3370) is a bill that would reduce some of the reforms made to the federal flood insurance program that were passed two years prior.

The program enables property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection from the government against losses from flooding.

[6] At present, approximately 5.5 million properties are covered by the program, with twenty percent of them receiving discount rates of less than half what a private insurance company would charge them.

[6] According to critics of the program, the government's subsidized insurance plan "encouraged building, and rebuilding, in vulnerable coastal areas and floodplains.

"[6] Stephen Ellis, of the group taxpayers for Common Sense, points to "properties that flooded 17 or 18 times that were still covered under the federal insurance program" without premiums going up.

[1] The Biggert–Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 was "designed to allow premiums to rise to reflect the true risk of living in high-flood areas".

The law "ordered FEMA to stop subsidizing flood insurance for second homes and businesses, and for properties that had been swamped multiple times.

[7][8] The Hill reported that the Senate might be willing move forward with this House bill instead, due to the difficult negotiations over the details of this legislation.

[2] The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the surcharges collected under the bill would exceed the costs of reduced premiums over the 2015–2019 period, resulting in a decrease in direct spending of $165 million over that time.

[2] The Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2013 was introduced into the United States House of Representatives on October 29, 2013 by Rep. Michael G. Grimm (R, NY-11).

"[1] Republicans opposed to the bill were concerned that it would make it more difficult to pay back the billions of dollars of debt owed by the National Flood Insurance Program.

[1] Conservative activist group Heritage Action urged its supporters to contact their representatives and tell them to vote no on the bill.

The organization criticized the bill because it "forces taxpayers to continue subsidizing high-risk development of flood-prone areas and sets a terrible precedent of never letting positive reform take effect.

According to Miller, Michigan residents subsidize other, more flood prone parts of the country, by paying higher premiums than they should.