Charles E. Schumer

That is a pool of a sort, but a pool you could live with.

I worry about a significant portion of properties not being insured.

I would like to work with you on that.

But in this new world we are in, wouldn't the fact that we do not know what is going to happen create a real dampening effect on the economy if we have a short-term plan?

And there are some people who no one will insure.

But how do we know--and I am going to ask my second question now so you can answer both.

Do you strongly disagree with that?

Would you agree, though, if we did no solution or a 1 year solution, that it would create a significant damper on economic growth next year?

But when I talk to real estate developers and entrepreneurs... they say that without a longer-term solution, they are not going to build a thing.

Not so much to do this for the sake of the industry, but to do it for the sake of the economy of the country, which is hanging in the balance.

I think that we are playing with fire by saying, well, let us let the market see if it can solve this problem.

From my State of New York, it is vital that we get something done.

I worry that if we do not have some kind of legislative remedy, downtown New York will not be rebuilt.

We are not looking at any bail-out of the past.

To risk not doing anything because we all cannot come together on an agreement, could really push us much further down the economic ladder.

Whatever solution that we come up with at the Federal level on terrorist coverage, I believe that the same principles of private enterprise must be applied.

Simply put, if the Federal Government's taxpayer resources are granted, then the terrorism peril cannot be dumped by the insurance industry.

This is an historic moment. For the first time this body is recognizing the anguish out on the streets that hollers to us, do something about crime. We are tough on punishment. We are smart on prevention. This bill should not be deterred…

We do not have to debate this over and over and over and over again. You lost the Rules vote. The Rules vote was a vote that was saying to the American people, ``We want a crime bill, but we do not want to dither the way we did last year…

OK; reclaiming my time, it is simply that the jury would not be able to do that, and that is my point. We want to give the jury the flexibility there because otherwise they would not find, they are not going to find, for a capital crime…

If this was a pretty horrendous crime, but they did not quite feel that it should get the ultimate sentence, capital punishment, they would then only get a term of years as sentenced by the judge, and I do not think that makes a great deal…

I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as has been stated, there are times when I believe that capital punishment is the appropriate punishment, but that does not mean a jury should…

It seems to me that the gentlewoman from Colorado [Mrs. Schroeder] has made a generous offer. If the gentleman seeks debate, which we have had twice already on this bill, but wishes to do it a third time, which he is saying is, ``Trade in…