Expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives for the members of the National Guard.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2761) to extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

First, I would like to extend thanks and appreciation for the effort and hard work of Mr. Bachus and Mr. Baker, as well as Mr. Kanjorski, Mrs. Maloney, the extraordinary efforts of my friend from New York, Pete King, and of course to Chairman Frank for his extraordinary leadership, as well as the entire New York legislative delegation, including our friends from New Jersey and Connecticut, who all know firsthand the anguish and the pain of regions suffering from a terrorist attack.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act, with Senate amendments, is not the outcome that most of us in the House on both sides of the aisle had wanted. In September, after a series of subcommittee and full committee hearings, a field hearing, and following both subcommittee and full committee markups, the House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 2761 by a strong bipartisan margin of 3-1. H.R. 2761 would have extended TRIA for 15 years. It would have eliminated the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terrorism. It would have included coverage for human beings by adding group life, and for nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological, the so-called NCBR attacks. Most importantly, H.R. 2761 included a reset mechanism, which would have addressed the types of increased capacity shortages that we have already seen following major terrorism attacks against our country.

I want to be clear about this. The reset mechanism is not a New York provision. In negotiations with Mr. Baker of the minority, we worked out the reset mechanism that would be triggered for any future catastrophic attack anyplace in America. Under the reset, if, heaven forbid, our country does suffer another catastrophic attack, the nationwide trigger would be reset and the nationwide deductible for any insurer that pays out losses related to that attack would be set at lower levels.

God willing, New York will never suffer a second time, and, God willing, your State will never suffer a catastrophic attack such as 9/ 11. But if it does, then you too would enjoy the so-called ``benefit'' of being attacked a second time by virtue of the existence of the reset mechanism.

Let's take, for example, Alabama; Alabama, that fought so hard and received $130.5 million in Homeland Security grants because it is at risk of an attack by terrorists. We know that for a fact because its Senators and others told us so. God forbid, terrorists blow up the Medical Center at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Under this legislation, you will be covered. Without a reset, however, after a catastrophic attack, the supply of terrorism insurance could be so scarce that you would not be able rebuild the medical center, which had been in Birmingham, and rebuild it in Birmingham, Alabama. I only pick Alabama, I think, because I went in alphabetical order. Sometimes bad things happen in alphabetical order. I don't read the obituaries because people die in alphabetical order.

In short, the House bill, which included the reset, would have met the needs of our country and prepared the Nation to better cope with some of the grave financial issues that would have arisen if there were another terrorist attack on our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, when the House passed H.R. 2761 in September, we presented the Senate with an historic opportunity to protect our homeland from some of the economic consequences of terrorism, and specifically to safeguard the developers and the insurers and the re- insurers, who will bear the highest financial burden if our Nation is attacked again. The financial stability of these industries is the cornerstone of our economy, and they are absolutely essential to our capacity to recover from an attack.

Sadly, the U.S. Senate didn't seize the opportunity to protect our Nation and our markets. Instead, our colleagues on the other side of the Capitol operated to amend our bill to extend the TRIA program by only 7 years, less than half of the extension period, and to strip out every beneficial provision in our bill, save one. The Senate did accept the House position that the distinction between foreign and domestic acts of terror, in today's world, so often impossible to discern, would be included. Having passed the hollow shell of the bill and having done so only after the House had adjourned for Thanksgiving, our Senate counterparts abandoned the legislative process and they have refused to go to conference.

Now, faced with the choice between accepting a bad bill and disrupting the

U.S. financial markets, the House went to work yet again, Democrats and Republicans, working together, to try to find a compromise with the Senate, and last week we passed a limited but still much-improved TRIA reauthorization over what they had done in the Senate.

The compromise legislation the House overwhelmingly passed last week by a vote of 303-116 acquiesced to the Senate's position on duration as well as coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological coverage. That compromise bill accepted the Senate's extension of TRIA, which was for only 7 years, and eliminated NCBR coverage. The House held firm, however, to the provisions we felt were absolutely necessary to allow for large-scale development to continue all across our country; the extension of a reset mechanism, group life insurance coverage, and lower program triggers.

