HR-8439-119
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Salud Carbajal (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would establish a federal commission to study natural disaster risk management and insurance in the United States. The commission would examine how the country assesses, manages, and insures against natural disaster risks, and would presumably produce findings and recommendations for Congress. As a study commission, it would not directly change existing law or programs.
Who benefits
Policymakers and Congress, who would receive structured analysis and recommendations on disaster risk and insurance gaps. State and local governments seeking federal guidance on disaster preparedness frameworks. Property owners in disaster-prone areas (coastal, wildfire, flood zones) who may benefit from improved policy recommendations. The insurance industry, which could gain regulatory clarity. Academic researchers and think tanks engaged in disaster risk policy. Low-income homeowners in high-risk areas who are often underinsured or uninsured against natural disasters.
Who is hurt
No groups face direct, immediate harm from a study commission. However, depending on the commission's eventual recommendations, insurers operating in high-risk markets, property developers in disaster-prone zones, and federal programs like the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) could face future regulatory or structural changes. Taxpayers would bear the administrative cost of funding and operating the commission.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the U.S. faces a growing natural disaster insurance gap — insured losses from disasters have risen sharply, with Swiss Re estimating over $100 billion in annual U.S. insured losses in recent years, while millions of homeowners in flood and wildfire zones remain uninsured or underinsured. They contend that a dedicated commission would provide the rigorous, cross-sector analysis needed to develop durable federal policy before the next major catastrophe, rather than reacting after the fact.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that Congress already has access to extensive research on natural disaster risk through FEMA, the Congressional Budget Office, the Government Accountability Office, and academic institutions, making a new commission redundant and an inefficient use of federal resources. They contend that study commissions frequently produce reports that are shelved without action, and that the time and funding would be better directed toward strengthening existing programs like the National Flood Insurance Program rather than generating additional recommendations.