House Passes Alternative Terror Bill As Expiration Looms

WASHINGTON--House Democrats, in a move characterized by a Republican member as "futile," passed and sent to the Senate a new bill to extend the federal terrorism risk insurance backstop for seven years, restoring provisions not included in the Senate's more modest version.

The vote on the House bill was 303-116.

Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, who characterized the House action as "legislative futility" in the face of Senate opposition and a promised White House veto, said the latest House bill will be "dead on arrival" in the Senate.

The White House indicated that if the Senate's version were to be expanded as the House would like, President George W. Bush would veto the bill.

Before passing its latest extension of government supports for insurers in the event of catastrophic losses from a terrorism attack, House Democrats covered themselves against the possibility their legislative gambit would fail.

They accomplished this by changing the bill's number, a parliamentary maneuver that lobbyists say acknowledged the likelihood that the Senate's version--preferred by the insurance industry--will be passed sometime before Congress is scheduled to adjourn on Dec. 21.

Without such action, the federal terrorism reinsurance backstop will expire on Dec. 31.

Before today's vote, Democrats--led by the House bill's original sponsor, Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.--acknowledged the dilemma posed by Senate opposition to the House demand for expanded coverage.

To deal with that, the bill's number was changed before the vote to H.R. 4299, in place of H.R. 2761, which was the original House version of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act of 2007 sent to the Senate.

The Senate's response to H.R. 2761 was to pass a more modest version of TRIA extension with higher triggers, less expansive coverage and a shorter shelf life--seven versus 15 years. The House's latest version conceded a seven-year extension.

As Rep. Frank acknowledged today during the debate on the latest House bill, "originally, we thought about taking the bill the Senate has passed, amending it and sending it back."

However, he added, in justifying the change in bill number, "I then heard that the Senate might be unable to function and that [an amended bill] wouldn't get through" before Congress departed for the year, thus risking expiration of the federal reinsurance program.

By changing the bill number and adding back House elements the Senate had deleted to its latest legislation, he noted, "we are saying to the Senate [that we are] not ready to...roll over and play dead."

However, acknowledging the Senate's strong position, he said that if the Senate rejects the House's new language, "we'll have to acquiesce."

During the debate, Rep. Frank explained "our disagreement over the role of preemptive surrender. I am unwilling at this point to let [debate] end without giving the Senate some chance to reconsider aspects" of the House bill.

Rep. Frank also dismissed the comments by Republicans that failure for the House to just concur in what the Senate had done doomed the bill for this year. He interjected during the debate to call the timing issue "a red herring," predicting that Congress will certainly have to ultimately act before expiration of insurance backstop legislation

The Republican position on the timing issue was voiced by Rep. Sessions and Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.

"I encourage all of my colleagues to reject this exercise in legislative futility so that the Rules Committee can instead bring to the House floor a rule that would provide for consideration of the Senate compromise bill that the House has already received," said Rep. Sessions.

Earlier, Rep. Sessions had noted that, "I rise today in opposition to this...despite my long-term support for TRIA, because passing a bill that has already been pronounced 'Dead on Arrival' in the Senate foolishly puts the reauthorization of this important program in jeopardy as its expiration at the end of this year draws closer..."

House Democrats, led by Rep. Frank and Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., had re-ignited the debate over the scope of TRIA extension legislation last Wednesday by introducing legislation expanding the Senate bill.

The Senate bill effectively extends the current legislation by seven years and adds claims from acts of domestic terrorism to the government reinsurance program.

The newest House bill restores provisions from the original House version that was deleted from the Senate's final legislation. These include language adding group life, as well as a provision aimed at reducing the cost of terrorism risk insurance for properties in urban areas seen as prime terrorism targets.

It also reduces the size of a terrorism loss needed to trigger federal supports from the current $100 million to $50 million.

During the debate, Rep. Frank acknowledged that neither Democrats nor Republicans in the Senate wanted a conference committee to iron out differences between the two versions. Besides that, added pressure to take the Senate bill is coming from both the White and House Republicans to accept the Senate bill.

The latest House bill amends the Terrorism Risk Insurance Revision and Extension Act of 2007 as revised by the Senate Banking Committee in an October vote, and approved unanimously by the full Senate on Nov. 16.

A huge roadblock to the House's version is a statement of administration policy issued Tuesday, in which the Office of Management and Budget said the Bush administration "strongly opposes" any amendments to the Senate version of the bill, and would recommend a veto to the President if any changes were made.