Federal Disaster Assistance Coordination Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/152
Last Updated: July 12, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

ID: E000235

Follow the money

The bill

Federal Disaster Assistance Coordination Act

HR. 152, 119th Congress — read as touching Insurance (P&C and Life).

The sponsor

Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$76,000 raised

29 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

70% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 186-188 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

January 13, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

Floor Action

Passed House

Senate Review

📍 Current Status

Next: Both chambers must agree on the same version of the bill.

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Another masterpiece of bureaucratic doublespeak, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this trainwreck, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Federal Disaster Assistance Coordination Act (HR 152) claims to aim at "streamlining and consolidating information collection and preliminary damage assessments" for disaster assistance applicants and grantees. How noble. In reality, it's a thinly veiled attempt to create more red tape, justify the existence of redundant agencies, and provide a veneer of accountability.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 by requiring the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a study on information collection and preliminary damage assessments. Because what we really need is another study, right? The bill also establishes a working group to identify areas of duplication or fragmentation in preliminary damage assessments. I'm sure this will be a thrilling exercise in bureaucratic navel-gazing.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: FEMA, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and various other agencies that can't seem to get their acts together. The bill also mentions "other appropriate agencies," which is code for "we'll figure it out later." Taxpayers, disaster victims, and anyone who's ever tried to navigate the Byzantine world of federal bureaucracy will be affected by this mess.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will likely achieve the following:

1. Create more bureaucratic hurdles for disaster assistance applicants. 2. Provide a justification for agencies to maintain their bloated staffs and budgets. 3. Generate a comprehensive report that will collect dust on some shelf, unread and unimplemented. 4. Allow politicians to claim they're "doing something" about disaster relief while actually accomplishing nothing.

In short, HR 152 is a classic example of legislative theater, designed to create the illusion of progress while perpetuating the same old inefficiencies and bureaucratic waste. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the inability of our government to effectively respond to disasters and provide meaningful support to those in need.

Diagnosis: Chronic Bureaucratic Incompetence (CBI), with symptoms including redundant agencies, unnecessary studies, and a complete disregard for the well-being of taxpayers and disaster victims. Treatment: radical surgery to excise the cancerous growths of bureaucratic waste and inefficiency. Prognosis: poor, as long as our politicians continue to prioritize their own interests over the needs of the people they're supposed to serve.

Related Topics

Federal Budget & AppropriationsGovernment Operations & AccountabilityState & Local Government Affairs
Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$539,095
313 donors
PACs
$0
Organizations
$9,500
Committees
$0
Individuals
$529,595

No PAC contributions found

1
ALLY TELECOM GROUP LLC - PARTNERSHIP - MITCH KALIFEH
1 transaction
$2,500
2
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC - ALEX HINSON, PARTNER AND CHIEF EXEC. OFFICER
1 transaction
$2,500
3
GONC LTC, LLC
1 transaction
$1,000
4
MS BAND OF CHOCTAW INDIANS
1 transaction
$1,000
5
STEED'S COLLISION CTR, LLC - LAURA STEED MANAGER
1 transaction
$1,000
6
WATKINS & EAGER PLLC - GRANT SELLERS, PARTNER
1 transaction
$1,000
7
TEN ONE STRATEGIES - JOHN HUGHES, MANAGING PARTNER
1 transaction
$500

