Senate Urban Affairs Committee Issues Testimony From Reinsurance Association President Nutter

WASHINGTON, July 20 -- The Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee issued the following testimony by Reinsurance Association President Frank Nutter as part of a hybrid hearing entitled "21st Century Communities: Climate Change, Resilience, and Reinsurance":

* * *

Thank you for the opportunity to testify during today's hearing entitled, "21st Century Communities: Climate Change, Resilience, and Reinsurance," and thank you for your interest in the U.S. property casualty (re)insurance industry.

I am Frank Nutter, President of the Reinsurance Association of America (RAA). The RAA is the leading trade association of property and casualty reinsurers doing business in the United States. RAA membership is diverse, including reinsurance underwriters and intermediaries licensed in the U.S. and those that conduct business on a cross border basis. The RAA represents its members before state, federal and international bodies.

The RAA encourages the Committee, Congress, and Administration to improve America's community resilience in the face of climate and natural disaster risks, including the risk of flooding. The RAA specifically recommends that infrastructure and other legislation establish Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZ). Our proposal would direct public and incentivize private sector investment to help improve infrastructure resilience, including affordable housing resilience, for communities that are the most in need and most at risk from natural disasters. Our CDRZ proposal is described in detail below. The RAA also supports a long-term reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and flood insurance reforms.

Climate Change and Natural Disaster Risks

The RAA's longstanding policy recognizes climate change and the impacts of climate change, and the RAA is committed to working with policymakers, regulators, and the scientific, academic, and business communities to assist in promoting awareness and understanding, as well as addressing the risks associated with climate change. A copy of the RAA's climate change policy can be found on our website and in Appendix A of this statement.1 At the federal, state, and local levels, it is especially critical that the private sector address significant natural disaster risks associated with floods, wildfire, earthquake, or other devastating natural disaster events. Urgently addressing these risks is particularly important as the frequency, severity, and costs of many natural disasters continue to increase due to climate change.

The U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information reported that, "The U.S. has sustained 298 weather and climate disasters since 1980 where overall damages/costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustment to 2021). The total cost of these 298 events exceeds $1.975 trillion."2 According to NOAA, "Each state has been affected by at least $1 billion-dollar disaster since 1980."3 Tables 1-4, by Aon's Catastrophe Insight division, demonstrate the increase in the number of natural disaster events and overall and insured losses in the U.S. and globally from 1980 to 2020. In 1980, the U.S. had 59 natural loss events that resulted in $57 billion in overall losses, including $5 billion in insured losses, compared to 203 natural loss events globally that resulted in $180 billion in losses, including $7 billion in insured losses.4 Fast forward to 2020, and the U.S. had 86 natural loss events that resulted in $129 billion in overall losses, including $81 billion in insured losses, compared to 352 natural loss events globally that resulted in $289 billion in losses, including $105 billion in insured losses.5

Insurance is a critical component for economic and social recovery from the effects of extreme weather and climate driven events. In the financial services sector, property casualty insurers and reinsurers are the most exposed to natural disasters, especially those impacted by climate and weather. The industry would be at great financial risk if it did not understand global and regional climate impacts, variability and developing scientific assessment of a changing climate. Integrating this information into the insurance sector is an essential function. Insurance pricing also is a mechanism for conveying the consequences of decisions about where and how we build and where people choose to live.

Our industry is science based. Blending the actuarial sciences with the natural sciences is critical to providing the public with the financial resources needed to recover from natural catastrophic events. As the scientific community's knowledge of climate change continues to develop, it is important for (re)insurers to incorporate that information into the exposure and risk assessment process and that it be conveyed to stakeholders, policyholders, the public and public officials that can or should address adaptation and mitigation alternatives. Developing an understanding about climate and its impact on various risks - for example, wildfires, droughts, heat waves, the frequency and intensity of tropical hurricanes, thunderstorms, and convective events, rising sea levels and storm surge, more extreme precipitation events and flooding - is critical to our role in translating the interdependencies of weather, climate risk assessment and pricing.

Climate-related and natural disaster risk exposure is broad-ranging. These risks are widespread, geographically diverse, and include a range of natural disaster perils impacting homeowners and renters, property owners, servicers, mortgage investors, taxpayers, and communities. It is important to ensure that these risk exposures are addressed and mitigated. Natural hazard mitigation includes physical enhancements and insurance to better protect residential properties and other infrastructure against damage caused by natural disasters. For government programs, government-sponsored enterprises, private sector financial institutions, and taxpayers, financial mitigation also is important to protect against any mortgage credit default risk associated with natural disaster risk.

