Legislation that would put the federal government in the catastrophic insurance game had both sides playing defense in a congressional hearing Wednesday. The bill—H.R. 2555, also known as the Homeowner’s Defense Act—has been characterized as everything from balm for uninsurable homeowners to a license to develop in risk-prone areas.

Somewhere in middle field lies an attempt to protect citizens from dramatic insurance increases, non-renewal, and limited coverage, according to Congressman Ron Klein, D-Fla., who sponsored the bill with 70 other lawmakers.

“Increasingly, insurance companies are treating homeowners across the country like they have been treating Floridians for years—canceling policies and doubling or tripling rates in the wake of a single claim,” Klein said in a statement to the House Financial Services Committee at the hearing. “For millions of Americans, the question of a natural disaster hitting their home state is not if, but when. By spreading the risk, we can…bring down costs for homeowners across the country.”

Klein’s plan would allow states to opt in to a shared risk pool for varying types of disasters, resulting in lower premiums for homeowners, according to an article in the Christian Science Monitor. It also establishes stronger building codes, provides training and equipment for first responders, and will save taxpayers from spending millions to bail out uninsured homeowners after a disaster, according to the article.

The bill has strong support from aid organizations, first responders, and emergency management officials, most notably former Federal Emergency Management Agency director James Lee Witt.

"To put it simply, the status quo is not acceptable,” Witt stated in a press release. “There is an urgent need for a…program that strengthens America's financial infrastructure, improves mitigation and readiness, and…assures that resources will be available to rebuild, repair and recover as quickly as possible."

Despite the glowing testimonials from Witt and other disaster experts, the bill isn’t without detractors. Among them are environmental groups concerned about development in areas vulnerable to risk and taxpayer advocates who say the bill will primarily benefit wealthy homeowners living on the coast.

“Although cloaked in the language of free markets and fairness, the legislation would be an enormous subsidy for people who choose to live in dangerous areas,” the Heartland Institute’s Eli Lehrer is quoted as saying in National Underwriter magazine. “If stupid, rich people want to build mansions on sand dunes, they are entitled to do so. But they shouldn’t get insurance subsidies from the taxpayers to do it.”

Some insurance industry organizations also opposed the bill, saying that it could “displace the private market,” according to National Underwriter. On the other hand, insurance companies such as State Farm and Allstate were supportive, according to the Christian Science Monitor.