PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 1, 2011
Safe Building Code Incentive Act of 2011 - Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize the President to increase the maximum total of contributions for a major disaster by an amount equal to 4% of the estimated aggregate amount of grants to be made under the Act, if at the time of a declaration of a major disaster the affected state has in effect and is actively enforcing an approved state building code.
Requires a state, to be eligible for the increased federal share, to submit its state building code to the President for approval.
Directs the President to approve a state building code submitted upon determining that it: (1) is consistent with the most recent version of a nationally recognized model building code, (2) has been adopted by the state within six years of the most recent version of the nationally recognized code, and (3) uses the nationally recognized code as a minimum standard.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the President, acting through the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to set appropriate standards for the periodic update, resubmittal, and approval of state building codes, consistent with similar mitigation planning requirements under the Stafford Act.
Authorizes the use by states and local governments of technical and financial assistance to implement predisaster hazard mitigation measures to establish and operate a building department and carry out enforcement activities to implement an approved state building code.
Directs the President, in determining whether to provide technical and financial assistance to a state or local government, to take into account the extent to which that government is carrying out activities to implement an approved state building code.
People & committees
Rep. Diaz-Balart, Mario [R-FL-21] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
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 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze H.R.2069 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.
Examine H.R.2069 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.
Examine H.R.2069 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.
Examine H.R.2069 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.