The RAA believes a variety of solutions should be used to improve community resilience to the benefit of all those in the value chain of climate and natural disaster risk exposure. The RAA also believes that it is important to address geographic, natural disaster peril, and socioeconomic diversity. Some traditional solutions, like property insurance protections for homeowners certainly can and should be utilized, but new analytical capabilities that increasingly and intelligently can help reduce risk and direct resources to achieving that goal also should be pursued.

Investing in Resilience for America's Communities is Critical, Logical, and Smart

Dedicated federal appropriations in the form of grants are one option but limited, and for the federal government, the costliest mechanism to pay for resilience projects. Table 5 provides an example of the cost to federal taxpayers to fund a $100,000 resilience project using federal appropriations versus direct pay bonds and private activity bonds. For fiscal year 2020, FEMA made $700 million available for hazard mitigation grant programs but received over 1,200 applications requesting an estimated $4 billion.6 There is demand, but traditional appropriation funding is inadequate.

In December 2019, the National Institute of Building Sciences issued its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development-funded "Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves" report.7 The report describes that federal disaster mitigation has saved $6 for every $1 invested since 1995. Other mitigation-related activities, such as updating building codes to ensure resilient structures, and investments can save between $4 and $11 for every $1 spent. Investing in mitigation can reduce the impact of future disasters on lives, property, and the economy. Congress and the Administration can increase these investments by directing both public and incentivizing private sector resources to support infrastructure resilience projects.

Reducing the impact of climate and natural disaster risk in the first place, followed by other protections like traditional insurance and risk transfer - particularly to benefit vulnerable homeowners and renters in rural and urban areas - should be a top public and private-sector priority for climate and natural disaster resilience and risk management.

As a member of the BuildStrong Coalition, the RAA supports the Coalition's work to further the achievements of the bipartisan "Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018," which significantly increased America's investment in pre-disaster mitigation to help communities protect against disaster risk. The RAA specifically supports the Coalition's objectives, including to:

* Increase disaster mitigation funding for FEMA's Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program;

* Provide incentives for state and local communities to strengthen and enforce building codes;

* Invest in risk-reducing enhancements to improve the resilience of lifeline infrastructure;

* Create incentives and investments that help to improve resilience;

* Encourage the use of American-made products for resilience projects; and

* For state, local, and tribal governments, provide resources and eliminate barriers to enhance resiliency and protect against all hazards.8

The RAA also is a member of the SmarterSafer Coalition and supports the Coalition's recently released priorities for Congress in relation to infrastructure legislation:

* Enhance infrastructure-related research, including that which pertains to climate risk, and match new findings from new research with advanced pre-disaster mitigation plans and investment in pre-disaster mitigation.

* Invest in natural and climate resilience infrastructure projects.

* Improve infrastructure resilience in America's floodplains, as envisioned in the "Flood Risk Management Act" (S. 1688), the "Flood Resiliency and Taxpayer Savings Act" (H.R. 481) and the "Built for Future Disasters Act of 2021" (H.R. 2632); and consider and address the racial inequities inherent in federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation assistance programs that reflect and perpetuate discriminatory practices and historic redlining.

* Facilitate and strengthen public-private partnerships, such as transferring risk to private financing, insurance, and reinsurance to shift some of the financial burdens associated with climate change from the government's balance sheet to willing private sector participants to improve the implementation of federal programs.

* Direct federal funds to outcome-driven projects that strengthen communities and reduce long-term risk, such as requiring stronger minimum design standards and incorporate forecasts of future conditions for federal infrastructure investments, as envisioned in the "Build to Last Act" (S.1282/H.R.2760).9 The RAA endorsed the "Insurers' Principles of Climate Change Adaptation" recently released by the Insurance Institute for Business & Home Safety (IBHS), which "outline the steps policymakers - in collaboration with the insurance industry and other private sector stakeholders - should take to improve the resilience of American homes, businesses, and communities." Details about the Principles can be found online, but an overview is as follows:

* Principle 1: Climate Change Adaptation is Necessary;

* Principle 2: Building Codes and Land Use Support Tomorrow's Resilience;

* Principle 3: Prioritize Funding for Increasing Resilience of Existing Structures;

* Principle 4: Make Resilience Available for All;

* Principle 5: Leverage Climate Data and Analytics to Support Climate Change Adaptation; and

