I find that a fantastic assumption, if that is the premise of the system you are setting up.

A lot of us think that that is just playing shell games.

What does that do to litigants who would have to travel great distances at great expense and inconvenience?

You are complicating further a very complicated situation.

This bill should be written from this Committee.

I think there is a growing danger that we are responding to this crisis and challenge in an unbalanced way.

If you suffered the damage and you had to come all the way from Los Angeles to Washington in order to assert your claim, it would be an imposition on you, would it not?

I think we have to simplify this so that we have a better feel for what the ramifications or consequences are...

We must allow the market to figure out how to price this new risk.

Neither can we allow the insurance industry to use the September attacks as an excuse to shirk its rightful role and responsibilities.

Neither can we allow the insurance industry to use the September attacks as an excuse to shirk its rightful role and responsibilities.

We cannot let that happen.

That is correct.

What we ought to approach this challenge with is the question, how are we going to protect America's insurance consumers.

The good news is that the insurance industry is clearly capable of taking care of the losses that occurred on September 11.

Yes, sir. It is called the Wind Risk.

Well, that is a consideration--we cannot do no solution. I do not think we can do that. So let us find the delicate balance.

We cannot ask the taxpayer to pick up the entire bill.