No committee contributions found

1
BODART, DEREK
3 transactions
$9,500
2
LAMPTON, ROBERT
3 transactions
$9,100
3
BODART, MELISSA
3 transactions
$7,000
4
AUSTIN, DIONNE CHOUEST
2 transactions
$6,600
5
BORDELON, BENJAMIN
2 transactions
$6,600
6
CHOUEST, CAROLYN
2 transactions
$6,600
7
CHOUEST, CASEY
2 transactions
$6,600
8
CHOUEST, DAMON
2 transactions
$6,600
9
CHOUEST, DINO
2 transactions
$6,600
10
CHOUEST, ROSS
2 transactions
$6,600
11
DUNAGIN, MELINDA
2 transactions
$6,600
12
HUNT, RAY
2 transactions
$6,600
13
LUCKEY, PALMER
2 transactions
$6,600
14
SHIPMAN, THOMAS
5 transactions
$5,200
15
BOYTE, ROBERT
2 transactions
$5,102
16
FINNEGAN, C.T. T.
2 transactions
$5,000
17
STRUNK, SHANNON
3 transactions
$5,000
18
VICE, DIANE
3 transactions
$5,000
19
BINDEWALD, JOHN
3 transactions
$4,500
20
SWEAT, SUSAN
4 transactions
$4,300
21
WITTERSHEIM, DANIEL
2 transactions
$4,300
22
CRONIN, GREGORY
2 transactions
$4,000
23
DUFF, THOMAS
4 transactions
$4,000
24
TREHERN, ED
2 transactions
$4,000
25
BROOKE, JUDD
2 transactions
$3,800
26
HARDIN, JAMES
3 transactions
$3,800
27
WELCH, NICK
2 transactions
$3,800
28
LUCE, KATE
2 transactions
$3,500
29
BODART, EVYN
1 transaction
$3,300
30
CHOUEST, GARY
1 transaction
$3,300
31
COVINGTON, RIMMER SR.
1 transaction
$3,300
32
DANE, JOHN
1 transaction
$3,300
33
MCKENZIE, PATRICK
1 transaction
$3,300
34
MCKENZIE, RHONDA
1 transaction
$3,300
35
MOSELEY, CHASE
4 transactions
$3,300
36
PATEL, SNEHAL
1 transaction
$3,300
37
PAYNE, BRANDON
1 transaction
$3,300
38
PAYNE, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$3,300
39
PAYNE, W. ALBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
40
ROBERT, KEVIN
1 transaction
$3,300
41
SAUCIER, BRENT
1 transaction
$3,300
42
SAUCIER, BRIAN KEITH
1 transaction
$3,300
43
SEAL, FLOYD
2 transactions
$3,300
44
SUTTON, JAMES
2 transactions
$3,300
45
WYNN, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$3,300
46
YATES, NANCY
1 transaction
$3,300
47
YATES, WILLIAM JR.
1 transaction
$3,300
48
CLARK, KENNETH
1 transaction
$3,200
49
GRIMES, JACKIE
2 transactions
$3,000
50
LUNDY, JOHN
4 transactions
$3,000
51
MAVAR, MARK
3 transactions
$3,000
52
TATUM, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,000
53
TATUM, SHELLEY
1 transaction
$3,000
54
BENTON, PAUL
1 transaction
$2,900
55
SEEMANN, WILLIAM IV
3 transactions
$2,541
56
HEARD, B. KEITH
4 transactions
$2,535
57
FULLER, MARTY
3 transactions
$2,520
58
BARDWELL, EDWARD
3 transactions
$2,500
59
BREERWOOD, ADAM DR.
1 transaction
$2,500
60
BUFORD, CHARLES
1 transaction
$2,500
61
CENAC, CECELIA
1 transaction
$2,500
62
CHARBONNET, SID
3 transactions
$2,500
63
COVINGTON JR, RIMMER
1 transaction
$2,500
64
ENGLAND, JEREMY
1 transaction
$2,500
65
FORE, W.C.
1 transaction
$2,500
66
GOLDING, STEVE
1 transaction
$2,500
67
HAIRSTON, ANN
1 transaction
$2,500
68
HAIRSTON, JOHN
1 transaction
$2,500
69
HUDSON, CHRIS
1 transaction
$2,500
70
JONES, JONATHAN
1 transaction
$2,500
71
LAMPTON, LEE
1 transaction
$2,500
72
LAUTEN, WRIGHT
1 transaction
$2,500
73
LEE, FRANCIS
1 transaction
$2,500
74
MASON, DON
3 transactions