* Principle 6: Enhance Resilience for Public Infrastructure and Facilities. 10

The RAA also supports legislation to use the tax code to provide homeowners and business with incentives to improve building resilience and better protect against the natural disaster risks they face, including:

* The "Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2021" (H.R.3954) provisions that, like federal disaster mitigation grants, would exempt from federal taxation state disaster mitigation grants that help people protect their homes against windstorms, earthquakes, or wildfires;11 and

* The "Strengthening Homes and Eliminating Liabilities Through Encouraging Readiness (SHELTER) Act (S.1805/H.R.3925) to provide individuals and businesses a disaster mitigation tax credit, specifically 25% of qualifying mitigation expenses of up to $5,000.12 FEMA's BRIC program, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development programs, the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Capital Magnet Fund, and other federal programs should direct funding resources toward achieving housing climate and natural disaster resilience for "extremely low- and very low-income households" that face significant natural disaster risk and particularly that expose taxpayer-backed federal housing programs to climate and natural disaster risks.13 In general, the RAA also recommends that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and all of its members prioritize climate and natural disaster resilience efforts for federally funded and federally-backed residential properties in communities that are the most in need and most at risk from significant natural disaster(s).

The RAA's Community Disaster Resilience Zones Proposal

Low-income and minority neighborhoods are disproportionately impacted by natural disasters.14 This fact should be a priority consideration for policymakers and the private sector as we work to understand and address the climate and natural disaster-related risks facing communities across America. The RAA has developed an innovative approach to addressing climate and natural disaster resilience, specifically to improve infrastructure resilience in the face of natural disasters and address socio-economic disparities. The RAA urges Congress and the Administration to include our proposal as part of infrastructure or other legislation that may become law during the 117th Congress.

In general, the RAA's proposal would create a federal structure that directs public and incentivizes private-sector funding for resilience projects to communities most in need and most at risk from significant natural disaster(s). More specifically, it would: 1) Address the impact of climate change through data-driven analysis;

2) Establish Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZ) for communities most in need and most at risk from significant natural disaster(s); and

3) Direct and incentivize public and private-sector investment in the CDRZ to improve infrastructure resilience.

Under the proposal, CDRZ communities would be provided a menu of funding and financing options to pay for resilience projects to better protect them against significant natural disaster risk(s). Climate and natural disaster resilience projects could include:

* Nature-based solutions designed to increase climate and natural disaster resilience, such as the creation of open space, the restoration of wetlands, coastal barriers, beaches, and natural protections;

* Retrofit existing facilities to increase climate and natural disaster resilience, including the construction of emergency storm shelters, safe rooms, upgraded roofs, and other risk-reducing and community-resilience enhancing actions;

* Construction of new facilities with design and construction features that provide climate and natural disaster resilience;

* Retrofit, construction, or other updates to lifeline infrastructure, including water, electric, and communications infrastructure, that increase the infrastructure's climate and natural disaster resilience; and

* Programs that provide funding to property owners to retrofit existing structures, including single-family homes, multifamily homes, and commercial buildings, with design and construction features that provide climate and natural disaster resilience.

The RAA's legislative proposal has a few core components to help achieve these objectives:

I. Codify, enhance, and utilize FEMA's National Risk Index for Natural Hazards (NRI) data to find the intersection of risk, vulnerability, and low community resilience scores, as the basis to identify and establish the CDRZ that reflect diversity among the states by geography and type of peril, such as fire storm/wildfire, tornado, hurricane, flooding, ice storms, earthquake, wind, hail, and drought.

II. Within CDRZ, coalesce a variety of funding mechanisms, providing a menu of financing enhancements and tax incentives that can focus federal, state, local, charitable, and private-sector investment in resilience projects. To help fund resilience projects in CDRZ the proposal would establish:

* CDRZ taxable direct pay bonds, like Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds, which were one of three types of Build America Bonds that Congress created in 2009 as part of financial crisis economic recovery legislation (these bonds are federally subsidized bonds issued by state and local governments for local projects that support community resilience);

* CDRZ tax-exempt facility private activity bonds subject to a separate volume cap, like Recovery Zone Facility Bonds (also in the 2009 recovery legislation), and provide for life and property/casualty insurers' exclusion from proration for investments in these CDRZ bonds (the proceeds from these federally tax-exempt bonds would be utilized by private or quasi-governmental entities to fund resilience projects that benefit a public purpose);

* Federal transferrable tax credits for individuals for resilience improvements to housing in CDRZ;

* Federal tax credits for charitable contributions for resilience projects in CDRZ; and

* Federal tax credits for community-level projects in CDRZ that are tradeable, transferrable, and do not expire, and allow proceeds from the sale of certified tax credits to be used to, for example, meet matching requirements for federally funded resilience projects.

