted by CNNMoney 12/31/
     01
       ``The situation that we're in at the moment is analogous to 
     getting into your car without seat belts or the steel frame. 
     If you're not in an accident, nothing's going to be affected. 
     If you're in an accident, the results are going to be 
     disastrous because you don't have the infrastructure in place 
     to protect you.'' (Source: David Mair, risk manager for the 
     U.S. Olympic Committee, quoted by Dow Jones 2/7/02)
       ``The real damage likely will come in the secured lending 
     market. Depending on the size of the building, it's going to 
     be hard to get mortgage and [commercial mortgage-backed 
     securities] done.'' (Source: Richard Kincaid, chief operating 
     officer of Equity Office Properties Trust, quoted by Dow 
     Jones 1/16/02)
       ``This is a national problem. Everybody needs shoes to 
     walk. Suddenly, shoes are not available. Its as simple as 
     that.'' (Source: Deborah B. Beck, executive vice president of 
     the Real Estate Board of New York, discussing the lack of 
     coverage for real estate owners, as quoted by the Washington 
     Post 1/15/02)
       ``It's little strange. You could understand [higher 
     insurance costs] at signature buildings like Liberty Place 
     and Mellon Bank Center. But the new building being built in 
     Plymouth Meeting is facing the same soaring [insurance rates 
     as the high-rises]. Its going to have a pretty dramatic 
     effect on tenants. I had a lender in here today who said they 
     have had to postpone a couple of settlements because the 
     escrow required for first-year payments are prohibitive'' 
     (Source: Walt DAlessio, chief executive of Legg Mason Capital 
     Markets, a national real estate finance company, as quoted in 
     the Philadelphia Inquirer 1/14/02)
       ``Ultimately, [increased insurance costs for terrorism for 
     coverage] all passes down to you and I when we go shopping. 
     Most of those costs will be passed down to our tenants in 
     their operating costs and then to the products, whether it is 
     a pair of jeans or a pound of coffee.'' (Source: Steven 
     Sachs, insurance risk manager for The Rouse Co., which has 47 
     shopping malls and over 100 office buildings, as quoted by 
     Dow Jones 12/21/01)
       ``The issue has nothing to do with the size of the 
     property. It could be a manufacturing plant of 20,000 square 
     feet or an office building of 2 million square feet. Theyre 
     all affected.'' (Source: Jerry I. Speyer, president and chief 
     executive of Tishman Speyer Properties, a prominent New York 
     developer, as quoted in the Washington Post 01/15/02)
       ``One of the lessons learned from Sept. 11 is that many 
     insurers have concentrations of risk that they had not 
     previously factored into their underwriting decisions. 
     Employee groups of 1,000 or more lives are common across 
     Corporate America and even globally. Terror attacks on large 
     corporate sites could easily bankrupt insurers with workers' 
     compensation claims averaging $1 million or more.'' (Source: 
     Standard & Poors 1/9/02)
       ``Our inability to obtain insurance on our properties could 
     cause us to be in default under covenants on our debt 
     instruments or other contractual commitments we have which 
     require us to maintain adequate insurance on our properties 
     to protect against the risk of loss. If this were to occur, 
     or if we were unable to obtain insurance and our properties 
     experienced damages which otherwise have been covered by 
     insurance, it could materially adversely affect our business 
     and the conditions of our properties.'' (Source: Host 
     Marriott, L.P., in an S-4 filing dated 1/10/02)
       ``Washington's decision to postpone any action on 
     apportioning the burden for terrorism coverage could have 
     long-term negative economic consequences for business and the 
     pace of recovery.'' (Source: New York City Partnership and 
     Chamber of Commerce 2/11/02)
       ``Executives at the companies that service the hundreds of 
     billion of dollars in commercial-mortgage-backed securities 
     have already begun to question whether they are going to have 
     to declare property owners in technical default if they lose 
     terrorism coverage. These mortgage-servicing companies may 
     have little choice. If they don't declare a default and the 
     property is attacked by terrorists, they could face a lawsuit 
     from bondholders.'' (Source: Wall Street Journal 2/13/02)
       ``Sales and refinancing of high-profile office buildings 
     and other trophy properties are slowing, as the real estate 
     industry grapples with the lower availability and higher cost 
     of terrorism insurance. Owners of properties that can't get 
     terrorism insurance are reluctant to speak out for fear of 
     scaring tenants and drawing attention to themselves.'' 
     (Source: Wall Street Journal 1/11/02)
       ``Some companies may have experienced troubles already but 
     are unwilling to talk about them, especially publicly traded 
     companies worried about the impact on their stock prices or 
     builders concerned about their overall market.'' (Source: 
     Hartford Courant 1/10/02)
       ``One developer in the New York area is close to finishing 
     an office building for a solid tenant. [Its a company that 
     has been around for decades and signed a long-term lease.] 
     That sort of tenant is precisely what real estate lenders 
     like. But the developers bank is no longer willing to finance 
     the building because the owner cannot get adequate terrorism 
     coverage. If the developer has to sink its own money into the 
     effort, it will tie up capital the firm could use to start 
     new projects.'' (Source: Washington Post 1/15/02)

