Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Sep 28, 2013
Flood Insurance Fairness Act of 2013 - Prohibits the taking effect of specified flood insurance premium changes under the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (which prohibit the estimating of flood insurance premium rates for severe repetitive loss and other specified properties or extending premium subsidies to new or lapsed flood insurance policies, and which also require certain flood insurance risk premium rate adjustments) until 180 days after both chambers of Congress have completed consideration of a qualified joint resolution providing for legislative changes to ensure that risk premium rates for flood insurance coverage under the national flood insurance program are substantially affordable for all homeowners.
Directs the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to submit to Congress and make publicly available a determination of whether the risk premium rates for flood insurance coverage under the national flood insurance program resulting from such legislative changes are substantially affordable for all homeowners.
Sets forth procedures for expedited congressional consideration of the proposed joint resolution.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
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 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.3218 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.3218 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.3218 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.3218 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.