[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3955-3956]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 3210

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding that there is now a 
unanimous consent request pending; is that true?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I know my friend from Oklahoma has reserved 
the right to object. Let me for a couple minutes speak to several 
issues before he determines whether or not he is going to object to 
this request.
  In the wake of September 11, a number of insurance companies are 
declining to provide coverage from losses which result from terrorist 
attack. At 2:30 today, I had a meeting in my office with a large number 
of real estate people in desperate need to have their projects go 
forward. They are not able to obtain antiterrorism insurance.
  I know it is a serious problem. We continue to hear from the General 
Accounting Office and others that those insurance policies that are 
available are priced so high that they are really not affordable, even 
though they may be available. It is unfortunate that last year before 
adjournment we heard objections to our unanimous consent request to 
take up H.R. 3210, the House terrorism bill, and amend it with a 
substitute offered by the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and 
others. We believed that our effort to move forward was in good faith 
and addressed a present need. We found that some of our colleagues 
insisted on the consideration of amendments that made it difficult to 
complete the work on this issue, and it was not completed.
  Today, we are again seeking unanimous consent on Senator Dodd's 
proposal which provides the safety net needed to keep insuring against 
terrorist risks. In turn, that coverage would allow builders to keep 
building, businesses to keep growing, and hopefully prevent further 
economic setbacks.
  This amendment was a product of extensive bipartisan negotiations. It 
was developed with extensive consultation with a number of Senate 
Democrats and Republicans, including Senator Gramm of Texas, as well as 
the White House and the Treasury Department. While we were unable to 
reach agreement on every point, the proposal incorporated, line-by-
line, suggestions by our colleagues from both sides of the aisle and 
this administration. It represented a compromise.
  It requires substantial payments by insurance companies before the 
Federal Government provides a backstop. The proposal would require the 
insurance industry to retain the responsibility to pay up to $10 
billion in losses in the first year, and up to $15 billion in losses in 
the second year, or around 7 to 10 percent of the annual premiums for 
each affected company.
  This legislation would ensure stability in the insurance market so 
that businesses can afford to purchase insurance.
  I say to my friend from Oklahoma, this is imperfect, but we cannot 
let the perfect stand in the way of the good. We need to move forward.
  What others are trying to do is too much. It is just not going to 
happen.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Still reserving the right to object, I ask my friend and 
colleague, if I understand his request, it is to take up the House-
passed bill and the substitute and pass without further amendment the 
Dodd-Sarbanes-Schumer substitute; is that correct?
  Mr. REID. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. NICKLES. He is saying let's take up the House-passed bill. The 
request I was going to make, and I ask my colleague if he would agree 
with this, is let's take the House-passed bill and let's have an 
amendment on each side, one amendment, an amendment, whichever--maybe 
it is the Dodd-Sarbanes-Schumer amendment. I believe the amendment I 
was hoping our side would offer would be the Dodd-Gramm amendment.
  I ask my colleague, would he modify his request to allow one 
amendment offered to the House substitute, one proposed by the majority 
leader, and one proposed by the minority leader, and make that small 
modification?
  Mr. REID. The problem, I say to my friend through the Chair, is that 
we have other Senators, committee chairs, for example, who believe they 
have to have a few amendments of their own. They believe, as I have 
heard my friend from Oklahoma speak on a number of occasions, that 
committees need to be heard more. My whole point in offering this 
unanimous consent request is that this may be imperfect, but it is 
really a big bound forward. If we try to say we will have one amendment 
on your side and one on our side, then we have to go through this 
somewhat never-ending process of saying: What is the amendment going to 
be on this side? What is the amendment going to be on your side? Are we 
going to have time agreements on the amendments?
  I just think we would be so much better off looking at what was 
negotiated. We came within hours of finalizing this before we recessed 
last year.
  I say to my friend, I appreciate very much his good-faith effort. 
That is something that is worth pursuing. But it is going to be so 
difficult, and by pursuing that, people who want to obtain loans--one 
man in my office today had over $2 billion worth of projects on his 
desk they wanted to go forward on. He can't because he can't get 
insurance. I shouldn't say he can't get it, but he can't afford it.
  So I hope we can have this consent that I suggest be agreed to. If we 
can't, I think it is too bad. We will be happy to go back and look at 
the amendment process. We should not do that. We should move on with 
this agreement.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I object to the Senator's request.
  I ask unanimous consent--this is going to be a very slight 
modification--that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of 
Calendar No. 252, at the majority leader's call, at his time of 
choosing; that we can consider Calendar No. 252, H.R. 3210, the 
Terrorism Risk Protection Act, and that two amendments be in order, one 
by the majority leader and one by the minority leader; that time 
agreements be entered into; that the Senate consider both amendments, 
and then the remainder of the Senator's request--that after the 
amendments are dealt with, the bill be read the third time and passed, 
the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any 
statements thereon appear in the Record at the appropriate place.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I say to my friend that in a 
short time I will object because I think we really need to move forward 
with something as quickly as possible. At some subsequent time--I think 
time is so critical in this--we will reoffer our unanimous consent 
request.
  I appreciate what the Senator is trying to do, but one of the things 
that might be considered is--and I have no authority for this 
whatsoever--I believe we should move forward on my consent at this 
time, but maybe if we cannot work something out--which I think would be 
a shame--I would be happy to talk with the Senator to see if there is 
something we can do. We might want to start out with agreeing that the 
vehicle we would be amending would be the Dodd-Sarbanes-Schumer 
substitute amendment and offer two amendments to that, rather than to 
the House bill.
  Anyway, at this time I object for the reasons previously stated.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Nevada. I 
hope we can work this out. I am happy to meet with him. I think our 
objectives are similar. We would like to pass the legislation dealing 
with terrorism risk protection. We realize there is a serious problem. 
Just to say we are going to take the House-passed language and pass an 
amendment that Senators Dodd, Sarbanes, and Schumer have agreed to 
leaves out Senator Gramm, who also came up with the agreement that I 
believe Senators Dodd and Sarbanes had agreed to earlier.
  I hope we can come up with something. You pick the underlying bill,

[[Page 3956]]

and maybe the underlying bill would be the Dodd-Sarbanes-Schumer 
proposal, but give us an amendment and let's vote. We can come up with 
fairly short time constraints--at least on this side; hopefully, we can 
on both sides--and we can pass something and get to conference. The 
House-passed bill is significantly different, as my colleague knows. We 
have to work out the differences with the House. I think this is 
important legislation and it needs to pass, as the Senator from Nevada 
mentioned. It needs to pass quickly. Hopefully, bipartisan leadership 
in the Senate can orchestrate a procedure where we can get this done in 
the very near future.
  I thank my colleague. I yield the floor and 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. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________