$2,500
75
MESTAYER, MATTHEW
1 transaction
$2,500
76
MULLEN, KATHRYN
1 transaction
$2,500
77
PILGER, DAVID
1 transaction
$2,500
78
REEVES, COLE
1 transaction
$2,500
79
REEVES, JAMES
1 transaction
$2,500
80
ROZIER, MICHAEL JR.
1 transaction
$2,500
81
ROZIER, MICHAEL SR.
1 transaction
$2,500
82
SANDERSON, MARIE
1 transaction
$2,500
83
SAUCIER, KEITH
2 transactions
$2,500
84
SEAL, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$2,500
85
SHEMPER, MARVIN
3 transactions
$2,500
86
VICE, JIMMY
1 transaction
$2,500
87
WARREN, STEVEN
1 transaction
$2,500
88
WIGGINS, BRICE
1 transaction
$2,500
89
WOODHAM, RILEY
3 transactions
$2,500
90
BUSBY, CHARLES
2 transactions
$2,500
91
BERSTEIN, MICHAEL
2 transactions
$2,389
92
BAKER, ALLEN
2 transactions
$2,041
93
BLOUNT, BUFORD
3 transactions
$2,000
94
CHAIN, JOHN W.
2 transactions
$2,000
95
DECKER, KEVIN
2 transactions
$2,000
96
FAYARD, JOHN JR.
2 transactions
$2,000
97
HODGE, CARL
1 transaction
$2,000
98
LASSITER, WILLIAM
2 transactions
$2,000
99
LUCE, SUSAN
1 transaction
$2,000
100
RAMEY, BRAD
1 transaction
$2,000
101
RAMEY, CHARLENE
1 transaction
$2,000
102
SEAL, MICHAEL
2 transactions
$2,000
103
SMITH, PATRICK
2 transactions
$2,000
104
TODD, WILL
2 transactions
$2,000
105
HAVARD, RODNEY
1 transaction
$1,934
106
EDELL, DEBORAH
1 transaction
$1,667
107
SCHWARTZ, ANDREW
1 transaction
$1,667
108
BABCOCK, ROBERT
3 transactions
$1,500
109
BHAKTA, SANJIV
1 transaction
$1,500
110
CHINICHE, JASON
2 transactions
$1,500
111
COCHRAN, JENNIFER
1 transaction
$1,500
112
ELROY, MICHAEL E.
1 transaction
$1,500
113
ESTABROOK, JAMES
2 transactions
$1,500
114
GILICH, ANDREW JR
2 transactions
$1,500
115
MABRY, TYSON
3 transactions
$1,500
116
MAXWELL, NICKY
1 transaction
$1,500
117
MORSE, CHANDLER
2 transactions
$1,500
118
NOWELL, CYNTHIA
1 transaction
$1,500
119
PETRO, TONY
1 transaction
$1,500
120
ROBERTS, FORREST F. III
1 transaction
$1,500
121
SAMS, BRADLEY
1 transaction
$1,500
122
TATUM, CULLEN
2 transactions
$1,500
123
GOLDMAN, AMY
1 transaction
$1,389
124
KARSCH, BENJAMIN
1 transaction
$1,389
125
PERL, GAIL
1 transaction
$1,389
126
WEBER, ELIZA
1 transaction
$1,389
127
KEATING, HUGH
2 transactions
$1,370
128
STURDIVANT, ARTHUR
1 transaction
$1,200
129
ODEM, WILLIE
1 transaction
$1,160
130
MARTIN, JEFF
1 transaction
$1,041
131
WILKINSON, KARI
1 transaction
$1,041
132
BOWMAN, JEFF
2 transactions
$1,020
133
ALEXANDER, L. EUGENE
1 transaction
$1,000
134
ALLISON, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
135
ALLISON, STEVE
1 transaction
$1,000
136
ANDERSON, ROY III
1 transaction
$1,000
137
BELL, FRANCIS ROSS
1 transaction
$1,000
138
BERSTEIN, RENEE
1 transaction
$1,000
139
BERTUCCI, FRANK
1 transaction
$1,000
140
BOURGEOIS, KATE LUCE
1 transaction
$1,000
141
BOVA, NICK
1 transaction
$1,000
142
BOYLES, KEITH
1 transaction
$1,000
143
BROUILLETTE, KELLY
1 transaction
$1,000
144
BUCHANAN, PATRICK
2 transactions
$1,000
145
CARPENTER, DENNIS
1 transaction
$1,000
146
CARPENTER, LISA
1 transaction
$1,000
147
CARPENTER, PRESTON
1 transaction
$1,000
148
CARR, WAYNE
1 transaction
$1,000
149
CLARK, MAGGIE