  Mr. SCHUMER. I have quotes from President Bush who stated last month 
how important this was; from the Joint Economic Committee of the 
Congress, ably chaired by our Presiding Officer, from May 23; from FBI 
Director Robert Mueller; from Vice President Cheney; from Secretary 
Donald Rumsfeld; from Larry Lindsay; from Secretary Paul O'Neill; from 
Reserve Chairman Greenspan. All of these people are not known as people 
who believe the Government ought to come in and solve the problem at 
the drop of a hat. In fact, philosophically most of them are of the 
opposite view. They all felt the need to talk about terrorism 
insurance.
  We have to move this legislation. We have to move forward. Again, 
each of us could have our own idea on how to make it better, how to 
change it. We know things will fall apart. My guess is, if we don't 
solve this problem now, we are not going to solve it until a crisis is 
truly upon us, until this slow drain on the economy, which the lack of 
terrorist insurance is causing, becomes not a flow but a cascade. Then, 
of course, the damage will have been done, and it will be almost too 
late.
  Finally, I want to talk a little bit about the per-company cap which 
I know is an issue that Senator Gramm and I are debating. As you know, 
I fought hard to have this cap put in. The Senator from Connecticut, 
whom I mentioned while he was out of the room, has done a great job. He 
understood the position and put it in. It was at that point supported 
by the Senator from Texas in the final proposal that was made. This did 
not stand in the way. It was tort reform that stood in the way.
  Let me explain why this is so needed and why so many people are for 
this on both sides of the aisle. In the bill, as you know, there is a 
$10 billion industry-wide benchmark for triggering individual company 
retentions in the first year. It goes to $15 billion in year 2, if the 
program is extended by the Treasury Secretary. That benchmark would 
result in substantial private insurer losses before the Federal 
backstop is triggered.
  We didn't want the Federal Government in the compromise that came 
about--this was not to my liking--but it was intended to have the 
private sector step in first until they were so limited because of the 
extent of the damage, God forbid, that they couldn't do it anymore. 
Well, if we didn't have this cap for a number of companies, the larger 
companies, the companies that concentrated, again, on the big economic 
properties, the losses that they would incur before the Federal 
Government's involvement was triggered would equal those losses. They 
would be comparable to the losses incurred on September 11. And for 
almost every insurer, they would exceed the losses sustained in any 
previous natural disaster.
  In order for insurers to sustain such significant losses without 
risking insolvency, each company must be able to determine with some 
degree of certainty the outer bounds of terrorism exposure in actuarial 
terms, its probable maximum loss. And since January, the Coalition to 
Insure Against Terrorism, which is a broad-based business group, has 
stressed the need for this kind of insurance that will bring the 
insurers back into high-risk property insurance. Per-company retentions 
are the way to do so. They are the best way to assure that the company 
is temporary because they will facilitate a quick transition to the 
private sector as insurers and reinsurers begin to develop underwriting 
relationships with even the highest risk policyholders.
  This experience will make it easier to develop actuarial models for 
use after the Federal program expires because, as you know, unlike the 
wishes of many of us, this expires in a few years, depending on whether 
the Treasury Secretary does an extension.
  The per-company retentions will also minimize Federal involvement 
since there is no need for Treasury to develop a formalized allocation 
procedure for determining each company's share of the aggregate 
industry retention or the quota share payment. Because the insurance 
industry comprises more than 3,000 competing firms, private insurers 
cannot otherwise get together

[[Page S5507]]

and agree on a loss-sharing formula that would bind the industry as a 
whole. So inclusion of the per company retention in the legislation 
provides some certainty as to when the backstop is triggered for each 
insurer, without an elaborate Federal bureaucracy to allocate the 
losses.

  The bottom line is that we need this bill. We need the per company 
cap to make it work--particularly for large properties, particularly 
for areas of high economic risk. I urge the Senate to pass S. 2600, 
including these retentions. It is the right solution to an ongoing 
problem that threatens insurers, policyholders, and the economy at 
large.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Florida). The Senator from 
Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the pending legislation 
concerning terrorism reinsurance. Last December--December 13, I 
believe--I spoke here urging the leadership to bring up bipartisan 
legislation that was at the time being negotiated between the White 
House and the Senate Banking Committee. Unfortunately, the legislation 
before us today does not reflect those discussions. At that point, I 
thought we had a good start on a bipartisan terrorism reinsurance 
effort.
  The availability and affordability of insurance is vital to the 
stability of our Nation's economy. Now that we know terrorists can and 
have struck in the United States, and have struck against major 
buildings, insurance is going to have to change because the insurance 
is going to have to cover risks that were never before recognized as 
being legitimate in this country.
  We hear reports from all over that many insurance and reinsurance 
companies are no longer able to provide the insurance coverage that is 
necessary for builders of buildings, for those owning buildings, to get 
the kind of financing they need or to have the protection they need for 
the resources they put into those buildings.
  At this moment, affordable terrorism risk insurance is not attainable 
by many businesses, both small and large--apartment and condominium 
buildings, shopping centers, as well as many cultural institutions. 
Recently, the St. Louis Art Museum was identified by the Joint Economic 
Committee as not being able to afford terrorism insurance. As a result, 
the museum is not covered. I am positive there are many entities across 
the country facing the same situation as the museum. I know major 
sports facilities, including ones in my State, are in a position where 
they cannot get the terrorism risk insurance they would need to add new 
construction, or even to continue their operations. The fact that 
terrorism has struck our country has a double impact now that we are in 
a position where insurance companies are not able to write and insure 
against and to ascertain the level of insurance risk that might be 
brought about by terrorist acts. It is unacceptable that we hold large 
segments of our economy hostage to the acts of terrorists.

  Right now, many small business and small property owners are at 
disadvantages. They face the prospect of doubling and tripling 
insurance premiums. They are not only faced with increased property 
insurance costs, but they are facing workers' compensation insurance 
costs, health insurance costs; and without affordable insurance, many 
small businesses and property owners are simply forgoing insurance. 
That is bad business. Those that have elected to pay much higher 
insurance costs are finding they have to pass this cost along to their 
customers, renters, leaseholders, and others. This could have a 
tremendous impact on our economy.
  We are hearing about major construction projects coming to a halt 
across the country as lenders and major financing institutions are 
seeking, but unable to get, terrorism risk insurance. The Bond Market 
Association has stated that more than $7 billion worth of construction 
projects are on hold or have been canceled due to the lack of 
affordable terrorism risk insurance.
  Rating organizations have issued warnings in the past 2 weeks that 
large securitizations are in jeopardy of being downgraded. We are 
trying to get out of a recession. The economic recovery that we expect 
and that we need is in grave danger if we do not provide a means of 
reinsuring the risk that has now become a reality in this country with 
possible terrorist acts. This is an unknown at this point, and this is 
the time, and this is something in which the Federal Government could 
play a very significant role. That is why good terrorism risk 
reinsurance legislation must be provided.
  I also agree with my colleague from Kentucky that businesses that are 
victimized by terrorist attacks should not be subject to punitive 
damages. Now, unfortunately, on a party line vote, we rejected the 
standard my colleague proposed. I hope we can find other means of 
compromise to ensure that a business owner or a business that is struck 
by a terrorist act is not also struck by a punitive damage action that 
could be economically as devastating as a terrorist act.
  We cannot and should not hold our major economic engines hostage to 
the threat of punitive damages on top of a terrorist act. I hope we can 
agree on a means of avoiding this kind of risk to those who have 
businesses or property that might be subject to a terrorist attack. As 
I said back in December, this is a potential problem. I believe now it 
is a problem. I think our recovery from the economic downturn, the 
recession, has been slowed because the business community--especially 
small businesses from which I hear--are really in a position where they 
cannot go forward and, in many instances, they cannot get financing 
without terrorism insurance, and most insurance companies are not in a 
position to offer that.
  So I hope we can move with a good piece of legislation that will 
provide the temporary reinsurance by the Federal Government to allow us 
to get back to the normal business of building facilities, building 
shopping centers, operating cultural facilities, and conducting 
business.
  Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues. I hope 
we can get a good product, and I hope we can do it very quickly so we 
can get our economy moving again.
  I thank the Chair.
  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. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 3842

(Purpose: To implement the International Convention for the Suppression 
 of Terrorist Bombings to strengthen criminal laws relating to attacks 
 on places of public use, to implement the International Convention of 
the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, to combat terrorism and 
   defend the Nation against terrorist acts, and for other purposes)

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum] proposes an amendment 
numbered 3842.

