Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I would be happy to.

Mr. DODD. One of the guiding principles of this bill is that, to the extent possible, State insurance law should not be overridden. To that end, the bill respects the role of the State insurance commissioners as the appropriate regulators of policy terms and rates. Due to the urgency of the problems that currently exist in the marketplace for terrorism coverage, however, the bill requires that once the Federal program is in place, the States must allow rates for terrorism coverage to take effect immediately, without being subject to a preapproval requirement or a waiting period. The States would, of course, retain full authority to disapprove any rates that violate State laws, which are inadequate, unfairly discriminatory, or excessive. I understand that my colleague from California, Senator Boxer, has some concerns about this provision and its effects. I appreciate her interest in this issue, and I want to assure my colleague that I will work with her as this bill moves to conference to try to address her concerns, and to ensure that this provision is as narrowly crafted as possible. clarification of legislative language

Mr. DODD. I did.

Mr. DODD. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, I want to engage, before some final comments, in a couple of housekeeping matters. Amendment No. 3862 First, Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Specter amendment is not germane post cloture.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent it be in order for the Senate to consider en bloc the following amendments; that the amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, without further intervening action or debate: amendments Nos. 3872, 3874 through 3879, 3881, 3883, 3884, 3885 through 3887, 3889, and 3890.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I so modify the request.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that our two colleagues from Michigan be recognized to speak as if in morning business for a period not to exceed 10 minutes on a very important matter to the State of Michigan.

Mr. DODD. Before my colleague from New York leaves--and we are heading in the same direction to the Banking Committee to deal with accounting reform which is being marked up today--I express my gratitude to him and to Senator Corzine, as well. Obviously, the Senator from New York speaks about this issue of terrorism insurance with a voice that adds a bit more clarity, if I may say so, than other Members. I am from a neighboring State. We lost people in Connecticut, as were lost in the Pentagon and the airline that went down in Pennsylvania, but particularly for the people of New York and particularly the people of New York City, the events of September 11 have a poignancy that the rest of the country understands. We deal with this issue of terrorism insurance, and there is a tendency to get lost in the trees, be arguing about whether the Government will be an insurance company and how this will work. Those are not insignificant questions. I know my colleagues believe those are important issues. Sometimes we lose sight of the fact that there is an economic slowdown occurring and people have a heightened sense of anxiety because of the events of September that we did not have before. We may talk about the failure of the intelligence community and the like, that may or may not be true, but certainly what was true was a failure almost of imagination that something such as this could happen on our own shores. What we are trying to do with this bill, and why the Senator from New York was so critically important in helping to put this together, is to see if we can get back on our feet to offer our constituents a sense of confidence that, despite the events of September 11, we are coming back and trying to do that in so many different areas. One critical area is the economy because, in addition to what this may cost--God forbid our country is attacked again--in terms of lives lost and hardship suffered, is the cost in terms of the price of premiums on insurance policies. Our Presiding Officer has raised legitimate concerns about that. We know that in the absence of this bill, the prices are apt to go much higher. In fact, I am confident they would. One of the goals of this bill is to try to dampen down that demand for the increased price of these premiums so our consumers, the owners of these buildings, the people who rent, the people who work in these buildings, the people who rent to open up shops and the like, are going to have less of a cost than they might have otherwise. We have tried to fashion this in a way that will make it possible to occur without just setting a premium cost that would be outrageous. And so I am grateful to the Senator from New York and others who have made at least getting the bill out of the Senate possible, and I second his concerns about whether or not we can actually finish this up and get a bill to the President that will allow us to complete this work. As he has said, and I repeat, this is about a 1-year bill, maybe a 2- year bill. It is conceivable someone may argue we need a third year, 36 months, and I would