HR-5577-119
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 391.
Sponsored by Andrew Garbarino (R-NY)
What it does
This bill would reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by extending its authorization and financing authority from September 30, 2023 to September 30, 2026. It would also include a retroactive effective date of January 30, 2026, if enacted after that date, to close any gap in program coverage. The bill makes no structural changes to the program — it only extends the existing program's legal authority to operate.
Who benefits
The approximately 5 million policyholders currently enrolled in the NFIP, who would retain uninterrupted flood insurance coverage. Homeowners and businesses in high-risk flood zones who are required by mortgage lenders to carry flood insurance. Mortgage lenders and banks whose collateral (flood-zone properties) would remain insurable. Real estate buyers and sellers in flood-prone areas, where a lapse would delay or block closings. State and local governments that rely on NFIP participation to maintain eligibility for federal disaster assistance. Coastal and riverine communities, particularly in states like Florida, Texas, Louisiana, New Jersey, and New York, which have the highest NFIP enrollment.
Who is hurt
Private flood insurance companies that compete with the NFIP may face continued market displacement, as the federally subsidized program crowds out private alternatives. Policyholders and taxpayers who have long-term concerns about the NFIP's structural debt (the program carries roughly $20 billion in debt to the U.S. Treasury) would see those issues deferred rather than addressed. Communities seeking updated flood maps or rate restructuring would not see those changes under this bill. Advocates for comprehensive NFIP overhaul — including those seeking stronger building standards or actuarially sound rates — would see reform postponed.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that allowing the NFIP to lapse — even briefly — would freeze flood insurance transactions nationwide, blocking home sales and refinancings in the roughly 22,000 communities that participate in the program. They contend that the NFIP has lapsed or operated under short-term extensions more than two dozen times since 2017, and each lapse disrupts real estate markets and leaves policyholders without coverage during active storm seasons. A clean, multi-year extension provides stability for homeowners, lenders, and communities while Congress works toward longer-term reform.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that repeated short-term extensions without structural changes perpetuate a program that charges many policyholders rates well below actuarial risk, accumulating debt that ultimately falls on taxpayers. They contend that the NFIP's roughly $20 billion Treasury debt and its history of subsidizing development in high-risk flood zones creates long-term fiscal and environmental harm, and that clean extensions remove congressional leverage to enact meaningful reforms such as accurate risk-based pricing, updated flood maps, and stronger floodplain management standards.