  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The amendment is printed in today's Record under ``Text of 
Amendments.'')
  Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, a clarification for Members. This is the 
same amendment that Senator Hatch proposed earlier today. I understand 
Senator Hatch engaged in some conversation with Senator Leahy about 
withdrawing his amendment. I think it is vitally important for the 
Senate to vote on this amendment. It is an important amendment. It is 
an amendment that is relevant to this bill because it deals with 
terrorism.
  We had the same agreement yesterday, I understand, to vote on this 
amendment. We had consent to do so, and there was an objection filed at 
the last minute. We are now going out of session and will not be back 
until next week, and I think it is important we have a record vote.
  Mr. REID. Will my friend yield for a question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. I have just been informed--and this may be something of

[[Page S5508]]

which the Senator is not aware--Senator Hatch and others have been 
working on this in the last few minutes, and we have something we 
believe can be completed in wrapup this evening that takes care of the 
matter.
  I suggest my friend take a look at this. I do not know the subject 
matter very well, but I assume Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy have 
worked it out.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to deal with this as a separate matter 
as long as we get a vote on it. I am just looking for a vote. This is 
an important piece of legislation that deals with terrorism, the 
implementation of a treaty on terrorist bombing. It is an important 
vote. It is the implementation act of a treaty that we passed last 
year. There are criminal code sections dealing with terrorist bombings, 
as well as people who are financing terrorism. It is important 
legislation. I think it is something on which we should vote.
  I am not being critical of what Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch did. 
I just think it is important legislation that should be voted on in the 
Senate.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for one more question?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator wants a vote, we can and should have a vote. 
It is my understanding Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy have worked out 
a substitute. It will be passage of S. 1770, the Terrorist Bombing 
Convention Implementation Act of 2001.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Right.
  Mr. REID. We were going to do this by unanimous consent this evening 
in wrapup. I assume it will be easy to work out a vote.
  Mr. SANTORUM. If we can work out a vote on this legislation, that 
will be amenable to me. I will be happy to put us back in a quorum call 
and see if we can arrange that.
  Mr. REID. What I suggest--and I will be happy for the Senator to 
continue his statement--maybe in the near future he can look at this 
and see that Senators Hatch and Leahy agree to have a vote on this 
issue.
  Mr. SANTORUM. My concern is to have a vote. I would be comfortable to 
have a vote on that legislation which, while I understand it is not 
identical to the amendment I offered, is legislation that accomplishes 
the same purpose.
  Why don't I suggest the absence of a quorum, and we can see if we can 
work this out.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator suggest the absence of a 
quorum?
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator withhold his request?
  Mr. SANTORUM. I will be happy to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the Senator is in the Chamber, and we 
can certainly talk about this, there is no reason not to do this. I 
think the chairman and ranking member would like to do this separate 
and apart from this bill. This way, we can send a freestanding bill to 
the House so they can work on this issue, and it will not be tied up in 
this legislation.
  Mr. SANTORUM. Again, I am fine with that. My concern is we get a vote 
on it. I am happy to do it that way, but my concern is we vote on this 
legislation.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, we will try our very 
best to work with him. We have Senator Leahy's staff here. Senator 
Hatch's staff is not here, but they will be here shortly. We will work 
on trying to do this separate and apart from this legislation.
  Mr. SANTORUM. I thank the assistant majority leader.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, it is now after 5 p.m. We are hoping to get 
this done. It could go into the end of next week. I know the majority 
leader is trying to bring up the Defense authorization bill. I am more 
than happy to consider other amendments. If people have them, bring 
them up and see if we cannot finish this legislation. It is possible we 
can get it done this evening. The majority leader has indicated if we 
can complete this bill this evening, there will be no votes tomorrow. 
We will then complete the process and next week, I guess, move--I do 
not want to speak for the leadership--but I gather there is a strong 
indication we will move to the Defense authorization bill. We will move 
to other legislation, if not Defense authorization.
  I was hoping in the next hour or so we could get some time agreements 
on amendments. Otherwise, my fear is we will end up into next week, and 
if that is the case, then people will be slow-walking this bill.
  I appreciate the comments of the Senator from Missouri. He made a 
fine speech about the importance of this legislation. There is a 
consensus that we need to do something on terrorism insurance. It is 
causing economic problems for our country, for all the reasons I 
identified.
  Certainly I am happy to entertain and debate relevant amendments that 
deal directly with this bill and move on them, either accepting them or 
defeating them. Let's see if we cannot get this bill done. We started 
it early this morning. We have already dealt with a couple major 
amendments. We have accepted some colloquies that have been offered as 
an alternative.
  We are going to end up in a conference with the other body. There are 
substantial differences between both of these bills. It is going to 
require continued work and labor. Those who are concerned about getting 
something done, let it be known I am fully prepared to entertain 
amendments. I will offer time agreements to try to wrap them up early, 
but if this goes on much longer, I presume the leader will consider 
having to file cloture, and then we will have to limit amendments, at 
least limit them to relevant amendments.
  It is now almost 5:30, and I hope we might get a couple more 
amendments done, particularly some of those that are outstanding that I 
know need to be debated and considered. The quicker that is done, the 
more rapidly we can conclude work on this bill and vote it either up or 
down, but we will have dealt with terrorism insurance.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. DODD. I will be happy to yield to my colleague.
  Mr. REID. The distinguished Senator from Connecticut with whom I have 
been on this floor when considering major pieces of legislation--we do 
not have a better manager in the Senate than Senator Dodd. He does a 
wonderful, outstanding, exemplary job. He is here ready to work.
  Yesterday afternoon, we finished the estate tax debate. The majority 
leader at that time wanted to move to this legislation, but Members who 
were interested in this legislation said: We have had a hard couple 
days; why don't you wait until tomorrow?
  I say to my friend from Connecticut, it appears to me that this is an 
effort to slow down this legislation. We wanted to move to it last 
night, allow Members to make opening statements and offer amendments, 
but the majority leader said: No, they say they do not want to; go 
ahead and agree with that.
  Now here we are today, not much happening all afternoon, and if the 
majority leader did decide to file cloture today people would yell and 
scream saying this is the first day.
  It is not really the first day. We wanted to do it yesterday. 
Tomorrow is Friday. Monday is already a scheduled no-vote day, but that 
does not mean it is a no-amendment day. Tomorrow we may not work a full 
day as we normally do with votes all day, but this body will stay in as 
late as anyone wants to offer amendments.
  So the Senator is absolutely right. We are going to finish this 
legislation. I say to my friend, and I think he is aware of this, all 
of the industry groups all over America that are interested in this 
have sent letters and e-mails to anyone who will pick them up, saying 
they support cloture on this.
  Everybody is tired of this. We have danced since late last year on 
this legislation. We are going to complete this legislation. It is only 
a question of whether we do it tonight or whether we do it next week 
sometime. Will the Senator agree?
  Mr. DODD. I agree with that.

