The Senate on Thursday delayed action until next week onlegislation passed by the House that effectively scraps a floodinsurance premium structure imposed by a 2012 law and replaces itwith an entirely different scheme.

Industry lobbyists said the vote was postponed because several conservative Republicansobjected to allowing H.R. 3370 on the floor under expeditedprocedures. All Democrats agreed to prompt action under a so-called“hotlining procedure,” but several Republicans objected. The Senateis off today.

They did so despite the fact there is strong support fromRepublicans in coastal states. For example, Sen. David Vitter,R-La., said “both the Senate and now the House have come togetherin a major, bipartisan way” to fix the NFIP.”

Vitter said the House bill is stronger and more significant[than the Senate bill, “mostly because the reforms are permanent,and it passed by a huge margin. The Senate must vote on this billas soon as possible, and the only realistic way that will happen isif Sen. [Harry] Reid, D-Nev., Senate majority leader, schedulesfloor time for the bill.”

During the House floor debate, some of the rhetoric was over thetop. Citing continued comments by Republicans about the growingnational debt, and the “financial bankruptcy that is plaguing orpotentially plaguing our country,” Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La., whorepresents New Orleans, said there was a greater problem.

Richmond said there is so much discussion about financialbankruptcy “that we start to believe it and we miss one thing, thatwe're on the verge of a moral bankruptcy in this country.”

“When you talk about homeowners who played by the rules, savedtheir money, bought a piece of the American dream, and then all ofa sudden, years if not decades later, we come back with a with awell-intentioned bill but that had unfortunate, unintendedconsequences that would strip the American dream and homeownershipright from under them,” he continued. “And then, the questionbecomes to this Congress, what do you do about it?”

But, the House floor debate did expose fissures in Republicanranks.

During the debate on the bill, Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas,said Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee proposedfour alternatives to the bill ultimately passed by the House.Neugebauer, who heads the FSC's Housing and Insurance Subcommittee,disclosed that the last proposal from FSC Republicans for a billthat included an eight to 10-year phase-in and nearly a two-yearaffordability cap of $5,000.

“Unfortunately, each one of these proposals were rejectedbecause they fell short,” in favor of proposals that maintainsubsidies indefinitely. “That's unfortunate because maintainingthese subsidies hurts everyone in the long run. It hurts taxpayersby putting them on the hook for billions of dollars in subsidies,it hurts the flood insurance program by easing its path towardinsolvency and it hurts homeowners by encouraging them to build inareas that jeopardize their lives and their properties.”

And, while not allowed to speak during the time-limited floordebate, Rep. Candace Miller, R-Mich., who represents a district inthe Michigan Peninsula and in the last Congress introducedlegislation that would phase out the NFIP, issued a statementblasting the bill.

She also called on Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder (R), “to opt thestate out of the program altogether, and instead seek a state orprivate alternative that stops forcing Michigan homeowners to serveas ATM machines for the rest of the nation.”

Miller said the NFIP “is hopelessly in debt,” over $25 billion,because politics is responsible for setting rates, not actuarialcost. “As a result, too many Americans across this nation arepaying rates far below what actual risk would dictate in themarketplace while others, including many who I represent, are beingforced to pay into a program that they do not need or want to helpsubsidize lower rates for other favored groups whose risk is fargreater,” she added.

The House bill limits the yearly increase to 18 percent peryear. It replaces language in the 2012 law mandating implementationof actuarial rates for all NFIP policies over 4 or 5 years,depending on the type of structure insured. The Senate bill, passedJan. 30, merely delays implementation of the originalBiggert-Waters bill for four years.

The House bill also instructs FEMA leaders, who oversee thefederal flood insurance program, to “strive to minimize the numberof policies with annual premiums that exceed 1 percent of the totalcoverage provided by the policy.”

It's short of the absolute cap some Democratic lawmakers hadsought, but at least puts Congress on record that FEMA, as it movesto price premiums to reflect actual risk, should find ways to avoidcharging more than $2,000 on a $200,000 flood insurance policy.