Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
This bill amends Section 404(a) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by replacing the word “may” with “shall,” changing the hazard mitigation authority from permissive to mandatory.
Liberals emphasize climate adaptation and resilience benefits
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that is precise in its textual amendment (substituting 'shall' for 'may' in 42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) but otherwise minimalistic.
This bill amends Section 404(a) of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act by replacing the word “may” with “shall,” changing the hazard mitigation authority from permissive to mandatory.
In effect, the President would be required to carry out the federal hazard mitigation program under the Stafford Act.
Technically simple and low-salience, so content is favorable, but lack of funding language and legislative priorities reduce near-term odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that is precise in its textual amendment (substituting 'shall' for 'may' in 42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) but otherwise minimalistic. It converts discretionary authority into a mandatory obligation without addressing fiscal, operational, or oversight implications.
Liberals emphasize climate adaptation and resilience benefits
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize climate adaptation and resilience benefits
Likely favorable because a mandatory federal mitigation program increases proactive disaster risk reduction.
Views this as a needed step toward resilience and climate adaptation, though supportive advocates will want explicit funding and equity provisions.
Generally supportive of making mitigation a required federal activity, but cautious about costs and execution.
Would seek clarity on funding, measurable targets, federal‑state roles, and accountability to avoid unfunded mandates.
Likely skeptical because the bill increases mandatory federal obligations without detailing funding, expanding federal control over mitigation activities.
Concerned about federal overreach and new regulatory burdens on states and private property.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically simple and low-salience, so content is favorable, but lack of funding language and legislative priorities reduce near-term odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize climate adaptation and resilience benefits
Technically simple and low-salience, so content is favorable, but lack of funding language and legislative priorities reduce near-term odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted substantive change that is precise in its textual amendment (substituting 'shall' for 'may' in 42 U.S.C. 5170c(a)) but otherwise minimalistic.…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.