Lawmakers press Treasury timing on terrorism certification after Boston Marathon example; proposal floated for six‑month response window
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Members cited the Boston Marathon experience and other delays to press witnesses on Treasury's certification timeline and discussed a potential requirement that Treasury respond to governors within six months to give policyholders certainty.
During the House subcommittee hearing on TRIA reauthorization, members raised concerns about the time Treasury can take to certify an event as an act of terrorism — a prerequisite for triggering TRIA assistance — and discussed proposals to require a timely response when governors request certification.
Representative Ayanna Pressley cited the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing and recounted that businesses waited weeks and months to learn whether Treasury would classify the event as terrorism, a decision that affects whether reinsurance and other policy provisions are triggered. "Businesses waited for weeks, months, and ultimately more than a year to learn if the treasury secretary would classify the assault on our city as a terrorist attack," Pressley said.
Barrett Weibel of the Congressional Research Service explained that certifying an act of terrorism can be difficult for reasons of attribution and statutory thresholds, including the $5,000,000 single‑event certification threshold and the fact that TRIA only covers insured property‑casualty losses (not life or health claims). "I think there's obvious difficulties in terms of attribution of terrorist attack," Weibel said in response to questions about the Boston case.
Members discussed a proposal to require Treasury to respond to a governor's certification request within six months, with an option for the governor to resubmit if denied. "Certainty always helps," Andrew Mays, Connecticut insurance commissioner, told the committee when asked whether a guaranteed response period would aid insurers and policyholders. Several members said a formal response window would reduce payout delays and uncertainty for claimants, lenders and bondholders.
Witnesses and lawmakers noted tradeoffs: faster deadlines could produce politically driven or premature certifications, while slower determinations can stall claims and impede recovery for affected communities. The committee asked Treasury for follow‑up information on current timelines and whether statutory language could be adjusted to balance speed with the need for accurate attribution.