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 · Jul 31, 2009
Disaster Recovery Improvement Act - Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize the President to increase the maximum total contributions for a major disaster by 5% under such Act if, at the time of a declaration of a major disaster, the affected state has in effect and is actively enforcing an approved building code.
Sets forth state building code submission and approval requirements, including use of the nationally recognized model building code as a minimum standard.
Directs the President, in making a contribution to a state or local government or a person that owns a nonprofit facility for repair, restoration, and replacement of a damaged facility, to provide not less than 50% of the President's initial estimate of the federal share as an initial payment. Provides for expedited payments.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires the federal share for debris removal to be increased by 5% for states and local governments that have: (1) a debris management plan approved by the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); (2) prequalified two or more debris and wreckage removal contractors before the date of declaration of the major disaster; and (3) resubmitted such plan to the Administrator for approval every four years. Allows a recipient of a debris removal grant to: (1) use funds for the costs of recycling debris and wreckage resulting from a major disaster; and (2) retain any financial benefit received from the salvage.
Increases the period for appeals of disaster assistance decisions. Directs the Administrator to review, update, and revise the factors considered to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of a disaster.
Authorizes the President to provide emergency assistance to pets and animals and their owners.
People & committees
Rep. Scalise, Steve [R-LA-1] · R–LA
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.3453 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.3453 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.3453 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.3453 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.