[[Page S5509]]

  Obviously, it helps the work of the Senate if we can complete it this 
evening, but tomorrow morning would make more sense. We still have a 
lot of work to do in conference to get this done. I know the 
administration is interested, as well as the Secretary of the Treasury, 
the President, and many others. My colleague from Nevada mentioned the 
various business groups that are interested. I should also note that 
the building trades, the AFL-CIO, have sent a strong letter in support 
of this legislation. It is one of those rare occasions when groups that 
sometimes are antagonistic to each other on a legislative effort have 
come together and have, for months now, asked that we respond to this. 
So we are hopeful to get this done.
  Again, I will stay here as late as anyone wants. I will make time 
tomorrow. I will make time next week. We are going to get the bill done 
one way or the other. It serves everyone's interest to try to complete 
this work sooner rather than later.
  I merely wanted to make those points to our colleagues who are 
wondering what the schedule will be. Obviously, the leadership will 
make up its own mind about how to proceed, but it certainly would be in 
our interest--we have been here a couple of hours with really no 
amendments. I know there are some. If people have them, come over and 
offer them. We will happily consider them. I do not include in that 
group the Presiding Officer, who offered a very strong amendment, who 
is now working with us and is working on another amendment trying to 
work things out, but it is relevant to the subject matter of the bill.
  I hope those who have amendments will offer them, withdraw them, or 
offer some alternative we can consider as we go into the conference, if 
the bill is passed.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The legislative clerk continued with the call of the roll.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen, 
will be here momentarily and will ask to set aside the pending 
amendment in order to offer an amendment on terrorism to obtain 
judgments from frozen assets of terrorists, terrorist organizations, 
and state-sponsored terrorism, and others.
  I thought since we had a moment I would address this issue. As I 
understand it, the majority leader will be coming out shortly to make 
announcements, and I will be happy to yield the floor at that time.
  I am hopeful we can take up this issue on the floor and that it can 
be considered before the body, allowing people to be able to consider 
this. There are a number of people who have been harmed greatly, and 
family members have been killed by terrorist organizations. We need to 
provide a means for satisfaction. This is one way that it could be 
taken care of.
  If I may reply to those who say this particular bill is not the 
appropriate vehicle, we have a limited number of vehicles left in front 
of this body. This is the appropriate point in time for us to be able 
to bring this forward.
  I understand the Senator from Virginia will be bringing it forward so 
it can be worked out, and the administration and Congress is coming 
forward with other ways and means of dealing with it. Yet I am still 
hopeful that we can get this taken care of on this particular bill.
  I note there has been a lot of pressure to get this bill wrapped up.
  I understand the Senator from Virginia has been caught in traffic and 
is trying to get here to offer his amendment. I would like to see us 
take up this amendment and have it considered and moved forward.
  He asked me, through his staff, if I would bring up this amendment. 
If we could consider this important piece of legislation in front of 
this body, I think this would be very valuable. If we could allow this 
to take place, I think it would be a positive note.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Dayton). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. ALLEN. I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.


                           Amendment No. 3838

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3838.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

  The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Allen], for himself, Mr. Burns, Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mr. Smith of New Hampshire and Mr. Warner, proposes an 
amendment numbered 3838.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To provide for satisfaction of judgments from frozen assets 
     of terrorists, terrorist organizations, and State sponsors of 
                   terrorism, and for other purposes)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. __. SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENTS FROM FROZEN ASSETS OF 
                   TERRORISTS, TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS, AND STATE 
                   SPONSORS OF TERRORISM.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, and except as provided in subsection (b), in every case 
     in which a person has obtained a judgment against a terrorist 
     party on a claim based upon an act of terrorism or for which 
     a terrorist party is not immune under section 1605(a)(7) of 
     title 28, United States Code, the blocked assets of that 
     terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency 
     or instrumentality of that terrorist party) shall be subject 
     to execution or attachment in aid of execution in order to 
     satisfy such judgment to the extent of any compensatory 
     damages for which such terrorist party has been adjudged 
     liable.
       (b) Presidential Waiver.--
       (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), upon determining 
     on an asset-by-asset basis that a waiver is necessary in the 
     national security interest, the President may waive the 
     requirements of subsection (a) in connection with (and prior 
     to the enforcement of) any judicial order directing 
     attachment in aid of execution or execution against any 
     property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 
     Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
       (2) Exception.--A waiver under this subsection shall not 
     apply to--
       (A) property subject to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 
     Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations that 
     has been used by the United States for any nondiplomatic 
     purpose (including use as rental property), or the proceeds 
     of such use; or
       (B) the proceeds of any sale or transfer for value to a 
     third party of any asset subject to the Vienna Convention on 
     Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations.
       (c) Special Rule for Cases Against Iran.--Section 2002 of 
     the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 
     2000 (Public Law 106-386; 114 Stat. 1542) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(2)(A)(ii), by inserting after ``July 
     27, 2000'' the following: ``or before October 28, 2000,'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(2)(B), by inserting after ``the date 
     of enactment of this Act'' the following: ``(less amounts 
     therein as to which the United States has an interest in 
     subrogation pursuant to subsection (c) arising prior to the 
     date of entry of the judgment or judgments to be satisfied in 
     whole or in part hereunder).'';
       (3) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (e), (f), and (g), respectively; and
       (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new 
     subsection (d):
       ``(d) Distribution of Foreign Military Sales Funds 
     Inadequate to Satisfy Full Amount of Compensatory Awards 
     Against Iran.--
       ``(1)(A) In the event that the Secretary determines that 
     the amounts available to be paid under subsection (b)(2) are 
     inadequate to pay the entire amount of compensatory damages 
     awarded in judgments issued as of the date of the enactment 
     of this subsection in cases identified in subsection 
     (a)(2)(A), the Secretary shall, not later than 60 days after