Limited federal funds can leverage non-federal funding if Congress establishes a variety of options to pay for resilience projects. Some CDRZ communities - with good credit issuer ratings and a tax base that can support resilience projects - will be eligible to use taxable direct pay bonds and private activity bonds. CDRZ communities - that are unable to access the debt markets because they do not have a tax base that can support additional borrowing or have reached their debt limits will need Congress to provide options like transferrable tax credits, similar to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, and charitable tax credits, versus deductions, to incentivize and direct the business and philanthropic communities to invest and donate funds to pay for resilience projects.

CDRZ resilience project bonds and tax credits are likely to be very attractive to corporations, especially given the increasing corporate focus on investing and charitable contributions to achieve objectives related to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors. The insurance industry (property casualty, life, and health) is one of the largest holders of bonds in the U.S. The $1.2 trillion of $4.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury, corporate, and municipal bonds held by the insurance industry will mature and need to be reinvested over the next 5 years. Federal bond and tax incentives could encourage investments toward CDRZ resilience projects.

III. Set aside and unlock federal program funding to invest in resilience projects in CDRZ. This could include waiving, reducing, or allowing other forms of financing, such as the proceeds from the sale of tax credits mentioned above and in-kind and charitable donations, to qualify for matching funds for resilience projects in CDRZ. Allowing a variety of resources to contribute to and invest in resilience projects in CDRZ, as they relate to federal program matching fund requirements, could significantly unlock resources for CDRZ resilience projects. For example, with more flexibility to meet matching fund requirements, CDRZ resilience projects could more likely benefit from FEMA's BRIC program funding and funding from other federal programs. FEMA, HUD, and other federal agencies also should provide resources, such as financial and technical assistance, to CDRZ communities to help facilitate resilience project planning.

The RAA developed a data analytics tool and the CDRZ legislative proposal that aligns with Congressional interests and President Biden's plan, Executive orders, announcement, and fiscal year 2022 budget proposal15 to rebuild America's infrastructure, enable green initiatives and smart building to address the impact of climate change, create needed jobs, fuel economic recovery, support historically underserved communities where the need is often greatest, and provide sources of much-needed resilience project funding to states and localities.

The RAA's data analytics tool utilizes publicly available data to very clearly, by county, Congressional district, and census tract in each state, understand where natural perils, older housing stock, and disadvantaged populations converge. The data in the RAA's data analytics tool is from FEMA's NRI supplemented with data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS). NRI includes data that identifies communities by census tract in each state and county that are the most at risk from 18 natural hazards, such as coastal and riverine flooding, earthquake, hail, hurricane, strong wind, tornado, and wildfire.16 The NRI is different from other natural disaster risk scoring approaches because it scores census tract level loss exposure values (buildings, agricultural and population equivalence), social vulnerability, and community resilience across 18 natural hazard risks, to provide a more holistic view of risk.17 The RAA urges policymakers to use the same information, particularly to understand the U.S. landscape and pinpoint and prioritize communities that are most in need and most at risk from significant natural disasters, diversified by state, Congressional district, and natural disaster peril.18 Appendix B of this statement includes examples from the RAA's data analytics tool, visualizing how FEMA's NRI and data from the Census Bureau's ACS can be used to understand vulnerability and risk for the state of Ohio, represented by Chairman Brown, and the state of Pennsylvania, represented by Ranking Member Toomey.

The RAA's proposal has been favorably mentioned during three Congressional hearings this year:

* March 18, 2021, House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management hearing on "Building Smarter: The Benefits of Investing in Resilience and Mitigation";19

* May 18, 2021, Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs hearing on, "Reauthorization of the National Flood Insurance Program, Part I";20 and

* May 19, 2021, House Committee on Ways and Means hearing on "Leveraging the Tax Code for Infrastructure Investment".21 Housing Resilience Given that most federal housing programs fall under the jurisdiction of this Committee, it has an important leadership role to play in prioritizing and directing federal program funding toward housing resilience, which is the third core component of the RAA's legislative proposal mentioned above. Housing, especially affordable housing, that can withstand the most significant disaster(s) that vulnerable communities across the country face is an investment in critical infrastructure. Witnesses from a variety of organizations have raised this point in testimony delivered during Congressional hearings, for example:

