HR-7128-119
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
Sponsored by Mike Flood (R-NE)
What it does
This bill would reauthorize the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program (TRIA) through 2034, extending the federal government's role as a financial backstop for private insurers covering terrorism-related property and casualty losses. Beginning in 2029, it would raise the threshold of insured losses required before an event can be certified as an act of terrorism under the program. It would also formally codify the Treasury Department's existing public notification requirements for the certification process into statute.
Who benefits
Private property and casualty insurers who receive federal reimbursement for large terrorism-related losses. Commercial policyholders — including owners of large buildings, sports venues, hotels, and other high-value properties — who would continue to have access to terrorism coverage. Businesses in high-risk urban areas that depend on affordable terrorism insurance to secure financing. Mortgage lenders and real estate investors who require terrorism coverage as a loan condition. Workers in the insurance industry whose jobs depend on a stable terrorism insurance market.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who bear the ultimate financial risk if a catastrophic terrorism event triggers the federal backstop. Smaller commercial property owners who may face higher premiums if the 2029 certification threshold increase reduces the program's effective coverage. Insurers who must absorb a larger share of losses before federal assistance kicks in under the new threshold. Competing private reinsurance markets, which may find it harder to grow if the federal backstop continues to crowd out private-sector alternatives.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that without a federal backstop, private insurers largely withdrew from the terrorism insurance market after the September 11, 2001 attacks — causing a near-collapse in commercial real estate financing. They contend that TRIA has stabilized the market for over two decades, enabling hundreds of billions of dollars in commercial development, and that the 2029 threshold increase responsibly shifts more risk to the private sector over time while preserving the program's core function.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that two decades of continuous reauthorization has allowed the private reinsurance market little room to develop natural capacity, effectively making the federal subsidy permanent rather than temporary. They contend that the threshold increase in 2029 is modest and delayed, and that a more aggressive phase-down — or full privatization — would better protect taxpayers from open-ended liability while encouraging the private market to price and absorb terrorism risk on its own.