[[Page S5510]]

     such date, make payment from the account specified in 
     subsection (b)(2) to each party to which such judgment has 
     been issued a share of the amounts in that account which are 
     not subject to subrogation to the United States under this 
     Act.
       ``(B) The amount so paid to each such person shall be 
     calculated by the proportion that the amount of compensatory 
     damages awarded in a judgment issued to that particular 
     person bears to the total amount of all compensatory damages 
     awarded to all persons to whom judgments have been issued in 
     cases identified in subsection (a)(2)(A) as of the date 
     referred to in subparagraph (A).
       ``(2) Nothing herein shall bar, or require delay in, 
     enforcement of any judgment to which this subsection applies 
     under any procedure or against assets otherwise available 
     under this section or under any other provision of law.
       ``(3) Any person receiving less than the full amount of 
     compensatory damages awarded to that party in judgments to 
     which this subsection applies shall not be required to make 
     the election set forth in subsection (a)(2)(C) in order to 
     qualify for payment hereunder.''.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) The term ``terrorist party'' means a terrorist, a 
     terrorist organization, or a foreign state designated as a 
     state sponsor of terrorism under section 6(j) of the Export 
     Administration Act of 1979 (50 U.S.C. App. 2405(j)) or 
     section 620A of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2371).
       (2) The term ``blocked asset'' means any asset seized or 
     frozen by the United States in accordance with law, or 
     otherwise held by the United States without claim of 
     ownership by the United States.
       (3) The term ``property subject to the Vienna Convention on 
     Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular 
     Relations'' and the term ``asset subject to the Vienna 
     Convention on Diplomatic Relations or the Vienna Convention 
     on Consular Relations'' mean any property or asset, 
     respectively, the attachment in aid of execution or execution 
     of which would result in a violation of an obligation of the 
     United States under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic 
     Relations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, as 
     the case may be.

  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise to present this amendment, No. 3838, 
which is a measure that has to do with allowing those who are victims 
of terrorist acts in the past who have judgments, to collect those 
judgments against the assets of the terrorist states or the state-
sponsored terrorist states involved in these acts. I thank the 
cosponsors of the basic bill that has been introduced, which is the 
basis for this amendment.
  The cosponsors include Senator Warner; the lead of this on the 
Democrat side, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Conrad Burns of Montana, Senator 
Bayh, Senator Cleland, Senator Collins, Senator Feinstein, Senator 
Johnson, Senator Miller, Senator Schumer, Senator Torricelli, Senator 
Baucus, Senator Burns, Senator Clinton, Senator Craig, Senator 
Hollings, Senator Mikulski, Senator Nickles, and Senator Bob Smith.
  I particularly want to thank Mr. Harkin for the leadership he has 
shown on this issue. He has stood strong for making terrorists 
responsible for their actions and for justice. I'm grateful for Sen. 
Harkin's tireless efforts in making this proposal a reality. Now, this 
amendment would permit the blocked assets of terrorists, terrorist 
organizations, and state sponsors of international terrorism, to be 
used to compensate American victims of terrorism.
  A little history: In 1996, Congress passed the Antiterrorism and 
Effective Death Penalty Act, which, in section 221, expressly amended 
the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to allow American victims of 
terrorism to seek justice through the courts against foreign terrorist 
governments. In 1998, Congress again amended the Foreign Sovereign 
Immunities Act, stating explicitly that any property of a terrorist 
state that was frozen by the U.S. Treasury Department was subject to 
execution or attachment to satisfy the victim's court judgments.
  However, in response to bureaucratic interference, Congress again, in 
2000, as part of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection 
Act, endorsed the policy of using blocked assets to impose a cost on 
terrorism and provide justice to victims.
  Currently, there are at least $3.7 billion in blocked or frozen 
assets of seven state sponsors of terrorism. However, the executive 
branch bureaucracy is once again preventing these funds from being used 
to compensate American victims who have brought lawsuits in our Federal 
courts, won their cases, and secured court-ordered judgments--victims 
such as Edwina Hegna of Virginia.
  In the 1980s, Mrs. Hegna's husband, Charles Hegna, was an employee of 
the U.S. Agency for International Development. In 1984, his flight from 
Kuwait City to Karachi, Pakistan, was hijacked by Hizbollah, an 
Iranian-backed organization. The terrorists demanded that all Americans 
reveal themselves. Mr. Hegna stepped forward. The terrorists then beat 
and tortured him. Upon landing, they forced him to kneel. Witnesses 
heard Mr. Hegna praying for his life. He was then shot in the stomach 
and thrown 20 feet to the tarmac below while still alive, breaking 
nearly every bone in his lower body. He didn't die. He laid in agony 
for about an hour. As an ambulance arrived, the terrorists leaned out 
of the airplane door and shot him repeatedly. He died in the ambulance 
at the age of 50, survived by his wife and their 4 children.
  Mrs. Hegna currently has a multimillion dollar judgment, but is 
unable to receive any compensation.
  In another equally brutal case in which I prefer not to mention the 
name of the family, but nevertheless it was a case in Kuwait. A pastor 
who now lives in Richmond, VA, was held captive while he and his 
children were forced to watch--and his children at the time were 10 and 
13 years old--the terrorists sexually assault his wife. He currently 
holds a $1 million court judgment but is unable to satisfy that 
judgment.
  The United States must say today to the executive bureaucracy that 
Mrs. Hegna and this pastor from Richmond and all the victims--and they 
are not all from Virginia; they are from Iowa, New York, New Hampshire; 
they are from States across our Nation--for all these victims who have 
suffered at the hands of these ruthless terrorists we ought to say they 
can be compensated from the blocked assets of these terrorists and 
their sponsors.
  Indeed, this measure talks about terrorism reinsurance and who ought 
to be sued, the obligations of insurance companies and how should we 
back up those insurance companies. In these cases where someone has a 
judgment and where there are assets that have been seized, it is the 
terrorists and their state sponsors, not the American taxpayers, who 
should be held accountable for these heinous crimes.
  This amendment will accomplish three salient principles: 
Responsibility, justice, and punishment and deterrence.
  Responsibility: At least financial responsibility for the injuries 
and damages from those who are culpable for the terrorist criminal 
acts.
  Justice: Justice for the victims and the victims' families.
  Punishment and deterrence: Those who sponsor these terrorist acts 
should be punished and deterred.
  Therefore, I ask that my colleagues stand with the victims, stand 
with their families, and allow them to get some satisfaction, albeit 
only financial satisfaction.
  I request that we move forward with this terrorism reinsurance bill, 
but also add to it this opportunity for the Senate to take a stand and 
allow those folks who have had these injuries and these damages and 
loss of life, in some cases, to have those judgments satisfied, maybe 
satisfied in part, but satisfied against the assets that have been 
seized from primarily two countries that have been involved--Iran and 
Iraq.
  Some say we should be worried about what Iraq and Iran might do about 
all this. But sitting back and worrying about what they might do is not 
going to help these families and is not going to help this country. I 
am going to stand with these families, these victims, and our judicial 
system. Let these victims get after these assets. Let them try to 
rebuild their lives in some part.
  I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. GRAMM. What are we seconding?
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I am asking for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is requesting the 
yeas and nays on his amendment. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I rise today to support 
Senator Allen's amendment to provide justice to American victims of 
international terrorism.

