Waters Strongly Opposes Radical Changes to TRIA, FSOC
On TRIA, Waters blasted Republicans for drafting legislation that jeopardizes a program that has created jobs, spurred economic growth, and protected our nation's economy from the costs of a terrorist attack. She expressed her disappointment that Republicans refused to work with Committee Democrats to make the reauthorization bipartisan. In sharp contrast, on
For months, Waters and Democrats have pressed Republican leadership to make TRIA a priority. In January, She convened a panel discussion on the importance of TRIA.
Today, Democrats on the Financial Services Committee released an interactive TRIA web resource which provides examples of how the Act is playing an important role protecting venues and businesses in every state. It can be found here: http://democrats.financialservices.house.gov/singlepages.aspx'NewsID=1700
Ranking Member Waters also expressed her opposition to the two measures related to the FSOC, criticizing Republican efforts to disrupt its important work ensuring the stability of the financial system under the guise of transparency. She once again noted that the FSOC was expressly created to fill a void that existed in the lead up to the crisis - looking at every aspect of our financial system for possible risk.
She made the following statement, which can be found online at https://www.youtube.com/watch'v=YbX9DIvk4uM&feature=em-sharevideouser
As prepared for delivery:
"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have significant concerns with the three pieces of legislation this Committee will consider today.
I want to thank you for responding to the calls of this Committee's Democrats in finally making the renewal of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) a priority. TRIA was signed into law by
Post-9/11, the mere threat of terrorism caused many insurers and reinsurers to back out of the market or raise premiums to a level that was prohibitively expensive. In its current form, TRIA keeps terrorism coverage affordable and available by creating a limited federal backstop in the event of a tragic attack.
For months, Democrats have been trying to impress upon the majority the importance of the TRIA program, underscoring the need for a quick, clean reauthorization to provide certainty to many of our nation's largest job creators. At a panel discussion I held in January, the consensus was unanimous - TRIA is a resounding success that policyholders depend on. The panelists all urged
Under pressure to put forth a plan, several weeks ago, Subcommittee Chairman Neugebauer released an outline of a plan to radically remake the program. This proposal, aptly known as the "TRIM Act," was completely untenable.
After its release, concerns by policyholders, industry stakeholders and Democratic members of this Committee sparked improvements to that proposal - now known as the "TRIA Reform Act."
But while the proposal we consider today has come a long way from those initial drafts, I join with lawmakers, policyholders and insurers in continuing to express serious concerns. I'm disappointed that Republicans would not work with us to make changes that would have made this markup a bipartisan one.
In its current form, I believe that, like TRIM, this bill will jeopardize a program that has created jobs, spurred economic growth, and protects our nation's economy from the costs of a terrorist attack.
Mr. Chairman, to use a phrase you are often very fond of using - this bill picks winners and losers.
I say that for several reasons. First, this proposal arbitrarily bifurcates types of terrorist attacks - forcing insurers to pay significantly more should an attack be of "conventional" means, rather than one that is Nuclear, Chemical, Biological or Radiological.
Terrorism is an intentional act carried out with the explicit intention of maximizing damage, loss of life, and economic disruption. I - for one - do not understand why the manner in which an attack is conducted should lead to a significantly higher program trigger and a more expensive copay. It is shortsighted, doesn't make sense, and is bad policy.
The second way this legislation picks winners and losers is through changes to policies that would hurt our smallest insurers. The bill allows insurers to voluntarily opt-out of TRIA's mandatory requirement in instances of financial hardship. But in actuality, this means large insurers will either be forced to fill in the gaps in coverage, increasing the concentration of risk, or capacity will be reduced and take-up rates will suffer. This bill punishes small, regional, and niche insurers and contradicts one of the fundamental purposes of TRIA -to make terrorism coverage mandatory and available.
Mr. Chairman, these are just some of the many concerns I have with the TRIA Reform Act's modifications to this successful program. I'm also concerned with the bill's dramatic changes to the Treasury's recoupment formula and the certification process. As a result, I will be opposing this legislation.
We will also consider two pieces of legislation that would chip away at one of the centerpieces of
Thank you, and I yield back."
Most Popular Stories
- Americans Still Pessimistic Despite Economic Growth
- Cantwell Targets Gender Gap in Small-Business Loans
- Parra Joins Exclusive Club of Hispanic CEOs
- Apple to Unveil New Items on Sept. 9
- Axxis Solutions Appoints Benites as CEO
- Josh Gordon Loses Appeal, Out for Season
- Pending Home Sales in U.S. Rise in Hopeful Sign
- Visual Search Sounds Cool, Remains Elusive
- Texans Look for Perry-Cruz Showdown in 2016
- Chrysler Gets Nod as a Top Employer for Hispanic Women