1 transaction
$1,000
150
CLAY, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$1,000
151
CUMBEST, ROYCE
2 transactions
$1,000
152
DEHON, VIC
1 transaction
$1,000
153
DENNIS, WILLIAM DAVE
1 transaction
$1,000
154
DREYFUS, BARRY
1 transaction
$1,000
155
DUNLAP, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
156
FELDER, JEREMY
1 transaction
$1,000
157
FELDER, JEREMY A.
1 transaction
$1,000
158
GALEY, ROMAN
1 transaction
$1,000
159
GARNER, LAKE
1 transaction
$1,000
160
GRUBBS, MACK
1 transaction
$1,000
161
HEBERT, CURTIS
1 transaction
$1,000
162
HENDERSON, LEON
1 transaction
$1,000
163
HOPKINS, NORRIS
1 transaction
$1,000
164
JOHNSEN, CHRISTIAN
1 transaction
$1,000
165
LACEY, JEFFREY
1 transaction
$1,000
166
LANGTON, EDWARD
1 transaction
$1,000
167
LEDBETTER, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
168
LOTT, TRENT
2 transactions
$1,000
169
LUCKEY, ALWYN
1 transaction
$1,000
170
MAVAR, VICTOR JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
171
MCCORMICK, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
172
MCKINNON, JOHN
1 transaction
$1,000
173
MILANESE, BRUNO
1 transaction
$1,000
174
MILES, CHRIS
1 transaction
$1,000
175
MILLER, JAMES
1 transaction
$1,000
176
NECAISE, MARSHA
1 transaction
$1,000
177
NELSON, KIPER
1 transaction
$1,000
178
NICAUD, KENT
1 transaction
$1,000
179
PARSONS, RICHARD SCOTT
1 transaction
$1,000
180
PAYNE, ALBERT
1 transaction
$1,000
181
PAYNE, THOMAS
1 transaction
$1,000
182
PIERCE, VERNON
1 transaction
$1,000
183
RIMES, DAVID
2 transactions
$1,000
184
ROBERTS, FORREST
1 transaction
$1,000
185
SAWYER, EARLINE
2 transactions
$1,000
186
SCOTT, TERRY
1 transaction
$1,000
187
SEYMOUR, MARK
1 transaction
$1,000
188
SHEMPER, DAVID
1 transaction
$1,000
189
SHEMPER, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$1,000
190
SHEMPER, MICHAEL J.
1 transaction
$1,000
191
SKRMETTA, LOUIS
1 transaction
$1,000
192
SMITH, G MARSHALL
1 transaction
$1,000
193
SNYDER, GAYLE C.
1 transaction
$1,000
194
SOLANGI, MOBASHIR
1 transaction
$1,000
195
SONGY, JOEY
1 transaction
$1,000
196
STIERS, WILLIAM
2 transactions
$1,000
197
SUDDUTH, H.M.
2 transactions
$1,000
198
WILLIAMS, ELIZABETH
2 transactions
$1,000
199
WILLS, JULIUS JR.
1 transaction
$1,000
200
WISE, PETER T.
1 transaction
$1,000
201
ZEA, TRACY
1 transaction
$1,000
202
HEATH, JOHN S.
1 transaction
$651
203
ANDERSON, DANNY
1 transaction
$600
204
BERTUCCI, PAUL
1 transaction
$600
205
COHOON, JANSEN
1 transaction
$520
206
GRANDBERRY, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$520
207
RATHBURN, KOLO
1 transaction
$520
208
ABBY, TERRY
1 transaction
$500
209
ADCOCK, SAMUEL
1 transaction
$500
210
ALETY, SAAT
1 transaction
$500
211
ANDERSON, ALLEN
1 transaction
$500
212
ASMAR JR., MITCHELL M.
1 transaction
$500
213
BARNES, RONALD
1 transaction
$500
214
BARTON, JOE
1 transaction
$500
215
BAYNARD, ERNEST
1 transaction
$500
216
BEARD, JOE
1 transaction
$500
217
BERNSTEIN, JORDAN
1 transaction
$500
218
BLACKLIDGE, BRITTANY
1 transaction
$500
219
BLAKESLEE, WILLIAM DUKE
1 transaction
$500
220
BLEVINS, HARRY
1 transaction
