Mr. Hunter said there is no broad-based terrorism insurance crisis. While terrorism insurance is not cheap, he said, prices are dropping. Moreover, coverage is generally available to businesses of all size with only a few exceptions, he said.

These include very large real estate and commercial properties, he said, that must be insured for more than the $500 million to $1 billion in stand-alone coverage that is currently available.

Cities such as New York, Washington, D.C. and Chicago seem to have the greatest concentration of risk, and therefore are the hardest to insure, Mr. Hunter said. But in recent months, he said, many projects, including the World Trade Center clean-up site, have gotten coverage.

Mr. Hunter said that to the surprise of many, including himself, the worst economic fears arising from the Sept. 11 attacks never occurred. The fear was, he noted, that insurance would not be available after Jan. 1, 2002, that banks would start calling loans, and that business activity would suffer.

But as it turned out, he said, there were no discernable problems in January and there are no discernable problems today, other than some large trophy buildings.

He added that while insurance is expensive, this is due to a traditional market cycle that was exacerbated, but not caused, by the Sept. 11 attacks.

However, he said, relief is on the way. There is evidence, he said, that prices are easing. Indeed, he said, the insurance industry remains overcapitalized, and has greater capacity to cover terrorism losses than it did immediately after Sept. 11.

Travis Plunkett, CFA's legislative director, said that, if anything, the enactment of broad terrorism insurance legislation would have a chilling effect on the vigorous market for terrorism insurance that is emerging.

If Congress does enact legislation, Mr. Plunkett said, it should require the industry to retain at least $25 billion in losses, a figure he termed "manageable" for the industry. In addition, he said, any program should offer federal reinsurance on an individual risk basis for losses above $500 million to $1 billion.

And any program, he emphasized, should require the insurance industry to pay back government assistance.

(For buyer and insurer reactions, see NU's Aug. 26 print edition.)