[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 79 (Friday, June 14, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5575-S5577]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
TERRORISM RISK INSURANCE ACT OF 2002
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
continue consideration of S. 2600, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2600) to ensure the continued financial capacity
of insurers to provide coverage for risks from terrorism.
vote on amendment no. 3838
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment
No. 3838. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the
roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), the Senator
from Vermont (Mr. Jeffords), and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Torricelli) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from
North Dakota (Mr. Conrad) and the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
Torricelli) would each vote ``aye.''
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Allard),
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Brownback), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from
Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator
from Utah (Mr. Hatch), the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr.
Roberts) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that if present and voting the Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. Bunning) would vote ``yea.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 3, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 155 Leg.]
YEAS--81
Akaka
Allen
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Breaux
Byrd
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Corzine
Craig
Daschle
Dayton
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Durbin
Edwards
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Graham
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Harkin
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--3
Chafee
Hagel
Lugar
NOT VOTING--16
Allard
Bennett
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Conrad
Crapo
Dorgan
Hatch
Helms
Inouye
Jeffords
Murkowski
Roberts
Torricelli
The amendment (No. 3838) was agreed to.
Mr. DASCHLE. I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Cloture Motion
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, prior to the vote we
have just now taken, I asked unanimous consent to set aside the
Brownback and Ensign amendments, and that was not agreed to. It is now
my intention to file a cloture motion on the bill, and I ask that the
cloture motion be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cloture motion having been presented under
rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close the debate on Calendar No.
410, S. 2600, the terrorism insurance bill:
Harry Reid, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Jean Carnahan,
Charles Schumer, Kent Conrad, Tom Daschle, Richard
Durbin, Jack Reed, Byron L. Dorgan, Christopher J.
Dodd, Debbie Stabenow, Jay Rockefeller, Maria Cantwell,
Jeff Bingaman, Daniel K. Akaka, Evan Bayh, Joseph
Lieberman.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we will announce the time of the cloture
vote which will, of course, occur on Tuesday morning, but I do hope
Senators who are interested in the bill at the very least will express
themselves today and on Monday. We will be in session on Monday.
I hope we can achieve cloture on the terrorism bill. Of course, that
is still accommodating Senators who wish to offer amendments for a 30-
hour period following the cloture vote should it be successful.
Senator Lott and I have just been discussing the schedule for the
remainder of the week. Once we have completed our work on the terrorism
insurance bill, it will be my intention to move to the Defense
authorization bill. I do not think that will take a motion to proceed,
but certainly one will be offered if it is required. We will be on that
for the remainder of the week and for whatever length of time it will
take in the following week.
Senators should be reminded that we only have 2 weeks to go in this
work period. We are hopeful we can accommodate a number of nominations
and a lot of other work besides the Defense authorization bill and the
terrorism insurance bill. At the very least, we are going to finish
those two pieces of legislation prior to the time we leave.
I will announce later today the time for the vote on cloture, but it
will be Tuesday morning. I urge my colleagues to be present for that
vote. I yield the floor.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished majority leader
yield? I want to clarify again that the majority leader does not
anticipate recorded votes on Monday, even though we will be in session
for debate and for, I guess, amendments to be offered; is that correct?
Mr. DASCHLE. The distinguished Republican leader is correct. Earlier
he may recall that we announced some no-vote Mondays. This particular
Monday is one of the no-vote Mondays, so-called, so I am going to
respect that commitment. Senators have made scheduling decisions.
Certainly we will be in session. As I say, it will be an opportunity
for people to come to the floor to speak to the bill.
It is unfortunate we have not been able to get agreement to set the
amendments aside because I think it would offer other Senators the
chance to offer additional amendments. Barring that UC, we will expect
to be in session without the additional consideration of other
amendments.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if I can continue, I certainly understand
and support the decision to identify certain dates for a variety of
reasons when Senators are aware there will not be votes, but I
emphasize again, as the majority leader has, it does not mean we cannot
be in session and get a lot of work done.