$500
221
BREAUX, LOUIS
1 transaction
$500
222
BROST, JOSHUA
1 transaction
$500
223
BURGE, RICHARD
1 transaction
$500
224
BUROW, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$500
225
BURROW, STEPHEN
1 transaction
$500
226
BUTLER, SUSAN
1 transaction
$500
227
CHABERT, SCOTTY E.
1 transaction
$500
228
CHAO, YI
1 transaction
$500
229
CHRISTIAN, LEE
1 transaction
$500
230
CLARK, GENE
1 transaction
$500
231
CLARKE, CARLISLE
1 transaction
$500
232
CLAUSER, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$500
233
COCHRAN, BILLY
1 transaction
$500
234
COCHRAN, WILLIAM T.
1 transaction
$500
235
COLE, M. RAY JR.
1 transaction
$500
236
COURTNEY, DAVID
1 transaction
$500
237
DELANEY, GLENN
1 transaction
$500
238
DEMETROPOULOS, STEVE
1 transaction
$500
239
DESCHER, WILLIAM
1 transaction
$500
240
DEWS, CHAD T.
1 transaction
$500
241
DRISKELL, KATHERINE M.
1 transaction
$500
242
DUCKER, TONY
1 transaction
$500
243
GARRIS, TODD
1 transaction
$500
244
GOODE, MICHAEL
1 transaction
$500
245
GRAHAM, MARK
1 transaction
$500
246
GREEN, MICHELLE
1 transaction
$500
247
GREENE, MICHELLE
1 transaction
$500
248
HALL, CARYN
1 transaction
$500
249
HALTERLEIN, VINCENT
1 transaction
$500
250
HARVISON, GUY
1 transaction
$500
251
HAWKS, THOMAS
1 transaction
$500
252
HECK, WADE
1 transaction
$500
253
HELLER, STEVE
1 transaction
$500
254
HERNANDEZ, RONY
1 transaction
$500
255
HEWES, BILLY
1 transaction
$500
256
HUNTER, , SETH
1 transaction
$500
257
KAISER, JAMES
1 transaction
$500
258
KASTNER, RALPH
1 transaction
$500
259
KLEIN, HERBERT III
1 transaction
$500
260
KREBS, DIANNA
1 transaction
$500
261
LAMBERTH, KEVIN
1 transaction
$500
262
LEE, DONNA
1 transaction
$500
263
LEE, JOHN
1 transaction
$500
264
LEE, PAT
1 transaction
$500
265
LUFFEY, MONTE
1 transaction
$500
266
MAPLES, GUS
1 transaction
$500
267
MCGOWN, JUNE
1 transaction
$500
268
MCPHILLIPS, JAMES
1 transaction
$500
269
MILES, CHRIS L.
1 transaction
$500
270
MILLER, HAL
1 transaction
$500
271
MILNE, JOHN
1 transaction
$500
272
MOORE, STEVEN
1 transaction
$500
273
MUNN, LORI
1 transaction
$500
274
NEAL, BRADEN
1 transaction
$500
275
NECAISE, HERMAN
1 transaction
$500
276
NELSON, MARK
1 transaction
$500
277
NEWTON, L.. BRUCE
1 transaction
$500
278
NORTON, JAMES
1 transaction
$500
279
PENTON, LEE
1 transaction
$500
280
PEPPER, MIKE
1 transaction
$500
281
REED, HEATHER C.
1 transaction
$500
282
SANDERSON, BRIAN
1 transaction
$500
283
SARTUCCI, JAMES
1 transaction
$500
284
SCHNAPPAUF, MATT
1 transaction
$500
285
SENS, SPENCER
1 transaction
$500
286
ST. PE, GERALD
1 transaction
$500
287
SUDDUTH, ALAN
1 transaction
$500
288
TAYLOR, AUSTIN
1 transaction
$500
289
TISDALE, L. WAYNE
1 transaction
$500
290
TOUART, MATT
1 transaction
$500
291
TROCHESSETT, JUSTIN
1 transaction
$500
292
WAITES, THAD F. M.D.
1 transaction
$500
293
WALKER, J SPARKMAN JR.
1 transaction
$500
294
WALKER, RUSSELL
1 transaction
$500
295
WIECK, TERESA
1 transaction
$500
296
WIGGINS, CHRIS
1 transaction
$500
297
WOWCZUK, YURIJ F.
1 transaction
$500
298
ZACHARY, TOM
1 transaction
$500
299
ZAKKAK, THOMAS
1 transaction
$500

