Jared Moskowitz (D-FL)
Natural Disaster Risk Reinsurance Program Act
A Democratic bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill creates the Natural Disaster Risk Reinsurance Program inside the Department of the Treasury to protect insurance companies from going bankrupt after major natural disasters. The program is completely voluntary for states to join and requires participating states to have approved plans that meet specific federal guidelines. Under this program, the Secretary of the Treasury will make payments to participating states when industry-wide insured losses from a covered event exceed a set trigger amount. States that receive these federal funds are required to fully repay the Secretary within 10 years with interest. The National Academy of Sciences will help determine the specific trigger amounts and assess insured losses for each participating state. Insurers will submit required claim and premium information through their state regulators to the Secretary to help manage the program.
Yes· 3 of 25
- Scored +6
Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster?
Establishes a federal reinsurance program to assist states and insurers in managing the financial impacts of catastrophic natural disasters.
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Protects property and casualty insurers and commercial real estate markets from insolvency risks.
- Scored +4
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Aims to maintain insurance market stability and coverage affordability for residential property owners following natural disasters.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a)(2) states that the goal of the program is to protect insurers from insolvency from significant disasters while providing for affordability of coverage in the marketplace. This could help everyday people keep their insurance rates more stable and ensure companies can actually pay out claims after a major disaster.
-
Section 2(b)(1) details that the Secretary of the Treasury will make payments to participating states when insured losses exceed a specific trigger amount. This extra financial backup helps ensure that insurance payouts for homes and residences can still be delivered when disaster strikes communities hard.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Section 2(a)(5)(D) requires a participating state to pledge its full faith and credit toward fully repaying the Secretary within 10 years of receiving any federal payment amounts, along with a regular payment schedule. This means taxpayers in participating states could potentially face financial pressure or debt obligations if the state has to pay back these large federal loans.
-
Section 2(b)(4) mandates that participating states must repay the Secretary within 10 years, together with interest sufficient to cover the borrowing costs of the United States. This repayment requirement could potentially strain state budgets, which might indirectly impact citizens if states have to shift funds around to cover the debt.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Protects property and casualty insurers and commercial real estate markets from insolvency risks. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Benefits middle-aged homeowners by stabilizing residential property and casualty insurance markets. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Supports homeowners by preventing insurer insolvencies and stabilizing property insurance markets. Would retired people be better off under this? — Provides financial stability for retirees who own homes in disaster-prone regions. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Protects seniors on fixed incomes from catastrophic spikes in property insurance rates following disasters. Would children be better off under this? — Helps secure family housing stability and community recovery following major natural disasters. Would farmers be better off under this? — Provides broader disaster risk management frameworks that can indirectly support agricultural and rural property coverage. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Assists high-value property owners by ensuring availability of disaster coverage. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Provides broader financial stability across the property insurance sector. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Assists rural communities prone to severe storms, wildfires, and other natural disasters in maintaining insurance coverage. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Supports overall macroeconomic and insurance market stability. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Helps maintain insurance availability in densely populated areas prone to natural disasters. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Aids in maintaining property insurance availability and affordability for first-time home buyers and younger demographics. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Helps preserve housing market stability, though insurance costs can still indirectly affect affordability.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Aims to maintain insurance market stability and coverage affordability for residential property owners following natural disasters. Is this likely to grow the economy? — Provides a federal backstop for disaster insurance that helps stabilize markets and support economic recovery after major events. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Helps stabilize property and casualty insurance markets, indirectly protecting small businesses from skyrocketing premiums or coverage unavailability. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Requires full repayment of federal payments with interest within 10 years, promoting fiscal accountability.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Allows voluntary state participation and administration through state insurance regulators. Does this give the federal government more power? — Creates a federal reinsurance program managed by the Department of the Treasury. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Requires reporting and auditing mechanisms for participating states and insurers.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Establishes a federal reinsurance program to assist states and insurers in managing the financial impacts of catastrophic natural disasters.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this make housing cost less? — Helps protect residential properties and homeowners from catastrophic loss coverage gaps following disasters. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Supports housing stability and disaster recovery, preventing widespread displacement after severe events.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more money into scientific research? — Collaborates with the National Academy of Sciences to assess risk triggers and disaster losses using expert studies.
- 11/21/2025
- Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Introduced in House