this week the Senate Banking Committee reported out S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 which will extend for 2 years the terrorism risk insurance program that is due to expire on December 31. I suspect the insurance industry is breathing a collective sigh of relief that this bill has finally passed in the Senate. All Americans concerned about economic growth should also feel some relief. This bill represents a compromise between the very strong views of the administration and the approach originally set forth in the bill as introduced. I must commend Senators Dodd and Bennett and their staffs for their tireless work on this legislation, as well as Chairman Shelby and Ranking Member Sarbanes. I understand that getting to this point was not without its challenges. Nevertheless, we arrived at a bipartisan compromise. There are still some who believe that we do not need a terrorism insurance program with a Federal backstop; that the capacity of the industry to provide this insurance has improved, and the program has achieved its goals. Frankly, I am not convinced. Because of the random and unpredictable nature of terrorism, I am not yet convinced that the private sector can adequately or accurately assess terrorism risk in the absence of a Federal backstop. It has been 4 years since the September 11 attacks that prompted the passage of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act.…
Dusty Johnson: “this week the Senate Banking Committee reported out S. 467, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Extension Act of 2005 which…”
Share
More from Dusty Johnson
I would rather wake up every morning worried about the price of corn in a South Dakota field than worried about the price of oil in an Iranian oil field.
It has been the honor of my lifetime to represent South Dakota in Congress these past eight years.
I have to dispute that because even the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, which has endorsed my bill, says that the bill does not single out favored political functions over its favored ones. You understand, under…
Again, I am trying to keep this--let's not argue. OK? Let's focus on areas of agreement. So reduction in force, again, I think we probably have a philosophical disagreement there. I am not associating myself with anybody else's remarks…