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 2 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Rescom. Hernández, Pablo [D-PR-At Large]

ID: H001103

Top Contributors

0

No contribution data available

Del. Plaskett, Stacey E. [D-VI-At Large]

ID: P000610

Top Contributors

10

1
AK-CHIN INDIAN COMMUNITY
OrganizationMARICOPA, AZ
$1,000
Sep 20, 2024
2
DOWNS, PAUL RICHARD
TYCHEROS CAPITAL MANAGEMENT • CEO
IndividualCHRISTIANSTED, VI
$6,600
Apr 18, 2023
3
DOWNS, PAUL RICHARD
IndividualCHRISTIANSTED, VI
$6,600
Apr 23, 2023
4
WELTERS, ANTHONY
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualMCLEAN, VA
$3,300
Dec 31, 2023
5
HOLT, JOEL H.
SELF EMPLOYED • LAWYER
IndividualCHRISTIANSTED, VI
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
6
HOLT, JACQUELINE L.
RETIRED • RETIRED
IndividualCHRISTIANSTED, VI
$3,300
Oct 7, 2024
7
HENRY, SUDAFI
THEGROUP • ATTORNEY
IndividualTAKOMA PARK, MD
$3,300
Jan 18, 2024
8
THOMPSON, DARREL
THEGROUP • CONSULTANT
IndividualWASHINGTON, DC
$3,300
Jan 18, 2024
9
SKURNIK, MICHAEL
SELF • WHOLESALE WINE DISTRIBUTORS
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Apr 10, 2023
10
SKURNIK, MICHAEL
SELF • WHOLESALE WINE DISTRIBUTORS
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Apr 10, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Loading...

Showing 41 nodes and 32 connections (42 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $90,200

Top Donors - Rep. Ezell, Mike [R-MS-4]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

8 Orgs16 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 3 helped.

  • Section 2(a)(1) aims to streamline and consolidate information collection for disaster assistance applicants and grantees, which could reduce administrative burdens on insurance companies involved in disaster relief efforts.

  • Section 2(b)(3) mentions the potential use of emerging technologies like unmanned aircraft systems to expedite preliminary damage assessments, which could benefit construction and engineering firms involved in disaster recovery projects.

  • +Commercial Banksconfidence 0.60

    Section 2(a)(2) requires the development of a plan for regular collection and reporting of information on Federal disaster assistance awarded, which could provide more transparency and stability for commercial banks involved in disaster relief financing.

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Homeland Security

Moderate
Vector: 68%
Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill shares Project 2025's focus on improving FEMA's efficiency, reducing duplication, and enhancing transparency in disaster assistance, but it does not address the specific reforms proposed in Project 2025 such as adjusting the per capita indicator, changing cost‑share arrangements, winding down NFIP, or terminating preparedness grants."

