PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 19, 2011
Homeowners' Defense Act of 2011 - Establishes the National Catastrophe Risk Consortium as a nonprofit, nonfederal entity to: (1) maintain an inventory of catastrophe risk obligations held by state reinsurance funds, state residual insurance market entities, and state-sponsored providers of natural catastrophe insurance; (2) issue, on a conduit basis, securities and other financial instruments linked to catastrophe risks insured or reinsured through Consortium members; (3) coordinate reinsurance contracts; (4) act as a centralized repository of state risk information accessible by certain private-market participants; and (5) establish a database to perform research and analysis that encourages standardization of the risk-linked securities market.
Shields the federal government and the Consortium from liability for Consortium actions.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to guarantee holders of debt against loss of principal or interest, or both, on debt issued by certain eligible state programs
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Provides separate limits on the total principal amount of such obligations for programs that cover earthquake peril and those that cover all other perils.
Subjects the catastrophic debt guarantee to specified requirements.
Directs the Secretary to make contracts for reinsurance coverage available for purchases only by eligible state programs. Sets pricing guidelines and limits aggregate potential federal liability.
Establishes a Federal Natural Catastrophe Reinsurance Fund.
Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to establish a grants program for eligible entities to develop, enhance, or maintain programs to prevent and mitigate losses from natural catastrophes.
Directs the Comptroller General to study: (1) risk-based insurance rate pricing; and (2) rates for state insurance, reinsurance, or residual market programs that fail to cover the expected value of all future associated costs.
People & committees
Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-17] · D–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2582 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2582 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2582 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2582 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.