House members squirming in an effort to deflect consumer outragefrom flood insurance premium rate increases mandated by the 2012bill are touting a provision in appropriations legislation passedthis week that apparently won't accomplish what they want it todo.

The amendment, included in legislation funding the HomelandSecurity Department for 2014, would bar use of federal funds toimplement a section of the 2012 law that mandates phased-in rateincreases for grandfathered properties.

The amendment passed 281-146, and the appropriations bill waslater approved by the full House and sent to the Senate.

An industry official who has been following the issue fordecades said, “Look at the vote tally on the Cassidy amendment.

“As I recall, Biggert-Watersgot 407 votes when it passed the House. So- in effect —nearly three-quarters of the members who voted for it less than ayear ago are now ready to abandon the premium increases that theywere touting as “urgently needed” at the time,” he said.

And, a top agency official said he has no idea how the provisionwould bar the agency from implementing the rate increases becauseFEMA uses flood insurance premiums—not federally appropriatedfunds–to administer the National Flood Insurance Program.

The official, who declined to be identified by name, said thatCongress has appropriated taxpayer funds for NFIP purposes onlyonce, $1 billion appropriated in the 2003 legislation extending theprogram for five years. The funds were used to finance remappingfor areas feared to be at greater risk for flooding.

The amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations billWednesday was introduced by Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Rep. CedricRichmond (D-La.), Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y) and Rep. StevenPalazzo (R-Miss.)

The statement issued afterward by Cassidy said that, “Thisamendment will block those rate increases and give us time tocarefully modify the Biggert-Waters Act. It is important tohave a self-sustaining flood insurance program.”

However, Cassidy added, “it must account for the floodprotections throughout south Louisiana that make massive floodinsurance rates unnecessary. I will lead in making sure thatoccurs.” He also called the amendment “a win forsouth Louisiana and the nation. The reforms under theBiggert-Waters Act have created flood insurance rates which coulddestroy south Louisiana homes. They would also be devastatingfor coastal communities around the country.”

The House amendment would prohibit officials of the FederalEmergency Management Agency from using appropriated funds toimplement Sec. 207 of the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Actof 2012.

Specifically, they said the amendment would delay for one yearthe expiration of grandfathered National Flood Insurance premiumrate hikes for existing policy holders.

At the same time, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) proposed anamendment to legislation creating a National Association ofRegistered Agents & Brokers being debated by the Senate BankingCommittee aimed at stopping the rate increases.

Vitter immediately withdrew it after winning a commitment tohold a hearing on flood rate increases by the committee early inJuly from the committee chairman and ranking minority member.

Jimi Grande, senior vice president of federal and politicalaffairs for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies,said, “Delaying the reforms enacted under Biggert-Waters will notsolve the problems facing either homeowners or the NFIP.”

He said that the amendment is “a step back” to a program thatwas financially unsustainable due to hidden subsidies that alsocreated a false sense of security for property owners who, inreality, faced severe risk from flooding.

“A fiscally unstable NFIP helps nobody, and we hope Congresswill resist efforts to further delay the phasing in of actuariallysound rates,” Grande said.

At the same time, Mike Cheney, Mississippi insurancecommissioner and chairman of the Property and Casualty Committee ofthe National Association of Insurance Commissioners, said, “Ibelieve a reduction in the proposed rate increase and a longerphase in for actuarial soundness of the NFIP is in order.”

Late Tuesday, Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., proposed an amendmentto the bill that would delay implementation of Sec. 207 of law forthree years.

It would also require the Federal Emergency Management Agency toprovide to Congress a detailed study of how the rate increaseswould impact the affordability of living in flood zones before anyrate increases were applied.

Sec. 207 of the law directs FEMA to increase rates over a fiveyear period on any community that receives a revised or new floodmaps.

It would impact grandfathered rates, some grandfathered datingback to 1969, when basing rates based on maps detailing thelikelihood of a flood impacting a community were first imposed, onsecond homes, businesses and areas deemed most likely to beimpacted by a storm.