And therein, they say, lies the problems. Both Sen. Leahy and Rep. Sensenbrenner are viewed as ideologues who are less likely to reach a compromise on the controversial issue of tort reform than are other members of the House-Senate Conference Committee.

"Chris Dodd and Mike Oxley could work out a compromise on tort reform," said one lobbyist who asked not to be identified, referring to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Mike Oxley, R-Ohio. "But Pat Leahy and Jim Sensenbrenner can't reach a compromise on anything."

The differences between the House and Senate version of terrorism insurance legislation on the issue of tort liability are striking. The House bill, H.R. 3210, calls for significant limitations on tort liability regarding lawsuits filed against American businesses, including a prohibition on punitive damages and a cap on fees paid to plaintiffs' attorneys.

By contrast, the Senate bill, S. 2600, calls only for procedural reforms. Specifically, under S. 2600, all tort lawsuits arising out of a terrorist attack would be consolidated into a single action adjudicated before a federal court.

Industry lobbyists say this procedural reform, by mandating federal court jurisdiction, would solve the overwhelming majority of problems with tort lawsuits. It would, they say, prevent lawsuits from being brought in states like Mississippi that have a reputation for awarding high punitive damages.

Nonetheless, lobbyists say, some Republicans may insist on a specific limitation on punitive damage awards, which could create an impasse with Democrats.

Another issue is group life insurance. Some group life insurers are seeking to have group life included in the legislation as a coverage qualifying for federal assistance. Lobbyists say this is causing problems among some Senate staffers, who have accused the industry of "piling on"--that is, trying to expand a bill that should be as narrow as possible.

One lobbyist said it is unclear whether the effort to include group life would help the cause by bring in another big constituency to support it, or hurt it by creating the impression that the industry wants too much. "I can argue it both ways," he said.