Key themes:disaster assistance efficiencyreducing duplicationtransparency and accountabilityinteragency coordinationstreamlining processes

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides — 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners

Department of Homeland Security

Moderate
Vector: 68%
Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on streamlining FEMA disaster assistance processes, reducing duplication, and improving transparency—goals that align with Project 2025’s broader aim to make FEMA more efficient and less overtasked. However, it does not directly address the specific FEMA reforms proposed in Project 2025, such as adjusting the per capita indicator, changing cost‑share arrangements, or emphasizing federalism."

Key themes:disaster assistance efficiencyprocess streamliningreducing duplicationtransparency and accountabilityinteragency coordination

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Moderate
Vector: 64%
Pages: 545-547AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill's goals of streamlining disaster assistance, reducing duplication, and enhancing transparency align with HUD's reform objectives to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse and improve administrative efficiency, though the bill is broader than HUD-specific initiatives."

Key themes:disaster assistance coordinationstreamlining information collectionreducing duplication/fragmentationtransparency and accountabilityinteragency working group

— 513 — Department of Housing and Urban Development ENDNOTES 1. At a 1998 Senate hearing, then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo acknowledged that the department “faced a competence gap” and had “the dubious distinction of being the only federal agency designated as ‘high risk’ by the General Accounting [now Government Accountability] Office (GAO),” even referencing the Section 8 rental subsidy as “on the brink of becoming the next savings and loan scandal,” and explained how the department was stepping up enforcement efforts “focused on closing the competence gap by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.” See “Testimony of Secretary Andrew Cuomo before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies,” March 25, 1998, https://archives.hud.gov/ testimony/1998/tst32598.cfm (accessed March 4, 2023). 2. H.R. 7984, Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-117, 89th Congress, August 10, 1965, https://www.congress.gov/89/statute/STATUTE-79/STATUTE-79-Pg451.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 3. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Budget in Brief, pp. 2 and 7, https://www.hud.gov/ sites/dfiles/CFO/documents/2023_BudgetInBriefFINAL.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 4. For example, the Special Applications Center (SAC) located in Chicago, Illinois, was established in 1998 as a division of the Office of Public and Indian Housing to accept, review, and approve all nonfunded, noncompetitive applications and plans for demolition, disposition, and conversion of land subject to an annual contributions contract (ACC) in public housing. 5. The Secretary has delegated full authority for the Administration and enforcement of the Fair Housing Act to the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity but also has delegated limited assignment and decision-making authority to the General Counsel. 6. Effectively the HUD Chief Operating Officer and appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent. 7. The Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) is an independent adjudicatory office within the Office of the Secretary. Led by a Director who is appointed by the Secretary, it supervises the Administrative Judges of the Office of Appeals, the administrative law judges of the Office of Administrative Law Judges, and the OHA support staff. The HUD Secretary appoints administrative judges and administrative law judges in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 5, https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/ chapter-5 (accessed March 4, 2023). 8. HUD currently has a Departmental Equity Assessment Working Group, supported with five FTEs funded by the OSDBU, “as part of the President’s Executive Order 13985, Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.” See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-15, https://www.hud.gov/sites/ dfiles/CFO/documents/2023HUDCongressionalJustificationsFINALelectronicversion.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023), and President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Executive Order 13985, “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” January 20, 2021, in Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 14 (January 25, 2021), pp. 7009–7013, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-01-25/pdf/2021- 01753.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 9. Interestingly, “[t]he 2023 President’s Budget requests $748 thousand for CFBNP, which is $436 thousand less than the 2022 Annualized CR level. The Budget reflects total funding (carryover and new authority) of $1.2 million, $448 thousand less than 2022 total funding.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 35-16. 10. See H.R. 558, Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act, Public Law No. 100-77, 100th Congress, July 22, 1987, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-101/pdf/STATUTE-101-Pg482.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). Later renamed the McKinney–Vento Homeless Assistance Act. 11. Established under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5301 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 12. S. 566, Cranston–Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act, Public Law No. 101-625, 101st Congress, November 28, 1990, Title II, https://www.congress.gov/101/statute/STATUTE-104/STATUTE-104-Pg4079.pdf (accessed March 5, 2023). 