Mr. Speaker, the House overwhelmingly passed the compromise TRIA reauthorization last week, and the Senate, as has been so often the case this year, did nothing. And so, today, we are faced with a very difficult reality: We can either accept the Senate's shell of a bill and ensure that our Nation's economy is somewhat protected against terrorist attacks, or we can let the program expire altogether in less than 2 weeks from today. Maybe that is considered good government in some parts of the country, but entrusting our Nation's economy to the terrorist roulette wheel would not be acceptable to the American people and it is not acceptable to the House, and we must do the responsible thing.

The Senate amendments to H.R. 2761 are unhelpful, shortsighted, and represent an unrealistic pre-9/11 outlook. The Senate amendments come from a naive world where there is no risk of terrorism and another attack like 9/11 is impossible. In the Senate's mythical world, developers build stadiums and malls and national landmarks without funding, banks lend money without insurance, insurers underwrite policies regardless of risk, and reinsurers do the same thing on an even larger scale.

In the Senate's fantasy world, the $30 billion in insured losses from 9/11 can be easily underwritten and capitalized because unimaginable losses such as those that would come from an attack with weapons of mass destruction just can't happen, and the reason they can't happen is because the U.S. Senate said so.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Santa Claus is not going to give America terrorism risk insurance for Christmas, and we don't live with the Easter Bunny in the Senate's Candyland, where catastrophic risk can be comfortably ignored. Saying ``the market will provide'' just doesn't make it true. In the real world, it is critical to both our national security and to our economy that there is no gap in terrorism risk insurance. This House will not leave our Nation's developers, insurers and reinsurers out in the cold when we adjourn for the year.

I therefore urge all of our colleagues to support this legislation out of the necessity to extend the TRIA program past its expiration date, with the understanding that this fight is not over.

We will continue to advocate for those provisions we know are critical to securing our homeland against terrorist attacks; namely, the reset mechanism, group life coverage, lower program triggers and NCBR coverage. To that extent, I have just introduced legislation entitled the Terrorism Risk Insurance Improvement Act that will add the reset mechanism to the TRIA program we are about to authorize here today, and I invite all of our colleagues to join me as cosponsors. We will continue to fight for a fully effective TRIA program until the Senate and the White House get the memo that the war on terror is not only fought on the other side of the world, but on the homefront as well.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield to the chairman of the full committee 5 minutes, Mr. Frank, whose extraordinary leadership has kept this issue alive.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), the chairman of the subcommittee in whose jurisdiction this legislation originated.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who has worked long, hard, and well on this issue.

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to redistribute the wealth and attribute no social meaning to that, but those of us who are in need of the time are deeply appreciative, and we thank you for your cooperation.

May I inquire of the Speaker how much time indeed is left.

Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished vice chair of the majority caucus, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for 1 minute.

I thank the vice chairman.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), the distinguished county leader of Queen's County who has fought so long and passionately on this issue.

I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank Mr. Bachus for the extraordinary cooperation between the majority and the minority on this particular issue. He led his caucus, along with Mr. Baker, in crafting what was a very open process led by the distinguished chairman, Mr. Frank, of the full committee, where everybody's voice was heard; everybody's opinion was allowed to be aired. We fought it out. Not everybody won every fight, but it was an extraordinary effort in goodwill. And the efforts of the Financial Services Committee should be something that set an example for the rest of the committees in the Congress, especially on this particular issue, everybody exercising goodwill and good judgment.

Let me thank my staff especially Steve Boms, who, unfortunately, became one of our Nation's leading experts on terrorism risk insurance.

Much has been said about the New York delegation, because, I think, of our high profile on this issue. But allow me to thank our colleagues and offer this: do not feel sorry for us. We do not make this case for your pity, because we think that our city, we think that our communities, we think that our State and our neighbors acted in an exemplary fashion at a moment of extraordinary terror and pressure, not just to us but to the entire Nation and to the world. What we faced was absolutely extraordinary, and we are so proud to be New Yorkers, and we make this fight not because of what we suffered as a city and a State, but because we already know the pain and the problems that each and every one of our colleagues and other communities across this country might face in the event of a terrorist attack.