[[Page S5511]]

  It is appropriate that today we are debating legislation to provide a 
Federal backstop to existing and future insurance policies covering 
terrorist acts. That legislation provides economic protection for the 
U.S. economy for acts of terrorism. I believe that this legislation 
should be amended to address the issue of Americans held hostage and 
tortured by terrorists to specifically hold liable nations that provide 
financial and other support for terrorist that target the symbols and 
citizens of America. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the The 
Terrorism Victim's Access to Compensation Act of 2002 that Senator 
George Allen and Senator Tom Harkin have introduced.
  That bill provides redress for victims of terrorism to receive 
compensation from nations that sponsor terrorism. I appeared with 
Senators Harkin and Allen at a press conference with Americans who have 
experienced first hand the despicable and evil use of terrorism that 
every American can understand as a result of the tragic events of 
September 11 2001.
  What right does a citizen have to fight back against a terrorist 
nation? The only power that individual has is to sue that terrorist 
nation in court to gain access to seized assets from terrorist nations. 
Our Nation is in a war against terrorism and this amendment provides 
another tool in the war against nations that sponsor terrorism. This 
amendment requires that compensation be paid from the blocked assets of 
terrorist nations provided that the American victims of terrorism 
secure a final judgment in our Federal courts.
  Victims of terrorism have many sad stories, and I want to bring to 
you attention the sad plight of a man who had a residence in New 
Hampshire during the toughest time of his life.
  In November of 1989, William Van Dorp was sent by his employer from 
his home in Kingston, NH to Kuwait City to teach the Kuwaiti Air Force 
English. On August 2, 1990, Kuwait was invaded by the forces of Saddam 
Hussein.
  Let me use William Van Dorp's own words to describe what happened:

       On August 4, I heard loud rumblings coming from the road 
     and, when I looked out my window, I saw seventeen trucks, 
     filled with Iraqi troops, and three tanks driving toward the 
     beach. It became apparent to me that I was still in the 
     middle of a combat zone and in immediate danger of 
     encountering enemy fire.

  William Van Dorp attempted to escape the Iraqis who were rounding up 
American hostages. Mr. Van Dorp was attempting to leave the 
Intercontinental Hotel in Kuwait City. Mr. Van Dorp describes the event 
as follows:

       When I reached the lobby, I saw a U.S. Embassy official 
     yelling at an Iraqi colonel and trying to convince him not to 
     take the Westerners away. I was being taken into custody by 
     heavily armed Iraqi soldiers. Later that evening I was packed 
     into a military truck with roughly 23 American citizens and 
     transported to an army camp about an hour from Kuwait City.

  William Van Dorp was held hostage by the Iraqi government for months. 
During the Persian Gulf war Iraqi used American hostages to be 
imprisoned at sites where the Iraqis thought the United States would 
target during the Persian Gulf war.
  The nations of Iran and Iraq have committed unspeakable acts against 
American and against citizens of my state of New Hampshire. Those 
nations deserve to be punished. Recently, Iraqi President Saddam 
Hussien pledged increased Iraq's payments to the families of 
Palestinian suicide bombers from $10,000 to $25,000.
  The press has reported in the past that Iran may be harboring 
terrorists from the Al-Qaida network and Taliban. I don't know that to 
be true, but it has been reported by the press that Iran and Iraq have 
not been allies in the war against terrorism. Our diplomatic efforts to 
change these countries has fallen on deaf ears and these countries are 
supporting terrorism throughout the globe. Iran, Iraq, and North Korea 
are the ``Axis of Evil.''
  I am sure that every Member of this body remembers the Iran hostage 
crisis. Americans who worked in the U.S. Embassy of Iran were held 
hostage by the Iranian government more than 20 years ago. Those 
hostages sued the government of Iran. The Iranian Government did not 
make an appearance in the U.S. court to defend themselves, but as iron 
would have it, lawyers, not from Iran, were in the U.S. courtroom to 
defend the interests of government of Iran.
  Does anybody in this Chamber know what lawyers were in court 
defending the interests of the Iranian government? It was our own 
Justice Department and the U.S. State Department. How do you think the 
U.S. hostage felt about the U.S. Government, using tax dollars from 
these same U.S. hostages, defending the interests of the Iran 
government.
  The Washington Post, on October 16, 2001 reported that:

       U.S. Government lawyers went to Federal court yesterday 
     seeking to vacate a judgment against Iran in a lawsuit filed 
     by 52 Americans have were held captive in that country more 
     than 20 years ago. The timing of the government motion, 
     nearly a year after the lawsuit was filed and two months 
     after the judgment was entered, drew sharp criticism from 
     some of the former hostages, who accused the Bush 
     administration of trying to mute their claims because of the 
     current conflict in Afghanistan. ``The State Department and 
     the Justice Department are doing this only to curry favor 
     with Iran at this juncture of history,'' said Barry M. Rosen, 
     a former hostage who is now director of public affairs at 
     Columbia University's Teachers College. ``I was outraged.''

