Last week, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Chairman of the House Insurance Subcommittee, released to his fellow Republicans a draft proposal to extend the federal terrorism insurance program. That proposal, now made public, would bring drastic changes to a program that has helped to stabilize the market since its 2002 creation. At this point, the proposal is only in outline form with bill language expected over the next few weeks.

The proposal, entitled the Terrorism Risk Insurance Modernization Act of 2014, would extend the TRIA program for only three years while significantly increasing the program trigger limit to $500 million from $100 million, for non-NBCR events, and reducing the annual government assistance cap from $100 billion to $75 billion. The government’s co-share of losses would decrease from its current 85% to 75% beginning in 2017, for non-NBCR events. The government’s responsibility and trigger would remain the same for NBCR certified acts.

The industry has been expecting adjustments to be made to TRIA, upon its extension; however, the numbers included in the Republican proposal are more drastic than many envisioned. Beyond concerns with the changes to the program trigger and co-share percentages, there are additional concerns with language in the proposal allowing for small insurers to opt-out and an implication that domestic terrorism events would no longer be covered by the program.

The requirement that insurers offer terrorism coverage is the backbone of the program, and allowing some insurers to opt-out of offering such coverage could lead to reduced capacity and higher prices for consumers. Excluding domestic terrorism would also be a mistake, as history has shown us that terrorists can come from inside and outside the United States.

If there is a positive in the House Republican proposal, it is in changes to the certification process. Many industry groups, including RIMS, have been asking for a timeline for events to be certified as “acts of terrorism.” The proposal includes a deadline of 90 days.

The House Republican proposal is a far cry from the recent Senate agreement. That bi-partisan legislation, S.

2244, would extend the program for seven years while making much smaller adjustments to the program. If both chambers pass bills along current lines, then the conference committee would have a lot of work to do in order to rectify the two pieces of legislation into a compromise extension.