Much has been said of the courage of New York. We do not end this fight here because this fight is not for us.

First, to those who have expressed concern about the cost of money as taxpayer money, let me say that the way this has been added up by CBO, the taxpayers would actually gain $200 million if there were a terrorist attack because of the scoring. Do this because it's the right thing.

I thank the gentleman.

Do this because it's the right thing to do, not because of New York. Because your community could be next, and it could be next yet again. That's what the reset is for.

We pass this today to provide our country with ongoing insurance so that major development can continue to take place, not to allow the terrorists to dictate when and where and how construction might take place in America.

Pass this, vote for this stripped-down version, provide this protection at least as a minimum for the next 7 years; and I guarantee we will all be back here next year to fight more and again and harder to include those provisions that will protect us all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Senate amendment to H.R. 2761, the Terrorist Insurance Revision Extension Act of 2007. I think the legislation is critical to our Nation's economic security and the proper functioning of the insurance marketplace.

Let me thank Chairman Frank and his staff and Representatives Capuano, Price, Kanjorski and Baker for all their leadership and hard work on TRIA this year. We would not have enacted TRIA this year had the House not acted several months ago before the Senate and set the stage for this current compromise.

I would also like to acknowledge the strong contributions of Mr. Ackerman and the New York City delegation, Mr. King and Mr. Fossella. I would also like to acknowledge their concern with regard to this bill. We all remember the attack on New York City more than 6 years ago. We are grateful that we have not suffered another attack on the homeland. I think there is recognition among many Members of this body that New York City is a symbol of our financial strength.

It is not only that it is a symbol; it is a gateway to our country for many immigrants and it quite naturally was on September 11, and could be, again, chief among the targets. So I would say to Mr. Ackerman, I appreciate your passion and your participation, and we are dealing with a compromise here.

In the absence of further attacks, it would be easy to forget the chaos and the economic disruption that followed in the wake of 9/11 and, more importantly, the loss of life that we all witnessed in a very personal way, but New York City's residents in an even more personal and deadly experience for them.

In 2002, it was fresh in our minds, and we created TRIA, which did help to settle the markets and made possible the strong economic recovery that followed, and TRIA was and remains a central element of our commitment to the American people to do all that we can to ensure the stability of our economy in the event the unthinkable happens again.

In a moment I am going to call on Mr. King, the gentleman from New York, who worked very hard on this bill. Terrorist acts are aimed at our Nation as a whole. The resulting damage and suffering inevitably fall on a relative few of our communities and citizens. We know that New York City is a primary target of these terrorists. And although I am an ardent supporter of free markets, I believe it is entirely appropriate for our government to minimize economic fallout and disruption sure to arise from any new attack. Terrorism is a relatively new phenomenon in America, and we are dealing with terrorist organizations which have both the intent and the potential to deliver deadly strikes against our homeland.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, a member of our leadership team, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), and I would like to acknowledge to him, publicly, and to the New York delegation that most of us in America probably do not realize the contribution and the special nature of the City of New York and its contributions, both financially and I think socially, to the United States. To many around the world, it does represent our leading city and is truly a target. When they target New York City, they target all of us.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who worked very hard on this bill. And as many of us know, when Louisiana was hit by Hurricane Katrina, he worked very diligently on that. I think he also has played a yeoman's part in this process.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the concerns of many of my House colleagues, the New York delegation, concerning certain aspects of this bill. It is not a perfect bill. It is the bill the Senate sent back over. I believe, despite the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it is a reasonable measure. I believe it will ensure the continued vitality of our commercial insurance markets as they operate under the threat of global terrorism. I believe it is fiscally responsible.

Many on my side would have preferred a 3-year bill, as the gentleman from Louisiana talked about. Originally, it was a 3-year bill. I believe the New York delegation can take satisfaction from the fact that it was a 7-year extension and that it does cover domestic acts of terrorism. I applaud them for that.