not argue too strenuously against that for all the obvious reasons. This is a very limited proposal to try to jump-start this critically important element in our economy. The longer we delay, the harder it is to do that. So my hope is the Senator from Texas and others would allow us to go forward, get a conference done, get a bill to the President, and see if we can't make a difference for this bottleneck that has occurred in our economy that makes it possible for the flow of commerce to occur as easily as it should as we try to get back on our feet as a nation. So, again, I will respond more directly at another time to the concerns raised by the Senator from Texas about the retention rates and the fear I would have that, if we didn't have some individual company retention rate caps, what that could do to the ability of smaller companies to actually be in the marketplace. This could end up being just a bill that is good for four or five insurance companies, and there are many out there that are not big but would like to be in this market, need to be in this market that could not afford to be in this market without having some realistic caps on an individual company-wide basis. So there is a strong argument for that approach that should not be lost on our colleagues when that debate occurs. When that does occur, we will make the case and hopefully finish this bill. Again, I thank my colleague from New York.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield whatever time my colleague from New York may consume.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Senator from Texas and I, despite our disagreement at this particular moment, are very good friends. We both serve on the Banking Committee, and there is, as he points out, a very important markup occurring. So I might get an understanding of where we are, are there amendments that will be offered to this bill, or can we go to third reading?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank my colleague from Nevada, the distinguished majority whip, for his assistance and support on this matter, the terrorism insurance legislation. In a few minutes we will be voting on cloture on this bill. I can't speak for the leadership, obviously, but I do know that as of last Friday at least, my sense was there was a consensus between the two leaders, based on the comments made on the floor, that even though the distinguished minority leader might under other circumstances be somewhat reluctant to support a cloture motion, I certainly interpreted his remarks to indicate that he understood why the majority leader was filing a cloture motion and asking for such a vote. Last week we started debating the terrorism insurance bill on Thursday morning. By Friday, we had dealt with two amendments dealing with the substance of the bill. I was dealing with every other issue but terrorism insurance. Now we have a cloning proposal before us. I have tried all weekend to draw some nexus between cloning and terrorism insurance, and my imagination fails me here. I don't see the linkage at all. My hope is, while there are certainly a lot of strong views on cloning, the issue of terrorism insurance requires the attention of this body, it requires this body to respond to this particular need and vote up or down on the matter. If they want to vote against it, vote against it. My fear is, if we don't invoke cloture, we will then move to the Department of Defense authorization bill. After all the work that has been put into this effort over the last months, we may see the last of the terrorism insurance proposal. For those out there who believe this issue deserves to be considered and resolved one way or the other, I strongly urge them to vote to invoke cloture. I ask unanimous consent that an article in this morning's Washington Post, ``Firms Warned on Terrorism Insurance,'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, very briefly, this is a 2-year bill. In fact, it is only a 1-year bill with the possibility of an extension of another 12 months. We are going to have a chance to debate the Gramm amendment if we get to cloture. If we don't have cloture, then, as the leader has indicated, we are going to move on to the Department of Defense authorization bill. So if you want to have a debate about what my colleague from Texas is proposing or my colleague from Kentucky, the only way to do this is to invoke cloture. We have been at this since last fall trying to resolve these matters. My hope is we can. If we don't invoke cloture, then it is very difficult to get to these matters. We have the cloning issue and others that have been added to this debate, and it makes it very difficult to deal with the underlying issue. I have indicated earlier that from the AFL-CIO to major groups in the country that are dealing with commercial lending they tell you this is an important piece of legislation. Every day we waste is jobs lost and more economic difficulty. So my hope is we can invoke cloture, debate the Gramm amendment, debate the amendment of my friend from Kentucky and others, and resolve this matter. Either vote for this bill or vote against it, but let's get it completed. I yield back my time. Cloture Motion

