Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill creates a federal framework to support state-sponsored homeowners catastrophe insurance programs. It establishes a National Catastrophe Risk Consortium, authorizes Treasury debt guarantees (with per-peril caps), a federal reinsurance program funded through a Federal Natural Catastrophe Reinsurance Fund, and a HUD mitigation grant program.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and mitigation funding.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a comprehensive statutory framework to support State catastrophe insurance programs via guarantees, reinsurance contracts, a dedicated Fund, a mitigation grant program, and a coordinating Consortium.
The bill creates a federal framework to support state-sponsored homeowners catastrophe insurance programs.
It establishes a National Catastrophe Risk Consortium, authorizes Treasury debt guarantees (with per-peril caps), a federal reinsurance program funded through a Federal Natural Catastrophe Reinsurance Fund, and a HUD mitigation grant program.
It sets eligibility, operating, and reporting requirements for State programs, requires studies on pricing and commercial residential lines, and authorizes rulemaking and appropriations.
Policy has precedent and technical framing that can attract cross‑aisle support, but contingent fiscal exposure, complexity, and appropriation requirements reduce odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a comprehensive statutory framework to support State catastrophe insurance programs via guarantees, reinsurance contracts, a dedicated Fund, a mitigation grant program, and a coordinating Consortium. It sets several concrete limits and programmatic parameters while delegating substantial implementation detail and many fiscal particulars to the Secretary, HUD, appropriations, and future regulations.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and mitigation funding.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and mitigation funding.
Generally supportive: the bill directs federal resources toward affordability, mitigation, and equitable disclosure of catastrophe risk.
It advances consumer representation, prioritizes grants to low-income communities, and encourages mitigation investments that protect vulnerable populations.
Cautiously supportive: the bill balances federal backstops with actuarial pricing and oversight to stabilize markets.
It offers market-based reinsurance and debt guarantees while setting eligibility and reporting guards, but raises fiscal and implementation questions.
Skeptical or opposed: the bill significantly expands federal involvement in property insurance markets and pledges full faith-and-credit for guarantees.
It risks moral hazard, federal fiscal exposure, and crowding out private solutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Policy has precedent and technical framing that can attract cross‑aisle support, but contingent fiscal exposure, complexity, and appropriation requirements reduce odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer protection and mitigation funding.
Policy has precedent and technical framing that can attract cross‑aisle support, but contingent fiscal exposure, complexity, and appropriat…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill establishes a comprehensive statutory framework to support State catastrophe insurance programs via guarantees, reinsurance contracts, a dedicated Fund, a mitigation…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.