But I think, on the other hand, it does offer limits and improves taxpayer protections and prevents further intrusions by the government into a market-based system. For that, I thank many of my colleagues on my side, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Campbell and others, who voiced their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, I again applaud the hard work and the willingness of the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, Mr. Frank, to work with Members on both sides of the aisle and to bring the bill here today before the House. He faced a hard decision. He has worked hard on this. He made, I think, a very passionate and, I think, in many respects, reasoned defense of his position.

We do know going forward that we need to pay particular attention, if the terrorists continue to threaten our largest city and target it, that we are fully supportive of the people of New York City.

I thank all of my colleagues in both the House and the Senate who worked on TRIA for a long time. Whatever else has happened, we have come together today. It may have been an emotional journey, but we are going to pass legislation that I believe will be effective, and I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I will surrender any time I have left to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Ackerman).

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that the gentleman be given another minute.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I appreciate the indulgence of my colleagues.

I am glad that we will finally be acting on this. I share the frustration of my friend from New York and, indeed, all of my friends from New York and elsewhere, Connecticut, who wanted a more comprehensive bill. There is a consolation. I think 1 year or so ago there were people who thought even a 7-year extension was much too much and were talking about phasing this out. I am glad that we are moving forward. I want to address those who say, well, this was supposed to be a temporary program until the market could take over. I never believed that. I always wanted this to be a government program.

I am a believer in the market; I believe almost all of us are. I understand how the market principle works in insurance. If you have a greater risk, you pay more; your premiums go up. We do that because we want to discourage people from taking certain risks, or at least make them pay the full cost. We also want to give them an incentive to diminish the risk. Those principles don't apply to terrorism.

I don't want a situation to exist whereby, if you build a large building, because that is essentially what we are talking about here; people can't build large buildings without bank loans, and they can't get bank loans without insurance. I don't want the cost to go up in any particular part of this country because murderous, vicious thugs want to do this country ill.

I don't believe that those who have been the victims of these kinds of terrorism ought to bear that cost. That is

national defense. No more should any one State have to pay to protect itself against an invasion. We should have a national defense system that includes saying, we will hold you harmless against these murderous attacks. And it is, of course, because there is very little you can do to protect yourself against this. What do they do, put anti-aircraft guns on the roof? This is not a case where the market is failing. It is a case where national purpose is what is relevant, not the market.

Now, the other point to make is that I do regret the breakdown in the United States Senate of the legislative process. And, in particular, and I believe that the chairman of the banking committee, the Senator from Connecticut, wanted to move on this, but we were told, partly I think they made a mistake by waiting too long, but then they were told it had to be done unanimously. And we were told that the senior Republican on the committee, the Senator from Alabama, simply refused to deal with this.

Had this been up in the Senate and had the Senate voted ``no'' to nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological coverage, had the Senate voted ``no'' to group life and the very important provision of our colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), to protect people against discrimination if they wanted to travel to Israel or elsewhere; if the Senate had voted against the reset mechanism, I would have been disappointed, but I would have said, well, that is the way it works. But to have the opposition of the senior Republican mean that no debate or discussion, much less a vote, could take place is a breakdown of the system.

We are in a position where something at this point is better than nothing. But I want to say, as chairman of the Committee on Financial Services, we will begin early next year to try to get this back on the Senate agenda, and I will be urging my Senate colleagues not to put themselves in a position where this kind of one-person veto can prevent, not an outcome, none of us have the right to an outcome, but the American people ought to have a right to debate and discussion.

Now, there is a problem, Mr. Speaker, that I acknowledge, and it is a problem that those of us who have been frustrated by this, really, I mentioned the Senator from Alabama. I disagree with his obstruction. But let's put the blame where it belongs also, on James Madison. We had an election last year, and we elected a new House and we elected one- third of the Senate, and that is part of the problem. We have a House that responded to the election of 2006. We have at this point a House and a Senate each responding to somewhat different electoral impulses. We are here as a result of the election of 2006, every single one of us. Or subsequent special elections, sadly, in some cases.

