Bill Nelson: “I would like to close on my amendment. This has been a good debate. Again, although I have serious reservations about…”

“I would like to close on my amendment. This has been a good debate. Again, although I have serious reservations about this legislation, I did not prevent it from coming to the floor, which I could have done last night. I appreciate the distinguished Senator from Connecticut engaging in the colloquy, the series of questions and answers. I hope it is better understood. Now I would like to make a couple of points before we vote on the amendment, and I will ask for the yeas and nays. First of all, I want to correct something the distinguished Senator from Nebraska said. In fact, terrorism insurance under this bill is mandatory. That is the whole point of setting the system up whereby the Federal Government is coming in and backstopping insurance companies. It is mandatory for all commercial property and casualty insurance. The insurance is there. The Federal Government is picking up most of the tab. If the loss occurs, who is paying? The consumer is paying through the premiums that have already been hiked as chronicled daily over the last 6 months, including this one in today's paper talking about a 300-percent increase in the last 6 months. That, in fact, is what has happened. What should we do about it? We have to make insurance available. That is part of the reason for the underlying bill. But we also have to make it affordable. When rates get hiked 300 percent, you are getting to the precipice of whether it is affordable.”