  Another former hostage retired Army Col. Charles W. Scott who had 
three teeth knocked out during brutal interrogations, said, ``In 
combat, you have a weapon and can fight back. Here, we were defenseless 
and brutalized. For the first time I understood what the people of the 
Holocaust went through.'' Americans who are the victims of terrorist 
acts sponsored by nations that are deemed by the State Department to be 
state sponsors of terrorism should be punished.
  I urge the Senate to support the Allen amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is in error. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will work to attempt to vote on the 
Allen amendment tomorrow as well, but we have been working over the 
course of the last several hours--and I thank those of our colleagues 
who have been involved--to accommodate a unanimous consent request that 
I understand has now been cleared on both sides. In order to ensure we 
can inform our colleagues of the schedule for the remainder of the 
evening and tomorrow, I propound this unanimous consent request so that 
at least this can be scheduled.
  I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of 
the terrorism insurance bill on Friday, June 14, at 9:35 a.m., the 
Santorum amendment No. 3842 be withdrawn; that the Judiciary Committee 
be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 3275 and that the 
Senate proceed to its immediate consideration; that Senator Leahy, or 
his designee, be recognized to call up the Leahy-Hatch substitute 
amendment at the desk; that upon reporting by the clerk, the Senate 
vote on the adoption of the amendment; that following adoption of the 
amendment, the bill, as amended, be read a third time and the Senate 
vote on passage of the bill, with no intervening action or debate; 
further, that upon the disposition of H.R. 3275, the Judiciary 
Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1770; that the 
Senate proceed to its consideration; that the Senate consider the 
Leahy-Hatch amendment at the desk; and that upon reporting the 
amendment, the Senate vote on the adoption of the amendment; that 
following the vote, the bill, as amended, be read three times and 
passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all 
without intervening action or debate; further, that any statements 
relating to these items be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have an amendment I would like to 
have considered at some point. I would like to see it considered. It is 
a very narrow issue, and I would like to see if we can get this in the 
queue of items. It is not under consideration. If my colleague, the 
majority leader, can consider it, I would like to be able to put it 
forward. If not, I believe I will need to object to proceeding under 
this unanimous consent request.

[[Page S5512]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Kansas be 
recognized to offer his amendment following the disposition of the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, may I inquire of the 
substance of the amendment of the Senator from Kansas?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It is an issue on patenting, and it is an issue that I 
think is a very important one for us to consider. I want to bring it up 
and press it. It is a narrow one. I think we ought to consider it. I 
would like to offer it.
  Mr. DODD. Further reserving the right to object, is this the cloning 
amendment?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. It is patenting of human beings. It is the issue of 
patenting of humans which I would like to put forward at this time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, with all due respect, as someone trying to 
manage a bill, I regretfully object to consideration of that amendment 
at this point. I am trying to deal with the subject matter at hand. It 
is going to be impossible----

  Mr. BROWNBACK. I must object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, while the majority leader is in the Chamber, 
we have worked now for several hours to get a vote for Senator 
Santorum. I cannot understand why the Senator from Kansas would prevent 
us from having this vote. He has an opportunity on this legislation at 
a subsequent time to offer an amendment. No one can stop him from 
offering an amendment.
  I think the majority leader will announce shortly that there will be 
ample opportunity tomorrow and Monday to offer amendments. So I do not 
know why the Senator from Kansas would hold up a vote that the Senator 
from Pennsylvania has been trying to get for several hours.
  I also say to the leader that while he was proffering his unanimous 
consent request, the Senator from Virginia said he would have no 
problem voting on his amendment tomorrow morning. That will give anyone 
who has any objection to the amendment of the Senator from Virginia the 
chance to speak tonight for as long as they want. We can set this up 
following the vote on the Santorum amendment, whatever we want to call 
it, the one on which we asked unanimous consent.
  I ask the Senator from Kansas to kindly reconsider allowing us to 
vote on the Santorum amendment and, following that, vote on the 
amendment of the Senator from Virginia, and then the floor is open and 
anybody can offer an amendment. The Senator from Kansas or the Senator 
from Pennsylvania can offer another amendment, or the Senator from 
anyplace can offer any amendment they want.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will renew my request in a moment. I do 
not know that any Senator can be denied the right to offer an amendment 
as long as cloture has not been filed and achieved. It is not my desire 
now to file cloture. At some point, if we cannot bring this debate to a 
conclusion, I will be forced to do so. Until that time, of course, the 
Senator has every right to come to the floor to offer an amendment.
  We are going to be in session tomorrow and on Monday, even though 
there are no votes on Monday. So I hope Senators will use that time to 
come to the floor to offer what I would hope will be relevant 
amendments.
  We certainly cannot prohibit the Senator from offering other 
legislation. So I would renew my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I would like to make sure I do get an opportunity to 
bring this issue forward, so I ask unanimous consent that before the 
conclusion of this bill I have the opportunity to put forward and have 
this amendment considered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the majority leader so modify his 
request?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Could the Senator do this tomorrow morning or Monday?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. All I am doing is asking unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to offer this amendment sometime during the pendency of this 
bill.
  Mr. REID. Reclaiming my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. That seems somewhat unfair. We have all day Friday, all day 
Monday. Anytime before the end of the bill could be a long time from 
now.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, the Senator does not need that consent. 
He can offer that amendment, as the Senator from Nevada has noted, 
tomorrow, Monday, or any day. That does not require a unanimous 
consent. I have no objection to his request, but it does not take a 
unanimous consent. He is entitled to that until cloture is obtained. If 
cloture were invoked, he would probably be denied the right. We are not 
anticipating a cloture vote, at least in the foreseeable future. So the 
Senator is certainly entitled to his right to offer this amendment 
whenever he chooses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have had difficulty at times being 
able to get the floor, as people maybe would say, well, we do not want 
to consider this at this particular time. I want to make sure we can.
  Unfortunately for me, I will not be present tomorrow. As many of my 
colleagues know, we have had in the Philippines the death of a Kansan 
who is being buried tomorrow, Mr. Burnham, and I will be at that 
funeral tomorrow morning. But I want to make sure this issue can come 
up and can be heard before the end of this bill. I do not think that is 
an inappropriate request.
  I renew the request that I be allowed to bring up this amendment 
sometime during the pendency of this bill. I ask unanimous consent that 
I be allowed to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the majority leader so modify his 
request?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I did not understand the request. I have not modified my 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader made a unanimous consent 
request to which the objection was heard from the Senator from Kansas. 
So the question is, Will the majority leader modify his unanimous 
consent request to include the unanimous consent request of the Senator 
from Kansas?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, as I said, that does not require a 
unanimous consent request, but I would not object to the request made 
by the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. My concern is we are providing the Senator from Kansas 
something that has been provided to no one else. We could have every 
Member demand a unanimous consent on totally irrelevant amendments to 
this bill. If we go down that road and if the Senator wants to kill 
this bill, that is fine, filibuster the bill, but to bring up totally 
extraneous amendments, it seems to me, is unwarranted.
  I have talked a number of our colleagues out of offering amendments 
that had nothing to do with this bill, no matter how meritorious their 
proposals. Certainly, the majority leader has indicated the Senator has 
the right precloture to bring up an amendment. Cloture has not been 
invoked. If we can move this bill along, there is no reason for it to 
be invoked, but to cut out one exception for one Member to make a 
unanimous consent request, after I have talked other people out of it, 
I do not think is terribly fair.
  I urge my colleague from Kansas to withdraw the request. If we can 
agree to move this bill along, we are dealing, then, with the Santorum 
amendment tomorrow. We have tomorrow, next Monday, next Tuesday. We can 
spend all next week on this bill if Members are so inclined.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

