PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2013
Homeowners' Defense Act of 2013 - Establishes the National Catastrophe Risk Consortium, as a non-federal, non-profit entity, to ensure the availability and affordability of homeowners' insurance coverage for catastrophic events.
Directs the Consortium 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.
People & committees
Rep. Wilson, Frederica S. [D-FL-24] · 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 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.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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.737 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.737 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.737 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.737 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.