Also, I understand why Senator Daschle feels a necessity to file
cloture. Obviously, we discourage each other from doing that, but in
order to move forward after a reasonable period of time--I have done it
many times on this terrorism insurance issue, while there are some
other amendments, hopefully germane amendments, that will and can be
offered and debated and
[[Page S5576]]
considered, in order to get to the Defense authorization bill and
complete our work before the Fourth of July recess, we need to complete
this bill in a reasonable period of time--Tuesday or Wednesday--and
then go right to Defense authorization.
I commend the Senator for making that decision. There are a lot of
other bills Senators on both sides are pushing the majority leader to
do, meritorious or otherwise. This is very important.
I encourage Senators on both sides of the aisle, when we get to the
Defense authorization bill, let's not use this as a grab bag. We have
lots we need to do in this area. We are talking about a pay raise for
our military men and women. We are talking about quality-of-life
issues. We are talking about basic decisions about the future of our
defense for our country. There will be plenty other opportunities to
offer unrelated, nongermane amendments.
I believe Senator Warner and Senator Levin will be ready to go. There
will be disagreements and heated debate on some of the amendments. Some
will take time. I believe the managers are ready to go and will make
good progress on it and be assured we can get it done without it being
very messy.
I appreciate the decision Senator Daschle has made. I think it is the
right thing for the Senate, for the military, and for our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator as always for his
cooperation. This is an important schedule. We know we have to finish
the work on terrorism insurance. We know we have to deal with the
Defense authorization bill. The Senator from Virginia and the Senator
from Michigan have been ready to go for a couple of weeks. It should be
a good debate.
I also agree with the distinguished Republican leader that this
should not be the grab bag, this should not be the vehicle that
attracts extraneous legislation. Let's get it done and done cleanly and
move on to other matters that are important as well.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I wish to make one other point, if I can be
recognized in my own right, before Senator Warner leaves. Senator
Daschle and I have also been talking about ways to move forward on
nominations. Hopefully, we are coming up with a process that will allow
us to make good progress across the board on nominations in the next
couple of weeks. I am looking forward to continuing work on that also.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, on behalf of the members of the Armed
Services Committee, I thank both of our leaders for recognizing the
need to move to the Defense authorization bill. That hopefully will
then set the stage for the Defense appropriations bill to follow in an
orderly manner.
Just moments ago, the chairman of our committee, the Senator from
Michigan, Mr. Levin, and I conferred with the leadership. I think I can
speak on behalf of the chairman that we are both ready to go, and we
will be prepared to bring up some of the more, should we say,
controversial amendments early on so that those issues can be addressed
and hopefully thereafter we can move quickly through the other
provisions of the bill.
I thank the Chair, and I thank the leadership.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of this
legislation and wish to praise my Connecticut colleague, Senator Dodd,
for his diligence in crafting a workable solution to the terror
insurance issue. As we all know, this has been a frustrating process
and Senator Dodd has proven to be tenacious in the quest to enact this
legislation into law. He is performing a valuable and mostly unsung
public service.
Let me explain why -I believe this issue is so important and why
Senator Dodd's work is so important.
As part of their property and casualty insurance, many businesses
have insurance against the costs that arise if their business is
interrupted. If we don't pass an effective terror insurance bill, there
will be a massive interruption in the business community. We can avoid
this result by passing this legislation.
Property and casualty insurance is not optional for most businesses.
Not every business owner buy life insurance, but nearly every business
buys property and casualty insurance--to protect its property, to
protect it against liability, and to protect its employees under the
State workers compensation laws. Property and casualty insurance is
required by investors and shareholders. It is required by banks that
lend for construction and other projects.
We all know that home mortgage companies require the homeowners to
maintain homeowners property insurance, and it's the same with business
lending.
