Absent something totally unforeseen, such as a massive California earthquake or a Category 5 hurricane making landfall in Miami, it's pretty certain that the top property/casualty insurance issue with which this Congress must deal will be reauthorization of the federal government's terrorism insurance backstop.

Congressional committees already have begun hearings regarding extension of the program, which is slated to sunset on Dec. 31, 2014. Arguments pro and con have been advanced, and more can be expected in coming months.

The libertarian Cato Institute wants Congress to kill the program, calling it “corporate welfare,” while the insurance industry and its customers want it to be extended, holding that the backstop is necessary to allow the market to offer available and affordable terrorism coverage. These arguments have been heard before, and will no doubt be heard again in various forms until Congress decides whether to extend the program, which was created by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002.

But one of the most compelling arguments that hasn't received the attention it deserves is that the federal terrorism insurance backstop is a component of national security. Insurance Information Institute Inc. President Bob Hartwig made that point in testimony before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee late last month. Here's what he said:

“The unambiguous success of TRIA demonstrates that the act has become an invaluable component of the country's national security infrastructure. The continued operation of the nation's financial institutions — including its insurers — during and throughout the aftermath of a major terrorist attack is absolutely essential to ensure a smooth and expedited recovery from the massive economic and operational shocks of the sort that occurred after the 9/11 attacks and that are certain to accompany future such events, irrespective of where in the country they occur. Failure to institutionalize a permanent plan to protect the nation's financial infrastructure leaves the country unnecessarily vulnerable to economic instability and risk of recession.”

Former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass. — a politician with whose policies I rarely agreed — made a somewhat similar argument some years ago while addressing the idea that economic infrastructure be moved out of high-risk areas to foil terrorism. He pointed out that you can't move subways and other immovable parts of the nation's economic infrastructure to someplace else in the country.

Despite charges of corporate welfare, the program's costs have been minimal and any future payouts would be repaid by insurers.

Economic security is an integral part of national security, and the terrorism insurance backstop helps guarantee economic security. As a vital part of national security, it deserves to be extended.