Mr. DODD. This article makes the case that GMAC, the commercial mortgage corporation, one of the largest lenders, is notifying borrowers that they must have terrorism insurance or risk defaulting on their loans; again, making the point we made over and over that this issue of terrorism insurance is real. I have talked about the problems occurring in the commercial mortgage-backed securities. We have had comments from the President, Governors from across the country, and others who are involved in this issue. There is a list in the newspaper this morning of organizations as wide ranging as real estate and chambers of commerce to labor groups calling on this body to vote this bill out and get to conference so we can resolve the differences with the other body. There is a list this morning: Vote for S. 2600, Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2000. I will not bother at this point to read the names, but there is a long list of groups and organizations that represent thousands and thousands of workers who, if we do not deal with this bill, run the risk of losing their jobs. The Chamber of Commerce has said that ``it is vital to pass this important legislation expeditiously,'' talking about the cloture vote. From insurance agents and brokers: Support cloture and oppose Gramm amendment to remove per company retentions. From the Real Estate Roundtable: We are writing to urge you to vote affirmatively on cloture and for final passage of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002. These two votes will be scored as key votes for our organization. The American Insurance Association: The same message. The National Association of Realtors. This is a ``key'' vote for cloture on S. 2600. Mr. President, we made the case over and over for many months as we have gone back and forth on this bill that each day that goes by, the case grows more serious and demands our attention. I have had letters from 30 of our colleagues, from 18 Governors across the country, repeated letters and comments from the President of the United States and the Secretary of the Treasury, and others who urge us to step to the plate and bring up amendments, which we were willing to do last week without cloture. Now we have no other choice because we have received proposals, with all due respect to our colleague from Kansas and others, to bring up matters that the Senate may or may not grapple with in this Congress. To hurl these matters at this bill as we are trying to wrap up business we think is a huge mistake. This is probably the last chance. For those who think there is going to be another day in this Congress on terrorism insurance, I fear there will not be. This is it. So in about 10 minutes, my colleagues will have a chance to decide whether we give final consideration to this bill or move on to other matters. For those who vote against cloture, understand if things do happen, then the finger of culpability clearly gets pointed in the direction of those who denied us an opportunity to vote on this bill. I urge support of the cloture motion, and I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Nevada.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take some time to respond to the comments of my colleague from Texas, and he raises not illegitimate concerns. I say to my colleague from Texas, we have always known we were sailing in uncharted waters. We have never done anything like this. I would be the last one to stand before my colleagues and say with absolute certainty what we proposed is going to work as perfectly as we would like it to work. My colleague from Texas raises some legitimate questions, questions I really cannot answer because we do not absolutely know what is likely to occur over the next 12 months or 24 months if the bill is extended. I am not at this moment going to challenge it, in fact, even on these assertions he has made. At some point, I will respond to it in a way that raises some concerns if we do not have retention caps, and it is a complicated matter for most Members to understand what happens in light of smaller companies that cannot necessarily withstand the kind of hits that could come with a major terrorist attack. There is an argument on the other side of retaining what we have in the bill. I also make the point to my colleague, which I have made repeatedly, we are going to go to conference with the House. They have a different bill. These are matters, clearly, that need to be brought up and thought about more, and we need to bring in people who spend their lives working in this area who can share with us responses to these kinds of questions. Senators deal on a matter such as this for a few hours, and we do not really understand--at least I do not, despite the fact I represent a State with a large insurance industry. These are very complicated and arcane insurance matters. The Presiding Officer was an insurance commissioner in his State. He knows the matter, but even he has to say these are complicated matters in light of what has happened. I appreciate the spirit in which my friend from Texas has made the suggestion we get past this bill and go to conference, but he has my commitment, Mr. President, and my word that I do not consider this to be the final word; that we have work to do before we come back. My colleague has made the point, and I have made the point that I do not want to see this go on. I do not want the Federal Government to be in the insurance business. I want to make sure we get off this as fast as we can. I, like him, am concerned that 2 years may be unrealistic, but I also understand the tolerance level of my colleagues. That number was chosen as much for political reasons about how much our institution would be willing to bear politically as it was over the realities of what the marketplace is like in trying to cost this kind of a product. Getting to conference is helpful. We will work on these matters and hopefully bring back a bill that is even improved from what we have before us today. With that, I am going to yield to the distinguished majority whip and the leadership to determine what they want to do. My colleague from New York is here as well and may want to make comments, and then we can figure out whether to have a recorded vote or take a voice vote on the bill.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, as I understand it, just to inform the Presiding Officer, there will be a vote on this bill sometime a little later today. I know there are some technical amendments that are being worked on right now to resolve those if we can. And then the leadership will set the time and the circumstances when that vote would occur. But my guess is it will be a little later in the day. In the meantime, I know there is some consideration about laying this bill aside temporarily and moving to another matter, possibly the Department of Defense authorization bill. But I leave it for the distinguished majority whip and the majority leader to make the announcements as to how we will proceed. But at this point I would assume that debate on this bill, at least for the present, is over and we will have a recorded vote on the underlying Senate bill sometime later this afternoon. With that, I note the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, we are going to start voting at 9:35. We need a roadmap to follow as to what we are going to do in the next 45 minutes with a variety of votes on matters that are related in some degree, but mostly unrelated, to S. 2600, the terrorism insurance bill, the subject of debate all day yesterday. We will be continuing with matters that have to be dealt with before we get back to that bill. I take a minute or so to express my sincere hope we will get back to that bill. I regret it is taking this long. We have been at this an awfully long time. We only dealt with two amendments yesterday that were relevant to the bill despite all the talk about this. There are people from the AFL- CIO, to business groups, developers, commercial interests, who would like to see the bill adopted soon because of the inability of major projects to move forward due to the unavailability of terrorism insurance. We have come a long way while waiting to get here. This is an important issue. The President indicated this, and the Secretary of the Treasury, and every organization I know of, with the exception of one or two, believe this is something we must do and should have done earlier. We will deal with some of the other matters, and I don't minimize the importance of them, but we are getting off track from the underlying bill. The leader feels strongly about this, as do many Members on both sides. We had some very fine speeches yesterday by Members on both sides of the aisle in support of this underlying legislation. My hope is sooner, rather than later, we can adopt S. 2600. We will deal with some other matters, but I hope to get back to the bill and complete it. I am prepared to stay here as long as we have to and listen to Senators all day today and all day Monday. There will be no votes until Tuesday, but we can dispense with debate today and Monday and bring us to final closure on this bill on Tuesday. The leader has to make some decisions on proceeding, but he is determined the legislation move forward. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Will the majority leader yield for one question?

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?

Mr. DODD. Will the majority leader yield for 1 minute?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on Implementation of Reading First and Reading Programs and Strategies during the session of the Senate on Thursday, June 13, 2002 at 10 a.m. in SD-430.