Portions of a catastrophe program which are an easy sell to carriers, he said, are requirements for mitigating factors that put homes at risk and upgrading of building codes and insurer catastrophe reserves.

But a lot of insurers, he said, have problems with the formation of state and federal catastrophe funds to backstop insurers in the event of a mega-catastrophe.

Mr. Csiszar seemed confident that a solution could be found. “Somewhere there's a way to resolve this and come in [to Washington] with a unified front,” he opined.

The PCI task force, he said, has come up with a concept for state catastrophe funds, and the last issue to be resolved is federal involvement.

Given Congress' long struggle to pass the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, and the fact that its members will be adjourning soon to seek reelection, he said, “I don't know how much progress we can make short term.”

Long term, he said he believed that Allstate, a PCI member, one of the chief proponents of a national catastrophe program, which has been waging a public relations campaign for such a measure, “is looking down the road.”

The discussion of a national catastrophe program began last November at a meeting of regulators and insurance industry members. The concept is now being examined by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners and National Conference of Insurance Legislators.

American Insurance Association is opposing the concept, saying policymakers should focus on proper incentives for private-market insurance participation in catastrophe-prone states, including mitigation improvement.

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies has expressed reservations, particularly to any program that contains an all-perils policy including flood insurance.

Mr. Csiszar said although the concept of a national reinsurance pool for terrorism insurance is being discussed again, he did not think the private sector has enough resources to provide full protection for the risk involved.

One of the factors at play in the development of a national catastrophe program, he said, is that politicians know the federal government always provides aid to localities in the event of a catastrophe. So, when considering putting a formal program in place, they may be thinking: “Why stick your neck out?”

The PCI executive said his organization will be looking carefully at upcoming action in the Senate, where an optional federal charter measure is in the works, and the House, with the State Modernization and Regulatory Transparency Act (SMART), aimed at bringing uniformity to state regulation of the industry.

Mr. Csiszar said PCI is not taking either proposal lightly. “It is clear that after years of trying, the states haven't come far” in improving the regulatory process, he said.

He viewed the SMART bill as being unlikely to win strong political support. He said lawmakers are fearful of including competitive rating as a provision, and “without competitive rating, it's hard to support SMART.”

The uniformity in licensing provisions, Mr. Csiszar said, do have PCI support. But he said SMART is also flawed because it contains no penalties for states that fail to comply with its requirements.

He suggested that OFC and SMART might possibly be “married” by a conference committee of both houses, which could result in “the worst of both worlds.”

Mr. Csiszar said when it comes to asbestos injury legislation, he is not holding his breath waiting for the Senate to pass the measure that would create a $145 billion injury fund. Legislation can only be successful, he said, if it provides a final end to litigation.