While the industry needs a measure similar to what currently exists under TRIA, Mr. Dover said he doubted that will happen. Getting some program passed will involve drafting a measure in a changed format in order to get through Congress, he said.

Neither he nor others on the panel speculated what different form TRIA might take in order to gain passage.

Robert V. Blumber, managing director, U.S. property sales leader for insurance broker Marsh, a subsidiary of New York-based Marsh & McLennan Companies, said passage of some act would come down to the wire, and he fears that another bill will end up being just another temporary measure, "which is not what we want."

What is needed, said Mr. Dover, is a long-term solution, a minimum of 10 years, which brings stability to the market and allows the industry to adequately adjust to terrorism risk.

A major problem with getting a new bill through is that there are so many priorities competing for Congress' attention, said Kim G. Quarles, senior vice president, executive risks with insurance broker Willis in New York.

Ronald R. Robinson, an attorney with the law firm Berkes Crane Robinson & Seal LLP in Los Angeles and chairman of the Defense Research Institute subcommittee on TRIA, a nonpartisan group working to advise Congress on the act, noted that the United States and Israel are the only countries who have devised a backstop terror program covering both property and casualty risks.

Government programs in other countries cover only property. The question he raised was would it be more advantageous to extend TRIA if the United States followed the example of other nations and only covered property.

All the panelists agreed that there is simply not enough capacity available to provide for the possible demand, with one estimate from Mr. Robinson that total insured value could be as high as $10 trillion in the United States.

Panelists were critical of a recent report from the Presidential Working Group, which they said gave detailed observations of the current marketplace but failed to offer adequate solutions.

They were equally critical of the notion expressed in the report that TRIA is a hindrance to finding a market solution.

If TRIA did not exist, pointed out Mr. Blumber, "there would be some solution, but it would be three-to-four times the price of what is currently available."

The solution, noted Mr. Dover, is to develop a program that is affordable and consistent. TRIA has made terrorism insurance affordable for the other markets, he said, but without it, most clients would not be able to afford it.

Mr. Blumber noted, too, that the few carriers who are venturing into offering standalone cover do so on a very cautious basis, making $5-to-$10 million available at any time.

As for the future, Ms. Quarles advised that risk managers need to get their broker involved in considering life without TRIA and plan accordingly if there is no program in place at the end of 2007.

Mr. Blumber said the only way to come up with an effective solution is for the carriers to work with the government because the need is there. However, he said, insurers cannot come up with the answers alone, and brokers, risk managers and rating agencies should join with insurers to help to come up with a solution.