* "We invest in disaster recovery and resilience work because people of modest means are most likely to be harmed by disasters and tend to be the slowest to recover. Through our Building Resilient Futures initiative, we are working to ensure that sustainable, resilient, affordable housing becomes the norm and that communities are equipped to withstand and recover from disasters. Despite growing interest and commitment, our housing, infrastructure, and regions are not mitigating or adapting at the necessary pace of change. It's time for America to invest in modern infrastructure that is built to last."22 - Jacqueline Waggoner, Enterprise Community Partners, Inc., House Financial Services Committee hearing, April 14, 2021

* "America built the transatlantic railroad in six years but somehow we struggle to deliver long term housing assistance to our most vulnerable citizens whose lives have been upended by natural disasters."23 - Reese C. May, SBP (The St. Bernard Project), House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, October 22, 2019 To that end, the RAA supports provisions in the "Housing is Infrastructure Act of 2021," which was introduced by House Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters on July 16, 2021, that: prioritize applications for the $75 billion authorized for public housing agencies located in areas that have a plan to increase "climate and natural disaster resilience and water and energy efficiency," authorize at least $19.1 billion for "climate and natural disaster resilience and water and energy efficiency" for ten federal affordable housing programs, and authorize at least $10.7 billion for affordable housing in areas of high and persistent poverty. The RAA also supports the bill's $11.9 billion authorization for the National Flood Insurance Program's (NFIP) Flood Mitigation Assistance Program.24 The RAA will continue to work with Chairwoman Waters on the "Housing is Infrastructure Act of 2021" and other legislation members of this Committee and the House Financial Services Committee may consider so that it can most impactfully help improve resilience in vulnerable communities that are most in need and most at risk from significant natural disaster(s). The Protection Gap, (Re)Insurance, and the NFIP Natural Disaster Insurance Protection Gap

Homeowners and renters, property owners, mortgage investors, taxpayers, and communities face risks due to climate change, natural disaster risks, and the lack of insurance coverage or underinsurance of such coverage. There is a serious and significant natural disaster insurance protection gap in the United States. The U.S. Department of the Treasury's Federal Insurance Office's Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance (FACI) has a subcommittee that is dedicated to addressing it. Several RAA members serve on both the FACI and the "Subcommittee on Addressing the Protection Gap through Public-Private Partnerships and Other Mechanisms."

During FACI's December 2019 meeting, the Subcommittee cited statistics to provide examples of the insurance protection gap in the U.S. and issued recommendations that FHFA should consider.25 The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) has published alarming statistics about the disaster insurance protection gap. For example, one NAIC statistic cited in the Subcommittee's presentation is that "Only 1% of properties outside of flood zones have flood insurance, yet half of U.S. floods occur in these areas." Various studies and reports, including a 2018 report by AIR Worldwide, have warned that the next big earthquake to impact California, likely by 2044, could result in $170 billion in total damage and almost half would be residential-related loss, $37 billion of which would be uninsured.26 Given the likelihood of future, significant, and costly natural disasters throughout the U.S. and uninsured residential costs, it is important to have a coordinated effort focusing on closing the insurance protection gap.

Congress, the Administration, the NAIC, state and local officials, and the private sector, including reinsurers, should develop a comprehensive strategy to identify and address the natural disaster insurance protection gap in the U.S. and the risks it poses to homeowners and renters, property owners, individuals, businesses, and federal programs and taxpayers. It also is important to close the insurance protection gap. Congress and federal regulators should help initiate efforts to close the insurance protection gap via traditional insurance and risk transfer. Congress and federal regulators can further facilitate a private market for flood insurance, potentially providing consumers with more flood insurance options. One way to achieve this is for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to align their regulations and/or guidance for private flood insurance with those issued in 2019 by federal lending regulators.27 (In 2020, HUD issued a proposed regulation to align its regulations and guidance with that of the 2019 federal lending regulators28).

Primary Insurance

Traditional insurance solutions - such as primary property insurance protection, including earthquake, wind, fire, and flood insurance - are critical for people, property, jobs, businesses, and communities to be resilient in the aftermath of natural disasters. That is especially true since federal disaster assistance is provided only when there is a federally declared disaster and typically results in a fraction of what insurance assistance can provide. For example, according to FEMA, in 2019, the average, annual flood insurance premium was $700 (about $58 per month), and the average claim payout was $53,000./29 Meanwhile, in 2019, federal disaster assistance was capped at $34,900 with an average annual payment of $6,246./30 Ensuring that the protection gap is bridged, and property insurance adequately covers the climate and natural disaster risk(s) involved are of utmost importance. Risk transfer products that protect each stakeholder from climate and natural disaster risks can play an important role.

