PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.For Further Action See H.R.3445.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Aug 6, 1993
Comprehensive Cost Effective Relocation Act of 1993 - Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to: (1) increase from 50 to 75 percent of the total cost the Federal share of cost-effective hazards mitigation measures taken in an area affected by a major disaster; and (2) increase from ten to 15 percent of the estimated aggregate amounts of major disaster grants made under the Act the total of contributions made for hazard mitigation measures. Authorizes the President, in providing hazard mitigation assistance under the Act for areas affected by flooding in the Midwest beginning on April 13, 1993, to contribute 90 percent of the cost of relocation projects which meet specified requirements. Provides relocation project funding through the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
People & committees
Rep. Volkmer, Harold L. [D-MO-9] · D–MO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
For Further Action See H.R.3445.
Executive Comment Received from OMB.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Executive Comment Received from FEMA.
Executive Comment Requested from FEMA.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Referred to the House Committee on Public Works + Transportation.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 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.3012 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.3012 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.3012 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.3012 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.