Today we continue our consideration of the question of terrorism insurance in light of the attacks of September 11.

Now we want to get health insurance to unemployed people, but I do not think we want to do it at the expense of taking it away from children.

Let me just say this just as observation. I have not discussed this with my colleagues.

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

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?

This bill should be written from this Committee.

You are complicating further a very complicated situation.

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

I am worried about the fact that if you have first-dollar coverage on a terrorism act, why should I as a reinsurer try to adjust to the market...

it seems to me this is a particularly inopportune time to have a significant amount of additional risk put into the marketplace.

That is a debatable question in your proposal.

Mr. Secretary, I have real problems with the Federal Government guaranteeing profits for insurance and reinsurance companies.

this hideous act that happened on September 11, is a disaster for the economy.

I agree with so much of what you said. You gave an excellent statement. Your endorsement of market-based solutions, I think all of us would agree with that.

It seems to me we are trying to reduce as much as possible the inherent uncertainty in this unprecedented situation.

I believe there is a serious problem facing us that must be addressed by January 1.

The tragic events of September 11 have had many repercussions.