Reinsurance and Risk Transfer

Reinsurance. Reinsurance is essentially insurance for insurance companies, federal programs, and state insurance programs. It is a risk management tool for insurance companies and government programs to reduce the volatility in their portfolios and improve their financial performance and security.

Reinsurance also is the primary mechanism for spreading risk globally, thereby accessing a greater pool of capital to pay for inevitable catastrophic losses. Consistent with the intent of Congress, reinsurers believe the private sector can and should assume more federal government risk. Reinsurers are willing to offer reinsurance options to a wide variety of government programs to help manage their exposure to losses.

Reinsurance is extensively used by the private markets to diversify risk and protect against future losses. Reinsurance is purchased for essentially four reasons: (1) to limit liability on specific risks; (2) to stabilize loss experience; (3) to protect against catastrophes; and (4) to increase capacity. Depending on the purchaser's goals, different types of reinsurance contracts are available to bring about the desired result. For federal programs, purchasing reinsurance would mitigate the financial impact of any large-scale future losses and help to prevent any future funding lags as it is pre-arranged financing for losses. Reinsurance also allows federal programs to gain financial flexibility and not be forced to rely on emergency federal funding in the event of defaults that could put programs in jeopardy.

Risk Transfer. Risk transfer, including reinsurance, is a successful solution used by both the public and private sector including (re)insurers, financial institutions, and government programs. In addition to federal programs, which are described below, risk transfer also has been used by state programs, including the California Earthquake Authority, California Wildfire Fund, Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund, Florida Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. Government risk can and should be transferred voluntarily to the private market. The use of private capital will protect consumers, taxpayers, and communities, while spreading risk throughout the globe to insurers and other capital providers who are willing to assume such risk. Risk transfer will strengthen government programs by giving them the financial flexibility to ensure they continue to remain viable in the long term.

Benefits of Risk Transfer. Risk transfer can help both government agencies and private businesses analyze and manage risk by providing financing stability and reducing the impact of future losses. For a variety of federal programs and operations, the reinsurance market has the capacity and interest to assist the government to appropriately manage its risk. Opportunities exist for the federal government to benefit from the competitive market's risk management services and risk transfer capabilities to deleverage federal program balance sheets and simultaneously increase protections for U.S. taxpayers. Expanded utilization of (re)insurance would reduce systemic risk by further diversifying insurance and credit risks and by transferring more of the enormous exposure currently borne by taxpayers, such as the mortgage default risk to the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) following a major U.S. earthquake. Reinsurers are poised to work with the Congress and the Administration to expand and maximize the federal government's utilization of the private market to the extent the industry can write credit risk.

As noted above, reinsurance is routinely utilized by insurers and government programs to provide a crucial safety net for low frequency, high severity natural and man-made events that result in extreme insured losses. Insurers rely on reinsurers to assume losses for a single event or, in many cases, for an accumulation of losses from hurricanes, earthquakes, winter storms, wildfires, or terrorist attacks. Some historic events illustrate this. Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma in 2005 caused over $92 billion in insured losses, and reinsurers bore around 28% of the losses from those events.31 Reinsurers assumed 55% of $41 billion in insured losses from the terrorist events of September 11.32 Superstorm Sandy caused $25 billion in insured losses with reinsurers taking 30% of those losses.33 The pattern of risk transfer for catastrophe-exposed property insurance to the reinsurance market applies across the global insured landscape as well.

Examples of Successful Federal Government Risk Transfer Programs

Several federal government agencies already have risk transfer programs in place. These programs highlight the ways in which risk transfer can succeed for government agencies.

