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 · Jan 9, 2025
Natural Disaster Recovery Program Act of 2025
This bill establishes Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding sources for unmet needs caused by major disasters, expands FEMA’s assistance for housing and home repair, and requires certain considerations in FEMA’s recommendations on presidential emergency/disaster declarations.
The bill establishes the National Disaster Recovery Reserve Fund for FEMA to provide grants to states and Indian tribal governments for unmet need. The bill defines unmet need as any necessary expense for activities related to a declared major disaster, including disaster relief or resilience activities. In addition, the bill authorizes FEMA to set aside funding from the Disaster Relief Fund to provide grants to states and Indian tribal governments for unmet needs resulting from a declared disaster, including home repair, economic recovery measures, and other services assisting disaster victims.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Also, the bill makes the following changes regarding housing assistance:
authorizes FEMA’s Individuals and Households Program (IHP) to provide home repair assistance directly to homeowners when there is a lack of available housing resources,
expands IHP home repair assistance for persons with disabilities,
extends the maximum duration of IHP’s direct housing assistance from 18 to 24 months,
authorizes IHP permanent housing construction where FEMA considers it a cost-effective alternative, and
authorizes minor home repairs in the essential assistance federal agencies may provide following a disaster.
Additionally, the bill requires FEMA to give greater weight to local impacts, and events over the past five years, when making recommendations to the President regarding emergency or major disaster declarations.
People & committees
Rep. Rouzer, David [R-NC-7] · R–NC
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: Jul 11, 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.316 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.316 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.316 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.316 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.