Maintaining property and casualty insurance is mandated as part of
the fiduciary obligation to the business. And if property and casualty
insurance for major causes of loss is not available, or it is
prohibitively expensive, businesses face a difficult choice about going
forward with construction projects, and other ventures. If no insurance
is available, banks won't lend and the business activity that is
depending on the loans will stop. The impact on the real estate,
energy, construction, and transportation sectors will be severe.
For their part, insurance companies must be able to ``underwrite''
their policies. This means that they need to be able to assess their
exposure or risk of a claim. They need to know if their exposure to
claims is acceptable, excessive, or indeterminate. In the case of
claims for damages caused by terror attacks, there is not way to assess
their risk and no way to underwrite the policy. There are too many
uncertainties.
One thing that is certain, as it was not before September 11, is that
losses from terrorist acts can cost tens of billions of dollars. In
fact, under the worst-case scenarios, losses could easily reach
hundreds of billions of dollars.
There are hundreds of insurers in any given market. It is a highly
competitive industry. But these insurers are dependent on reinsurers
who help insurance companies spread their risk. When reinsurers will
not renew their contracts unless they contain terrorism exclusions or
limitations, many if not most of the insurance companies will not be
able to provide terrorism coverage--at any cost.
Insurance companies need reinsurance because their own capital to
cover losses is finite.
Even a good sized company--one that would be in the top half dozen or
so commercial insurers in the U.S.--with perhaps 5 percent of the
commercial lines market and capital of $7 or $8 billion--would have to
ask, do we want to roll the dice on our very survival by writing
terrorism coverage and covering it with our own reserves?
That is not a risk that an insurance company will take. If we do not
pass this legislation, therefore, insurers will take whatever steps
they consider necessary to ensure they do not drive themselves into
bankruptcy.
The insurance industry can protect itself by reducing its exposure to
terrorism claims. There is nothing we can do in the Congress--within
the limits of our Constitution--to require insurance companies to write
policies. They don't have to write policies. If they don't write
policies, or write them only with extraordinary premiums for terror
coverage, the companies may not be as profitable in the short run, but
they will at least be protecting themselves against involvency.
State regulators are already considering terrorism exclusions--as
they should do, consistent with their responsibilities to oversee the
solvency of the insurance industry. Absent exclusions, in states where
they might not be approved for one reason or another, the insurers will
have no choice but to limit their business.
If insurance companies are permitted to write policies with no
coverage for claims connected to terrorism, then businesses will have
to decide if they will self-insure against these losses. Many of them
will conclude that they cannot accept this exposure.
Therefore, if we fail to pass this legislation, it will be everyone
that the insurance companies they insure that loses. Insurance
companies can protect themselves by not writing policies, or writing
only policies without any coverage for acts of terror, or writing
policies with extraordinary premiums. But companies that need insurance
coverage may have even harsher options.
[[Page S5577]]
So, the issue is how we enable enough insurance companies to
determine that the risk of terrorist claims is a risk that they can
assume.
That is what this legislation is all about--defining the risk so that
insurers can assess and put a price on it. This legislation is about
facilitating insurance companies' ability to continue to write property
and casualty insurance policies. It is about providing business owners
with the opportunity to buy insurance against terror claims and doing
so in the private market to the extent that is possible.
This is, of course, not the first time we have faced this kind of an
issue. The Federal Government has a history of partnering with the
insurance industry to provide coverages for risks that are too big--too
uninsurable--for the industry alone.
Current examples are the flood, crop, and nuclear liability programs,
and in the past we've seen partnerships on vaccine liability and riot
reinsurance. From an insurability standpoint, these risks are probably
more insurable than terrorism.
Some might debate whether we should have passed the existing
programs, or whether they are operated efficiency. But there should be
no debate about the need for a terrorism program, and Senator Dodd has
structured this one the right way--with retentions and loss sharing by
the industry, so the incentives are there for efficient operations.
Again, I congratulate my Connecticut colleague, Senator Dodd, for his
diligence in working through these complicated issues and bringing this
bill to the floor. We need to defeat the amendments and enact this
legislation into law as soon as possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address
the Senate as in morning business for 4 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________