NFIP. The best example of an ongoing federal risk transfer program is the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) NFIP Reinsurance Program. The NFIP Reinsurance Program enables the NFIP to utilize the private market to help manage the financial burden of the NFIP's catastrophic flood risk by providing financial backing for the government's flood risk, protecting taxpayers, and helping the program to be more resilient and pay claims. In 2016, FEMA, launched its NFIP Reinsurance Program via a pilot and, in 2017, transferred $1.042 billion of the NFIP's financial risk to 25 reinsurers, offsetting some of NFIP's risk to the private sector in lieu of U.S. taxpayers. In the program's first year (2017), FEMA collected from the private reinsurance sector the full $1.042 billion to help pay the cost of NFIP losses and claims resulting from Hurricane Harvey. This 2017 coverage, which also improved NFIP's financial viability and protected taxpayers, cost $150 million, and the program successfully renewed the subsequent year. This example is a true testament of successful private public partnerships. Following the 2017 placement, the program was renewed and currently has reinsurance coverage through 2024. For FEMA's traditional reinsurance placements from 2017 through the first quarter of 2021 and capital market reinsurance placements from 2018 through the first quarter of 2021, FEMA has paid a total of $1.264 billion in premium to reinsurers and the capital markets, received $1.042 billion from reinsurers as previously mentioned, and through July 31, 2021, has up to $2.928 billion in reinsurance and capital markets placements available to collect after a qualifying loss event.34 The initial 2017 purchase marked key first steps towards helping the NFIP achieve long term resilience and financial stability and was crucial in enabling the reinsurance program to be a long-term project. (Please see below for more detailed comments on the NFIP).

EXIM. The Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM) also executed a reinsurance pilot program. In 2016, EXIM solicited risk management analytical services regarding risk sharing structures to assess transferring some of the risks in EXIM's portfolio to the private market. In March 2018, EXIM announced its reinsurance pilot program, which provided for $1 billion in loss coverage for a significant portion of EXIM's existing portfolio of large commercial aircraft financing transactions. EXIM stated that it was the largest public-private risk-sharing arrangement for a U.S. government credit agency and minimized EXIM and U.S. taxpayers' liability for potential future losses without requiring additional funding. This purchase of reinsurance gives EXIM protection from future losses and financial flexibility for the future.35 In 2021, EXIM announced an expansion of its risk-sharing program.36 FHFA. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) also has a credit risk transfer program for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, in support of the U.S. housing market. FHFA launched its credit risk transfer initiative in 2012 (when the GSEs were in their fourth year of conservatorship) to enlist the private sector to reduce taxpayer exposure to the GSEs' mortgage risk. In 2013, the GSEs initiated their pilot $77 million credit risk transfer transaction, and it has grown since then. Over 50 (re)insurers have participated in FHFA's credit risk transfer programs and assumed U.S. mortgage risk. From the program's 2013 inception through the second quarter of 2021, the GSEs have transferred roughly $140 billion of credit risk on unpaid balances of more than $4 trillion of single-family mortgages through the capital markets, reinsurance, and front-end reinsurance transactions.37 The GSEs purchased insurance primarily from diversified reinsurers. These partially collateralized transactions spread across many different reinsurers reduce risk in a variety of ways. Since the FHFA announced in May 2020 its re-proposed, and now final, GSE capital rule that reduced by half the capital relief for credit risk transfer, Fannie Mae has not executed new credit risk transfers.38 National Flood Insurance Program

The RAA greatly appreciates the leadership of Members of Congress, specifically those who serve on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and the House Committee on Financial Services, for starting a formal conversation on reauthorization of the NFIP. The RAA has urged Congress to reauthorize NFIP and to enact flood insurance and mitigation-related reforms. The RAA supports a long-term reauthorization of the NFIP and reforms that:

* Continue to strengthen NFIP's financial framework and resiliency so that it can pay claims, particularly after catastrophic events;

* Remove impediments to consumer choice and confirm consumer protections; and

* Modernize the statute to give FEMA additional tools to encourage additional private market participation, including capital, in NFIP to benefit consumers and taxpayers.

The RAA supports the SmarterSafer and BuildStrong coalitions' reform proposals. The RAA also supports the "State Flood Mitigation Revolving Fund Act" (S.2192/H.R.1610-116th) as described in the letter in Appendix C of this testimony.39

Confirm Consumer Protections. Flood insurance uncertainty for consumers, as it relates to continuous coverage and potential rate increases by the NFIP, are an impediment to consumers buying private flood insurance and limit consumers' choices. Insurance agents and brokers have stated that "...the risk of a substantial NFIP rate increase should the consumer later wish to return to the NFIP often makes insurance agents and brokers hesitant to recommend private flood insurance policies."40 It is important that Congress and FEMA provide consumers with clarity about continuous coverage compliance so that current and future NFIP policyholders are confident that they have complied with the law's continuous coverage requirements by having an NFIP or private flood insurance policy. For example, if a consumer leaves the NFIP to secure a private flood policy with better coverage and a better price and later re-assumes an NFIP policy, so long as the consumer had continuous coverage, that NFIP policy should be at the same rate and terms as if the consumer had continuously maintained an NFIP policy.