In the Senate, two-thirds of that Senate was elected in 2002 and 2004. That is the disjunction. And it is not personal in general, it is electoral, and it is a frustration that cannot be overcome easily. But it does make me determined, as I go into the second year of this session, to pay more attention to that need. And we will be doing everything we can again. Again, we cannot guarantee outcome in the Senate or anywhere else, but the American people ought to be able to get the benefit of votes and debate.

So this is a recognition that terrorism insurance, in my judgment, should be here as long as terrorism is here. It is not a case of waiting for the market. It is a case of stepping up, as we should, for national defense purposes. And we will work, and I will be following the lead of my colleague from New York (Mr. Ackerman) and others as we try to make this bill an even better bill, reflecting what it was in the House.

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I was unable to travel to Washington, DC, for votes during the week of December 17, 2007.

However, I would have recorded the following votes on the rollcall votes which I missed. They included:

December 17, 2007

(1) H. Res. 856--Rollcall No. 1163--Expressing the heartfelt sympathy for the victims and families of the shootings in Omaha, Nebraska, on Wednesday, December 5, 2007--``yes.''

(2) H. Res. 851--Rollcall No. 1164--Honoring local and state first responders, and the citizens of the Pacific Northwest in facing the severe winter storm of December 2 and 3, 2007--``yes.''

(3) Previous Question--Rollcall No. 1165--On ordering the previous question to H. Res. 873--``yes.''

(4) H. Res. 873--Rollcall No. 1166--Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules--``yes.''

(5) H. Con. Res. 271--Rollcall No. 1167--Providing for the sine die adjournment of the first session of the One Hundred Tenth Congress-- ``no.''

(6) Previous Question--Rollcall No. 1168--On ordering the previous question to H. Res. 878--``yes.''

(7) H. Res. 878--Rollcall No. 1169--Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 2764) making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes-- ``yes.''

(8) H.R. 4286--Rollcall No. 1170--To award a congressional gold medal to Daw Aung San Suu Kyi in recognition of her courageous and unwavering commitment to peace, nonviolence, human rights, and democracy in Burma--``yes.''

(9) 1st Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764--Rollcall No. 1171--On motion to agree to the Senate amendment with the 1st House amendment--``yes.''

(10) 2nd Senate Amendment to H.R. 2764--Rollcall No. 1172--On motion to agree to the Senate amendment with the 2nd House amendment--``yes.''

(11) H. Con. Res. 254--Rollcall No. 1173--Recognizing and celebrating the centennial of Oklahoma statehood--``yes.''

december 18, 2007

(1) Previous Question--Rollcall No. 1174--On ordering the previous question to H.R. 877--``yes.''

(2) H. Res. 877--Rollcall No. 1175--Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6) to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes--``yes.''

(3) H.R. 3793--Rollcall No. 1176--To amend title 37, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to continue to pay to a member of the Armed Forces who is retired or separated from the Armed Forces due to a combat-related injury certain bonuses that the member was entitled to before the retirement or separation and would continue to be entitled to if the member was not retired or separated--``yes.''

(4) H.R. 6--Rollcall No. 1177--To reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes--``yes.''

(5) H.R. 2761--Rollcall No. 1178--To extend the Terrorism Insurance Program of the Department of the Treasury, and for other purposes-- ``yes.''

(6) S. 2271--Rollcall No. 1179--To authorize State and local governments to divest assets in companies that conduct business operations in Sudan, to prohibit United States Government contracts with such companies, and for other purposes--``yes.''

(7) H. Res. 542--Rollcall No. 1180--Expressing the unconditional support of the House of Representatives for the members of the National Guard--``yes.''

(8) H. Res. 884--Rollcall No. 1181--Providing for the concurrence by the House in the Senate amendments to H.R. 3997, with an amendment-- ``yes.''

