PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 17, 2011
Fair Treatment of Existing Levees Act of 2011 - Prohibits the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from using the assumption that an existing levee or flood control structure does not exist to designate an area as having new flood hazards pursuant to issuance of, or any process to implement changes in, flood insurance maps used under the national flood insurance program under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, except in cases where no affected community objects to the Administrator's hazard modeling processes within 90 days of this Act's enactment and provided that prior to implementation of this provision the affected community notifies affected residents that the level of protection provided by such levee or flood control structure is under review.
People & committees
Rep. Alexander, Rodney [R-LA-5] · 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 Insurance, Housing and Community Opportunity.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
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.764 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.764 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.764 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.764 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.