The RAA supports legislation from the 116th Congress (H.R. 1666) introduced by Representatives Kathy Castor (D-FL) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (NFIA) to "consider any period during which a property was continuously covered by private flood insurance to be a period of continuous coverage, including for the purposes of NFIP subsidies."41 In two previous Congresses, similar legislation had broad bipartisan support. In 2016, by a vote of 419-0, the House passed a similar provision as part of H.R. 2901 and, in 2017, by a vote of 58-0, the House Financial Services Committee passed a similar provision as part of H.R. 1422.

Support NFIP Reinsurance Program. The RAA supports FEMA's NFIP Reinsurance Program and requests that it be preserved in NFIP reauthorization and reform legislation.42 The RAA has long advocated for the NFIP to utilize the private market to help manage the financial burden of the NFIP's catastrophic flood risk by providing financial backing for the government's flood risk, protecting taxpayers, and helping the program to be more resilient and pay claims. In 2021, for the fifth consecutive year, FEMA has successfully administered its NFIP Reinsurance Program that transfers risk from the NFIP to the capital markets, specifically through reinsurance placements and a catastrophe bond issuance.

Modernize 1968 NFIA Part A Authority. When enacted in 1968, over 50 years ago, the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) incorporated two approaches to providing consumers with flood insurance, Part A and Part B. The NFIP operates under Part B with the federal government assuming the full underwriting risk subject to the risk transfer program mentioned above. Congress should modernize Part A of the NFIA and clarify that FEMA can use its authorities simultaneously with the Part B program. Re-purposing and modernizing the statutory language in Part A would give FEMA additional tools to partner with private insurers, facilitate the participation of private insurers in NFIP on a risk-sharing basis, further improve NFIP's viability, increase the NFIP's resources to pay claims, and increase flood insurance opportunities for consumers. Part A reforms also can lead to a stronger public-private partnership, give private insurers experience in underwriting flood risk, and help close the flood insurance coverage gap.

The Part A statutory language currently authorizes the FEMA Administrator to facilitate and assist the creation of a pool of insurers on a risk sharing basis with the federal government to provide flood insurance through their network of agents and policyholder relationships. Under the statute, the Administrator defines the qualifications of insurers for the pool and risk capital to be provided. The Administrator is authorized to enter into a contractual relationship with the pool defining the insured risk to be retained and the government's risk through its reinsurance of the pool. Pursuant to the statute, the financial arrangement recognizes that the NFIP provides subsidies to certain policyholders.

The RAA specifically recommends that NFIP reauthorization legislation include the amendment offered to the "National Flood Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2019" and withdrawn by Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) during the House Financial Services Committee's June 11-12, 2019, mark up.43 The amendment language would: (1) Require FEMA to solicit ideas for risk-sharing demonstration programs; (2) Provide FEMA with authority, but not require it, to conduct risk-sharing demonstration programs; and (3) Make technical amendments to the NFIA Part A authority, which FEMA can use for risk-sharing demonstration programs.

The above-mentioned reforms can further facilitate the development of a private flood insurance market and improve the viability of NFIP. The reinsurance market is interested and has the capacity to underwrite flood insurance risk, including extreme flood risk, in both the public NFIP program, private market, and any future public-private flood insurance partnerships. Actions taken in recent years by some states, such as Florida, have demonstrated the interest and benefits of private insurers assuming a broad cross-section of risk, and the same would result from the above flood insurance reforms. Reinsurers stand ready to partner with both the private- and public-sectors as the flood market transitions.

Conclusion

The RAA looks forward to continuing to work with Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Toomey, and other members of the Committee on legislation to improve America's housing and community resilience in the face of climate and natural disaster risks by prioritizing and directing public and private sector resources to communities that are the most in need and most at risk from natural disaster(s), closing the insurance protection gap, and enacting a long-term reauthorization of the NFIP and flood insurance reforms that facilitate the development of a private flood insurance market. Thank you for your consideration of our views and recommendations in this testimony. The RAA and its members welcome the opportunity to meet with you about our views and recommendations, work with you to develop CDRZ legislation, or answer any questions you may have.

* * *

The tables can be viewed at: https://www.banking.senate.gov/download/nutter-testimony-7-20-21

The footnotes can be viewed at: https://www.banking.senate.gov/download/nutter-testimony-7-20-21

The appendices can be viewed at: https://www.banking.senate.gov/download/nutter-testimony-7-20-21