Our readers don't give Congress very high marks for its understanding of the importance of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act. In fact, in last week's Feedback poll, some 72% said that the US Senate and House simply don't get it. Jeff DeBoer, this week's commentator, understands the view, although up close and personal as he is with the topic, he provides some enlightened views on the nature of what Congress is attempting to accomplish.

"People in the industry would naturally vote that Congress doesn't get it, but I don't fully agree. Like anything, when you work full time on something and you're close to it, you do see different gradations of understanding of the issue, and you become aware of reasons why a small number of people might delay or stop the desires of the vast numbers of lawmakers.

"People out there developing or trying to sell or refinance existing assets feel this is the most important item driving their business. They believe, and rightfully so, that Congress needs to deal with this immediately. When Congress doesn't, when they debate things and try to fold into larger legislative agendas an item that's very important to us individually, the natural visceral reaction is that Congress just doesn't get it.

"TRIA isn't a topic that people necessarily want to talk about because it addresses two fundamental challenges that lawmakers and Americans generally have to face up to--and both are difficult to accept. One is that we are indeed in a war on terror and it could result in property damage, lost lives or severe catastrophic injuries inside our borders. Coupled with that is the fact that we are a nation that historically has wanted to find private-market solutions to problems.

"But look at the results to date. Twice now the vast majority in the House and Senate has chosen to recognize that the private markets alone can't solve this problem. Considering that, I say Congress does get it. When push comes to shove and Congress is faced with the alternative of no program, they've chosen to enact one.

"They're asking how long there will be threats within our borders and when will the private markets stand on their own two feet and provide this product. Lawmakers wrestle with this question and extend the program for another two years in hopes that the private markets will develop a new product or a new model to protect against potential losses. Lawmakers continue to think that events will change so this doesn't need to be a long-term program.

"But this isn't reasonable. We need a long-term program. Perhaps it doesn't need to be permanent, but this kick-the-can approach isn't right. There needs to be a solution that gets us through a cycle and provides certainty so people can operate. There needs to be a strong dose of reality brought to this debate because the debate is stuck in neutral.

"We're in the process of developing a longer-term solution. We've put together a group of people knowledgeable about insurance and real estate, and we're in the final stages of developing a program that will kick-start the debate. We're looking at the long-term programs in place around the globe and picking up the good features of each, putting them together in one program that will make sense for the US and answer some of the charges of those in Washington who want a diminished role for the federal government. We're working very hard and hope soon to bring to the policy-holding community a major proposal."