Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
This bill requires the Treasury Secretary to create a Federal Catastrophe Reinsurance Program (the Program) and a Federal Catastrophe Reinsurance Fund to provide reinsurance to qualifying primary property insurers that offer all-perils property policies as specified perils are phased in. The Program is phased in over several years for wind/hurricane, severe convective storm, wildfire, flood, and potentially earthquake (conditional on a feasibility report).
Role of federal government and taxpayer exposure: liberals see a stabilizing public role; conservatives see dangerous fiscal and moral hazard risks.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly substantive statutory construct that establishes a federal catastrophic reinsurance program with many concrete operational elements.
This bill requires the Treasury Secretary to create a Federal Catastrophe Reinsurance Program (the Program) and a Federal Catastrophe Reinsurance Fund to provide reinsurance to qualifying primary property insurers that offer all-perils property policies as specified perils are phased in.
The Program is phased in over several years for wind/hurricane, severe convective storm, wildfire, flood, and potentially earthquake (conditional on a feasibility report).
Participating insurers pay quarterly premiums into the Fund (with a statutory floor and a capped annual premium increase), must offer loss-prevention partnerships with policyholders, and report quarterly policy-level data under a statistical plan.
The bill addresses a recognized problem (catastrophe risk and insurance availability) with detailed administrative mechanisms and mitigation incentives, which helps its credibility. But it creates sizable contingent federal fiscal exposure, intervenes in a traditionally state-regulated field, and is administratively complex—all factors that tend to slow or block enactment without substantial bipartisan negotiation or fiscal constraints. The phased approach and consultations improve viability somewhat, but the absence of explicit caps, sunset provisions, or detailed cost offsets lowers its near-term likelihood.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly substantive statutory construct that establishes a federal catastrophic reinsurance program with many concrete operational elements. It supplies a structured phase-in, defined roles, premium rules, data collection mandates, and advisory governance, but leaves several important fiscal, definitional, and oversight details unspecified.
Role of federal government and taxpayer exposure: liberals see a stabilizing public role; conservatives see dangerous fiscal and moral hazard risks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Role of federal government and taxpayer exposure: liberals see a stabilizing public role; conservatives see dangerous fiscal and moral hazard risks.
A mainstream liberal would likely view the bill as a federal effort to stabilize access to property insurance in the face of growing climate-driven catastrophe risk and to incentivize loss prevention investments.
They would welcome the Program’s emphasis on loss-prevention partnerships, data collection for underserved areas, and pilot programs for longer-term policies that could reduce churn and protect homeowners.
At the same time they would be attentive to equity concerns: ensuring the Program benefits low-income and historically underserved communities, that premium-setting and loss-prevention requirements do not unfairly shift costs onto renters or disadvantaged homeowners, and that relocation support is seriously considered.
A moderate would generally view the bill as a pragmatic federal response to market failures in catastrophe reinsurance, aiming to preserve market stability and continuity of coverage while encouraging loss mitigation.
They would appreciate the phased approach to perils, statutory limits like the 40 percent threshold and premium rules, and the emphasis on data-driven oversight through an advisory committee and quarterly reporting.
However, centrists would be cautious about the fiscal exposure implicit in Treasury-guaranteed bonds, the unspecified details of premium-setting and program governance, and the risk of crowding out private reinsurance solutions if the Program is not carefully calibrated.
A mainstream conservative would likely be skeptical of creating a permanent federal reinsurance backstop because it expands federal involvement in insurance markets and exposes taxpayers to insurable private-sector losses.
They would raise concerns about moral hazard—that insurers, developers, and homeowners may face weaker incentives to avoid risky construction or to purchase mitigation if the federal government stands behind catastrophic losses—and about crowding out private capital and reinsurance markets.
The statutory features that limit the Secretary’s discretion are limited; conservatives would worry the Fund’s Treasury-guaranteed bonds and minimum premium floors represent an open-ended federal commitment.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
The bill addresses a recognized problem (catastrophe risk and insurance availability) with detailed administrative mechanisms and mitigation incentives, which helps its credibility. But it creates sizable contingent federal fiscal exposure, intervenes in a traditionally state-regulated field, and is administratively complex—all factors that tend to slow or block enactment without substantial bipartisan negotiation or fiscal constraints. The phased approach and consultations improve viability somewhat, but the absence of explicit caps, sunset provisions, or detailed cost offsets lowers its near-term likelihood.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Role of federal government and taxpayer exposure: liberals see a stabilizing public role; conservatives see dangerous fiscal and moral haza…
The bill addresses a recognized problem (catastrophe risk and insurance availability) with detailed administrative mechanisms and mitigatio…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clearly substantive statutory construct that establishes a federal catastrophic reinsurance program with many concrete operational elements. It supplies a struct…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.