"It is time to wean insurers and large real estate interests from this lucrative government program," said J. Robert Hunter, CFA's director of insurance and former Texas insurance commissioner and federal insurance administrator.

"It's impossible to justify terrorism insurance subsidies when insurance profits are skyrocketing, commercial insurance rates are sinking, and beleaguered taxpayers still face growing budget deficits," he said.

Mr. Hunter added that "had actuarially-based premiums been charged to insurers for the insurance coverage that taxpayers have provided, the Treasury Department would have amassed about $3 billion by now."

Travis B. Plunkett, CFA's legislative director, added that "by dramatically scaling back TRIA to cover only the most significant terrorism losses, the Senate would be spurring the private market to continue expanding its ability to offer terrorism coverage without taxpayer assistance."

He said that "this, in turn, would encourage businesses and others that buy terror coverage to do everything they can to prevent terrorism losses."

Regarding group life, "there's not a shred of evidence that the life insurance industry needs taxpayer support in the event of future terrorist attacks," Mr. Hunter said.

"In fact," he continued, "the group life market is highly competitive and insurers have many ways of spreading risk that don't involve government largesse."

Mr. Hunter called it "shocking that the life insurance industry would try to convince Congress to actually expand this program at a time when the evidence so clearly indicates that TRIA should be eliminated or significantly scaled back."