[[Page S5513]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me reiterate something I think 
everybody understands. Obviously, the consideration of an amendment 
does not mean the disposal or the resolution of the issue. The Senator 
is only asking for consideration of the amendment. It could be second-
degreed. It could be debated. I do not know that he has asked that it 
be brought to some final conclusion.
  I will say this: If cloture is invoked, if the amendment has not been 
disposed of and it is not a germane amendment, then it would fall, but 
that certainly would not disallow the consideration of an amendment. 
So, again, I would pursue my request.
  Mr. DODD. Will the majority leader yield for 1 minute?
  Mr. BROWNBACK. If the Senator will yield, I think I have perhaps a 
solution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. I ask the amendment I have be considered after the 
Allen amendment tonight. I am prepared to put it forward this evening, 
if it would be acceptable to the leader to do that.
  Mr. GRAMM. Will the distinguished majority leader yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I would be happy to yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. I am hopeful that at some point we are going to work out a 
compromise and move this bill forward. It seems to me the position we 
are in is we want to set this vote up for tomorrow. The Senator has the 
right to object to doing that, pending getting the opportunity 
guaranteed that he can offer his amendment. If he is here--and he has 
this problem with this funeral apparently--no one can prevent him from 
doing it. I am hopeful if we work out a compromise that we might talk 
him out of offering the amendment. So I think we should accept the 
amended unanimous consent request of the majority leader. I do not see 
that we are giving him anything that he would not have if we were not 
here. It seems to me, pending trying to work out a compromise, that we 
would be better off not having it offered tonight. He could offer it as 
a second-degree amendment tonight--it is perfectly within the rules--
by objecting to setting up the vote for tomorrow. So I think the 
logical thing to do is to take the majority leader's proposal.

  Mr. DODD. Will the majority leader yield for one question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes.
  Mr. DODD. I would make a parliamentary inquiry. If there is a 
unanimous consent request which is agreed to, for the consideration of 
an amendment that would otherwise fail in a postcloture environment, 
does that amendment still prevail if cloture is invoked? Or at least 
will that amendment be considered without being violative of the rules 
of cloture?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If that is the intent of the unanimous consent 
request, then it would be in order.
  The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, if I may ask the distinguished majority 
leader a question, so I understand the procedure as he originally 
outlined it. May I inquire as to when the vote on my amendment would 
occur? As far as I am concerned, the amendment having to do with 
getting after terrorist assets for those who obtain judgments in this 
country has broad bipartisan support. Is there any reason why we could 
not vote on that tonight or, in accommodation to a lot of people who 
will be gone, vote on it on Tuesday?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I was entertaining the possibility of 
voting on the Allen amendment, as well as on the Santorum amendment, 
tomorrow morning. If the discussion of the amendment has been 
completed, we could lay it aside temporarily to allow the Brownback 
amendment to be laid down and then return to the Allen amendment 
tomorrow morning. That would be fine with me. I will say that this will 
generate other amendments. The Brownback amendment will not be the only 
amendment offered.
  Mr. ALLEN. All right.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. We will then be able to dispose of the Allen amendment 
tomorrow morning. So I have no reservations or objections to doing that 
if our colleagues would be interested in taking that approach.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. A further inquiry of our leader. The point is, as I 
understand it, at some point tomorrow morning the earliest vote would 
be a vote on the Santorum amendment. Let us assume the vote on the 
Santorum amendment is at 9 or 9:30. Thereafter, say 10 minutes later, 
there would be a vote on my amendment tomorrow morning?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have not propounded the request, but 
it would be my intention to vote on it immediately after the 
disposition of the Santorum amendment.
  Mr. ALLEN. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. If there is no disagreement, I would then again amend my 
request in the following manner: In addition to the request as it was 
originally propounded, I ask that we vote on the Allen amendment 
immediately following the disposition of the Santorum amendment 
tomorrow morning. I would further ask that the Allen amendment be set 
aside to accommodate the amendment to be offered by the Senator from 
Kansas, and that amendment be the pending business this evening; that 
we return to the Santorum amendment tomorrow morning, to be followed 
then by the Allen amendment, after its disposition.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, just for clarification, when I refer to 
the Santorum amendment, I refer to the legislation as it was referred 
to in the unanimous consent request. It is more than an amendment. It 
is now a freestanding bill under the request. I think all of my 
colleagues understood that, but I want to ensure that people know that 
would be the order of business tomorrow morning.
  With this request, there will be no further rollcall votes tonight.
  Mr. President, I ask further unanimous consent that no amendments be 
in order to the Allen amendment prior to the vote on the Allen 
amendment tomorrow morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if there are no Senators wishing to be 
recognized, I have a statement to make, for which I will use leader 
time, with regard to the Middle East.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________