The cause of the lack of forward movement, NMHC's Jay Harris tells GlobeSt.com, is twofold. He understands from congressional staffers that, first of all, members have been distracted by the Enron hearings. Secondly, he explains lawmakers feel there is a lack of real evidence of economic dysfunction. "Lawmakers need to see more evidence of things going wrong, of companies not being able to build, and we're starting to see that happen," Harris explains. "The hearing [entitled, 'How much are Americans at risk until Congress passes terrorism insurance protection?'], is designed to answer those who say we need to see more evidence."

In addition to NMHC/NAA's testimony, further evidence was presented in a report by the General Accounting Office (GAO) called "Terrorism Insurance: Rising Uninsured Exposure to Attacks Heightens Potential Economic Vulnerabilities." The report offers as examples, two commercial real estate companies--one with a portfolio of trophy properties, the other with non-trophy property holdings--that are unable to find enough terrorism insurance to cover the value of their properties. And the examples go on and on.

NMHC/NAA's testimony reinforced that of the GAO on the potential for economic devastation, keying in on the housing industry. As per Strohm's testimony: "Our firm's ongoing search for effective, affordable coverage for acts of terror confirms for me that resident quality of life and the availability of housing at affordable rents would be significantly affected if apartment firms are required to carry the expensive but narrow terrorism insurance coverage now available in the market."