That will leave the Senate with just a few legislative days to act, heaping another tough decision onto an already crowded legislative agenda.

Late on June 2, the Senate Banking Committee became the first Senate committee to address the NFIP issue when it announced it will hold a hearing with William Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, scheduled to testify. The announcement says other witnesses may also be added.

The House bill is H.R. 1309, the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2011. It would reauthorize the program until Sept. 30, 2016 and would reform the existing program.

Among the bill's innovations are opening up the program for potential greater involvement by the private sector and adding new incentives for homeowners to upgrade their defenses against the wind and water of hurricanes.

While strong support for the bill in the House is expected, lack of meaningful Senate action on the legislation is a concern.

The problem was exacerbated by introduction of a bill in the Senate last week that reopens the wind-vs.-water controversy that ensnared even such sophisticated and veteran members of Congress as former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.).

They were among thousands of homeowners whose claims resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 were rejected based on such provisions as the anti-concurrent-causation exceptions in standard personal-lines insurance contracts in Mississippi.

Bill sponsor Sen. Roger Wicker's (R-Miss.) attempts at compromise appear credible.

Eli Lehrer, the Heartland Institute's vice president for Washington, D.C. operations, says the fundamental idea in this bill solves one of the major quandaries facing the nation's current coastal-insurance system.

He says the current “haphazard system for allocating claims between NFIP and wind insurers often leaves everyone involved worse off.”

Lehrer adds, “This bill holds out the possibility of developing a fair, equitable system that serves everyone's interests. It's not perfect, but given that the system proposed is optional and will not require a meaningful commitment of tax dollars, it certainly seems like a worthwhile experiment.”

But repeated behind-the-scenes attempts to add the provision to the House bill failed because of industry pressure on House Financial Services Committee members.

Officials of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) are among the groups that oppose the Wicker solution. “We have some concerns that his plan could cause more confusion for insurers and consumers in the aftermath of a major flood,” says Matt Gannon, assistant vice president of federal affairs for NAMIC.

Gannon says that under the Wicker formula, “for the first time a federal agency would be telling state-regulated [property and casualty] insurance companies what they have to pay in claims.”

Gannon adds, “NAMIC has very significant concerns about this encroachment by the federal government into the private insurance market.”

Especially in the Senate, sensitivity to uncapped losses from hurricanes to the federal government is acute.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita were the largest contributors to a deficit in the NFIP of almost $18 billion—a deficit which officials of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which administers the program, acknowledge the NFIP will never be able to pay off.

That is especially so given the inclination by members of Congress to keep rates low in order to please constituents.

In other words, both time and money appear to be key ingredients for a recipe that will force Congress to again kick long-term reauthorization down the road.