Sponsors (5)
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Makes two changes to federal predisaster mitigation law by turning two optional authorities into mandatory duties: it replaces “may” with “shall” in two provisions of Section 203 of the Stafford Act. It also records Congressional findings that proactive mitigation is cost-effective, that the BRIC program (created in 2019) was cancelled in 2025 with billions clawed back, and that the U.S. faced many costly weather and climate disasters in 2024. The change forces FEMA to act where the statute previously gave it discretion, but does not itself appropriate money.
Predisaster mitigation enables actions to be taken proactively to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of future disasters.
Effective mitigation minimizes the potential loss of life and property from a disaster based on identifying and understanding the risks in a given area or community.
The United States experienced 27 weather and climate disasters with damages exceeding $1,000,000,000 in 2024.
Mitigation can encompass a wide variety of activities, including preparation and planning, elevating or moving structures prone to flooding, reducing loss of life during extreme heat, and hardening structures to mitigate the effects of hurricanes or earthquakes.
Scientific research has proven that every $1 invested in predisaster mitigation saves up to $13 in disaster recovery costs.
Last progress April 14, 2025 (10 months ago)
Introduced on April 14, 2025 by Greg Stanton
Who is affected and how:
Federal agency administering Stafford Act mitigation assistance (e.g., FEMA): now has two statutorily required duties it previously could choose to perform; must allocate staff and administrative attention to comply. This creates a legal obligation but not new funding authority, possibly forcing prioritization of tasks or requests to Congress for appropriations.
Eligible governments and applicants (states, local governments, Tribal communities, territories, and other eligible recipients): stand to gain more predictable federal action on predisaster mitigation because the statute now requires the agency to perform the specified duties; this can improve planning and grant expectations for mitigation projects and vulnerable communities.
Vulnerable communities and households: may benefit indirectly if the agency acts consistently under the new mandate, potentially increasing access to mitigation support and reducing future disaster losses.
Congress and appropriators: may face pressure to provide or reallocate funds to meet the newly mandatory duties; absent funding, the mandate could lead to implementation gaps or interbranch disputes.
Legal and administrative actors: potential for litigation or oversight if the agency fails to fulfill the new statutory obligations due to lack of resources.
Overall, the change tightens legal obligations for federal action on predisaster mitigation and increases expectations for support to subnational governments and communities, but it does not itself provide funding, so real-world impacts depend on appropriations and administrative execution.