(9) H.R. 3690--Rollcall No. 1182--To provide for the transfer of the Library of Congress police to the United States Capitol Police, and for other purposes--``yes.''

december 19, 2007

(1) H.R. 3996--Rollcall No. 1183--To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain expiring provisions, and for other purposes-- ``no.''

(2) S. 2499--Rollcall No. 1184--To amend titles XVIII, XIX, and XXI of the Social Security Act to extend provisions under the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP programs, and for other purposes--``yes.''

(3) H.R. 4040--Rollcall No. 1185--To establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children's products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission--``yes.''

(4) H.R. 2764--Rollcall No. 1186--Making appropriations for the Department of State, foreign operations, and related programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes--``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2761, now known as the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007.

Terrorism insurance plays a critical role in protecting jobs and promoting our Nation's economic security. This bill will extend the terrorism insurance program for 7 years. This length is more than double the duration of the program to date. This length is also in line with my original position of a 6- to 8-year extension. Seven years is both long enough to provide greater certainty to the marketplace and short enough to encourage the private sector to develop our own solutions to the problems posed by conventional terrorism.

Importantly, the legislation eliminates the distinction between foreign and domestic terrorism. Terrorism, regardless of its cause or perpetrator, aims to destabilize the government. This change, therefore, has much merit, and the terrorism insurance program will now protect against these losses.

This Chamber has worked diligently and thoughtfully throughout this year on legislation to extend the terrorism insurance program. I am disappointed at the end of the day we are unable to incorporate some of the provisions that we initially agreed upon before. This final product, for example, fails to provide stronger coverage for nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorism events. TRIA currently provides a backstop to insurers for these losses, but only if insurers cover the losses.

Our Nation needs to better plan for a potentially devastating act by NBCR means by putting in place an explicit program rather than an implicit promise now or a chaotic response later. Instead of taking action, as I would have preferred, the legislation before us requires a study and a report on the availability and affordability of insurance coverage for these losses. We will have a study. I look forward to it. I hope when we receive that study we will then get to work on this proposition.

Members of the Senate, however, have supported this provision, but it was not included in the final package, and that provision is the coverage for group life insurance. Nonetheless, I include this letter by four Members of the Senate, sent to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, for the Record.

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC, December 12, 2007.

Chairman Christopher Dodd,

Senate Banking Committee, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.

Ranking Member Richard Shelby,

Senate Banking Committee, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Dodd and Shelby: The risk of terrorism is a

persistent and evolving reality that we will be required to

confront for many years to come. It light of this reality, we

greatly appreciate your efforts to pass an extension of the

Terrorism Risk Insurance Act before it expires.

Congress created the TRIA program in the aftermath of

September 11th to ensure the viability of our nation's

property and casualty insurance market in the event of

another catastrophic terrorist attack. Without reinsurance

through TRIA, these carriers could be forced to restrict the

availability of the coverage they provide, or face losses

that could undermine their ability to honor their policy

commitments. Unfortunately, our economy remains vulnerable

due to the current exclusion of group life insurance from the

TRIA program.

Nearly 170 million Americans receive nearly $8.3 trillion

in group life insurance protection through their employers.

For many, group life coverage is the only form of life

insurance they have. But because of the concentration of

employees at insured worksites, the companies which provide

group life coverage are especially vulnerable to the

catastrophic losses which could result from a terrorist

strike. In this respect, group life insurance resembles

workers' compensation insurance, which is a TRIA-covered

line.

Before September 11th, group life insurers were able to

purchase catastrophe reinsurance to protect against such

losses. Since those attacks, the decreased availability and

increased costs have made private reinsurance more difficult

to obtain.

We believe that the inclusion of group life coverage in

TRIA is prudent to ensure that life insurance benefits for

American workers are not jeopardized by a terrorist attack.

We understand and appreciate your efforts to secure a timely

extension of the TRIA program, and respectfully request your

support for inclusion of group life as the Senate resolves

its differences with the House on this crucial legislation.

We thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Susan M. Collins.

Olympia J. Snowe.

Tim Johnson.

Ben Nelson.

U.S. Senators.