13. S. 1, Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law No. 91-646, 91st Congress, January 2, 1971, https://www.congress.gov/91/statute/STATUTE-84/STATUTE-84-Pg1894.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). “The URA establishes the minimum Federal requirements for the acquisition of real property for Federally-funded programs and projects, and for the relocation of persons who must move from — 514 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise their homes, businesses, or farms as a direct result of acquisition, rehabilitation, or demolition for a Federally- funded program or project.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD Exchange, “49 CFR Part 24–URA Regulations,” published February 2005, https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/804/ura-and- real-property-acquisition-policies-act-49-cfr-part-24/ (accessed March 4, 2023). HUD is one of the 18 federal departments and agencies that “are subject to the Uniform Act.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, “Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition for Federal and Federally Assisted Programs,” Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 243 (December 18, 2019), pp. 69466–69521, esp. p. 69484, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-12-18/pdf/2019-25558.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 14. H.R. 3219, Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of 1996, Public Law No. 104-330, 104th Congress, October 26, 1996, https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ330/PLAW-104publ330.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 15. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, p. 6-1. The U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (Wagner–Steagall Act) established the origins of locally chartered housing agencies that administer federal funding for various rental assistance programs—a quintessentially progressive New Deal–era policy that expanded the administrative state’s powers to the housing market—with the primary legislative intent of eradicating slum housing in urban areas, boosting jobs, and providing housing for the working poor. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). A decade later, the Housing Act of 1949 codified federal standards for housing livability—a rationale that HUD and federal legislators have continued to use to justify federal intervention in housing—establishing as a national policy objective the provision of a minimum standard of housing quality for all Americans. This legislation also statutorily established many of the rural housing programs that are administered at USDA and expanded programs facilitating the removal of slum housing in urban areas. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1441 et seq., https:// www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 16. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023 Congressional Justifications, pp. 1-2 and 2-2. 17. The National Housing Act of 1934 established the FHA and the statutory authority for the secondary market. The main stated premise was to stimulate jobs and facilitate the housing and construction sector during the Great Depression. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/12 (accessed March 4, 2023). 18. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42 (accessed March 4, 2023). 19. 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq., https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29 (accessed March 4, 2023). 20. HUD’s Departmental Enforcement Center (DEC) is led by a Director. It was established in 1998 as part of a broader effort to streamline and consolidate functions at HUD and was later merged with the Office of General Counsel. The DEC “is comprised of the Office of the Director, the Compliance Division, the Operations Division and five Satellite Offices” and describes its mission as “assuring the highest standards of ethics, management and accountability in the resolution of HUD's troubled properties.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Departmental Enforcement Center, “Program Offices: Departmental Enforcement Center,” https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/enforcement (accessed March 4, 2023). 21. H.R. 5334, Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Public Law No. 102-1017, 102nd Congress, October 28, 1992, Title X, https://www.congress.gov/102/statute/STATUTE-106/STATUTE-106-Pg3672.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 22. H.R. 8588, Inspector General Act of 1978, Public Law No. 95-452, 95th Congress, October 12, 1978, https://www. congress.gov/95/statute/STATUTE-92/STATUTE-92-Pg1101.pdf (accessed March 4, 2023). 23. Guiding questions: What immediate administrative reforms of HUD and its programs can be made with high probability of success? What short-term legislative reforms can be proposed that, in tandem with administrative reforms, would achieve the HUD vision/mission objective? What HUD offices should be eliminated and/or realigned to reduce any redundancy that may persist in programmatic functions? 24. Wholly aside from reforms that would require legislation, the next Administration must ensure that key political appointees are able to acquit themselves as change agents to execute administrative reforms. Otherwise, whether because of a sheer lack of skill and expertise or simply a lack of will and philosophical alignment with reforms, staff may frustrate the efforts of committed political appointee staff and leadership to execute substantive administrative reforms. To achieve the policy and regulatory reforms outlined in this chapter, political appointees must be carefully placed in positions that reflect not only technical, market/ industry, and operational expertise, but also a shared will and commitment.

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Full Policy Text

Related Bills