S. 667: Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act of 2013

Apr 08, 2013
Referred to Committee
0% chance of being enacted
Track this bill
Dianne Feinstein
Senior Senator from California
Read Text »
Last Updated
Apr 08, 2013
6 pages
Related Bills
H.R. 968 (Related)
Fire-Damaged Home Rebuilding Act of 2013

Referred to Committee
Last Action: Mar 05, 2013


This bill was assigned to a congressional committee on April 8, 2013, which will consider it before possibly sending it on to the House or Senate as a whole.

Introduced Apr 08, 2013
Referred to Committee Apr 08, 2013
Reported by Committee ...
Passed Senate ...
Passed House ...
Signed by the President ...

2% chance of getting past committee.
0% chance of being enacted.

Only 11% of bills made it past committee and only about 3% were enacted in 2011–2013. [show factors | methodology]

Full Title

A bill to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to allow the rebuilding, without elevation, of certain structures that are located in areas having special flood hazards and are substantially damaged by fire, and for other purposes.


No summaries available.


Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

The committee chair determines whether a bill will move past the committee stage.

Primary Source

THOMAS.gov (The Library of Congress)

GovTrack gets most information from THOMAS, which is updated generally one day after events occur. Activity since the last update may not be reflected here. Data comes via the congress project.


Get a bill status widget for your website »


Click a format for a citation suggestion:


S. stands for Senate bill.

A bill must be passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and then be signed by the president to become law.

The bill’s title was written by its sponsor.

GovTrack’s Bill Summary

We don’t have a summary available yet.

Library of Congress Summary

The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress.

Fire Damaged Home Rebuilding Act of 2013 - Amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to allow local variances for certain residential structures substantially damaged by a fire or other disaster, not including a flood.
Permits state or local authorities, upon making certain determinations, to grant a variance from compliance with certain mandatory adequate land use and control measures to allow repair and restoration of an eligible structure to its pre-damaged condition without elevation of the structure.
Includes among such determinations that: (1) the repaired and restored structure will be located on the same site as it was before being substantially damaged, and (2) the number of floors of the restored structure will not exceed the number of floors of the original structure.
Restricts the maximum number of such variances to 10 during any calendar year.
Prohibits the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from either:
(1) finding that land use and control measures are inadequate or inconsistent with the comprehensive criteria for land management and use because they permit granting the variances identified under this Act; or
(2) suspending an area or subdivision from participation in the national flood insurance program, or placing it on probation, because its land use and control measures provide for such variances.
Prohibits the chargeable flood insurance premium rate for a residential structure granted a variance under this Act from being lower than the rate that otherwise would apply if such structure had not been substantially damaged by a fire or other disaster (except a flood) and repaired and restored pursuant to the variance.

House Republican Conference Summary

The summary below was written by the House Republican Conference, which is the caucus of Republicans in the House of Representatives.

No summary available.

House Democratic Caucus Summary

The House Democratic Caucus does not provide summaries of bills.

So, yes, we display the House Republican Conference’s summaries when available even if we do not have a Democratic summary available. That’s because we feel it is better to give you as much information as possible, even if we cannot provide every viewpoint.

We’ll be looking for a source of summaries from the other side in the meanwhile.

Use the comment space below for discussion of the merits of S. 667 with other GovTrack users.
Your comments are not read by Congressional staff.

comments powered by Disqus