Emergency Reporting Act

Download PDF
Bill ID: 119/hr/5200
Last Updated: July 16, 2026

Sponsored by

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

ID: M001163

Follow the money

The bill

Emergency Reporting Act

HR. 5200, 119th Congress — read as touching Telecommunications.

The sponsor

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

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

The money

$70,500 raised

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

The alignment

55% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Financial Regulatory Agencies" section, p. 879-881 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. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 375.

April 20, 2026

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 brilliant example of legislative theater, courtesy of the 119th Congress. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Emergency Reporting Act (HR 5200) claims to improve network outage reporting and provide better information to emergency responders during disasters. How quaint. In reality, it's just a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, designed to make politicians look like they're doing something while actually accomplishing nothing.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to hold public hearings and issue reports after activating the Disaster Information Reporting System. It also mandates an investigation into improving network outage reporting, because, apparently, the current system is a hot mess. Oh, and let's not forget the obligatory "rule of construction" clause, which ensures that the FCC doesn't overstep its authority – a classic example of legislative CYA.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects are involved: state and local governments, Indian tribal governments, communications service providers, consumer advocates, and first responders. You know, the same people who will be affected by this bill's inevitable ineffectiveness.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a prime example of "legislative lip service." It promises to improve disaster response, but in reality, it's just a feel-good measure designed to placate voters. The real impact will be minimal, as the underlying issues – outdated infrastructure, inadequate funding, and bureaucratic red tape – remain unaddressed. Meanwhile, the FCC will get to hold hearings, issue reports, and pretend like they're doing something useful.

In medical terms, this bill is akin to treating a patient's symptoms without addressing the underlying disease. It's a classic case of " legislative placebo effect," where politicians prescribe a sugar pill to make voters feel better, while the actual problems continue to fester. The diagnosis? Acute stupidity, chronic cowardice, and a healthy dose of corruption.

To summarize: HR 5200 is a pointless exercise in legislative theater, designed to make politicians look good while accomplishing nothing meaningful. It's a waste of time, money, and resources – a perfect example of how our government excels at doing nothing effectively. Bravo, Congress! You've managed to create another bill that will inevitably disappoint and underwhelm. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than watch this train wreck unfold.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions
$70,500
21 donors
PACs
$2,500
Organizations
$2,000
Committees
$0
Individuals
$66,000
1
SOCIETY OF INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
1 transaction
$2,500
1
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
1 transaction
$2,000

No committee contributions found

1
HALE, KAREN
2 transactions
$6,600
2
KINNEY, MARY
1 transaction
$3,300
3
KONG, MINDY
1 transaction
$3,300
4
TSAKOPOULOS, KATINA
1 transaction
$3,300
5
TSAKOPOULOS, SOFIA
1 transaction
$3,300
6
VISMARA, LOUIS A.
1 transaction
$3,300
7
WAGNER, BELAN KIRK
1 transaction
$3,300
8
KELLEY, LARRY D.
1 transaction
$3,300
9
FRIEDMAN, MARK L.
1 transaction
$3,300
10
SYPHAX, CELESTINE
1 transaction
$3,300
11
FRIEDMAN, MARJORIE SOLOMON
1 transaction
$3,300
12
TAYLOR, JOHN M.
1 transaction
$3,300
13
SANT, ROGER W.
1 transaction
$3,300
14
KONG, CLEMENT J.
1 transaction
$3,300
15
BRUNNER, DANIEL
1 transaction
$3,300
16
FRIEDMAN, MARCINE
1 transaction
$3,300
17
HALE, ROBERT
1 transaction
$3,300
18
THOMAS, TINA
1 transaction
$3,300
19
SMIRA, MICHELLE
1 transaction
$3,300

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

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

Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12]

ID: B001257

Top Contributors

10

1
COOL MASTER PRO LLC
OrganizationTAMPA, FL
$6,600
Mar 8, 2023
2
ARTECHE, LEON
V-ME MEDIA INC. • CFO
IndividualDORAL, FL
$5,000
Jan 18, 2024
3
OF FLORIDA, SEMINOLE TRIBE
EMPLOYEE RECOGNIZED TRIBE
IndividualHOLLYWOOD, FL
$3,300
Aug 2, 2024
4
LAGOS, JAMES H.
LAGOS LAGOS, PLL • ATTORNEY
IndividualSPRINGFIELD, OH
$3,300
Sep 9, 2024
5
RICE, WILLIAM LLOYD
FALFURRIAS CAPITAL PARTNERS
IndividualMINT HILL, NC
$3,300
Sep 30, 2024
6
WANEK, RON
ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC • CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
7
WANEK, TODD
ASHLEY FURNITURE • CEO
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
8
WANEK, JOYCE
N/A • N/A
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 18, 2024
9
WANEK, KAREN
SUPERIOR FRESH • OWNER
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 17, 2024
10
HEPSCHER, WILLIAM S
RX MANAGE USA • BUSINESS OWNER
IndividualTAMPA, FL
$3,300
Oct 30, 2024

Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44]

ID: B001300

Top Contributors

10

1
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
2
FEDERATED INDIANS OF GRATON RANCHERIA
OrganizationROHNERT PARK, CA
$3,300
Mar 5, 2024
3
CHEROKEE NATION
OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK
$2,500
Dec 14, 2023
4
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$2,000
Apr 22, 2024
5
BARONA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationLAKESIDE, CA
$1,500
May 19, 2023
6
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
OrganizationBANNING, CA
$1,000
Dec 14, 2023
7
FISHER, CYNTHIA
PATIENTRIGHTSADVOCATE.ORG • FOUNDER
IndividualPALM BEACH, FL
$3,300
Oct 22, 2024
8
GURAL, JEFFREY R.
GFP REAL ESTATE • CHAIRMAN
IndividualNEW YORK, NY
$3,300
Nov 4, 2024
9
MILLER, LOUIS
MILLER BARONDESS • ATTORNEY
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Dec 15, 2023
10
TUCHIN, MICHAEL
KTBS LAW LLP • ATTORNEY
IndividualLOS ANGELES, CA
$3,300
Dec 9, 2023

Donor Network - Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

PACs
Organizations
Individuals
Politicians

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

Loading...

Showing 49 nodes and 28 connections (43 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $94,500

Top Donors - Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

1 PAC1 Org19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

  • +Telecommunicationsconfidence 0.90

    Section 2(a)(1)(B)(iii) requires inclusion of providers of communications services affected by events in public hearings; Section 2(b) directs FCC to investigate and report on improvements to network outage reporting, including value to public safety agencies and burden on originating service providers, which could lead to regulatory changes benefiting telecom firms through clearer guidelines and potential funding for resilience.

  • +Electric Utilitiesconfidence 0.85

    Section 2(a)(1)(B)(vi) explicitly includes electric utility providers among those to be considered for inclusion in public hearings after disaster events, indicating recognition of their role in disaster response and potential for improved coordination, which could benefit utilities through better information sharing and resilience planning.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Rep. Matsui, Doris O. [D-CA-7])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

  • from 4 contributions
    • ERGEN, CHARLES$3,300
    • ERGEN, CANTEY$3,300
    • KATZIN, LAWRENCE$1,500
    • SCHANMAN, GARY$1,500
  • from 2 contributions
    • MCINTYRE, YVONNE$1,000

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.

Financial Regulatory Agencies

Weak
Vector: 66%
Pages: 879-881AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Emergency Reporting Act focuses on improving FCC disaster reporting and network resilience, which is unrelated to Project 2025's FCC priorities of reining in Big Tech, promoting national security, unleashing economic prosperity, and ensuring FCC accountability. There is no meaningful overlap in objectives or themes."

Key themes:FCCaccountability

— 847 — Federal Communications Commission The FCC has facilitated the transition from 3G to 4G and now 5G offerings in two ways. First, it has freed spectrum—the airwaves needed to deliver wireless ser- vices. Second, it has preempted state and local siting and permitting laws that could otherwise slow down the buildout of next-generation infrastructure. One of the FCC’s great success stories from 2017 to 2020 was securing U.S. leadership in 5G. The FCC also administers an approximately roughly $9 billion-a-year program called the Universal Service Fund (USF), which has been funded by a line-item charge that traditional telephone companies add to consumers’ monthly bills. Expenditures from this fund subsidize rural broadband networks and low-income programs as well as connections for schools, libraries, and rural health care facil- ities. Through various COVID-era laws, Congress has also provided the FCC with a one-time $24 billion appropriation for various low-income initiatives. POLICY PRIORITIES The FCC needs to change course and bring new urgency to achieving four main goals: l Reining in Big Tech, l Promoting national security, l Unleashing economic prosperity, and l Ensuring FCC accountability and good governance.15 Reining in Big Tech. The FCC has an important role to play in addressing the threats to individual liberty posed by corporations that are abusing dominant positions in the market. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to Big Tech and its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square. Today, a handful of corporations can shape everything from the information we consume to the places we shop. These corporate behemoths are not merely exercising market power; they are abusing dominant positions. They are not simply prevailing in the free market; they are taking advantage of a landscape that has been skewed—in many cases by the government—to favor their business models over those of their competitors. It is hard to imagine another industry in which a greater gap exists between power and accountability. That is why a new Adminis- tration should support FCC action on several fronts. Specifically, the FFC should: l Eliminate immunities that courts added to Section 230. The FCC should issue an order that interprets Section 230 in a way that eliminates the expansive, non-textual immunities that courts have read into the statute. — 848 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise As one of the FCC’s previous General Counsels noted, the FCC has authority to take this action because Section 230 is codified in the Communications Act.16 The FCC’s Section 230 reforms should track the positions outlined in a July 2020 Petition for Rulemaking filed at the FCC near the end of the Trump Administration.17 Any new presidential Administration should consider filing a similar or new petition. As Justice Clarence Thomas has made clear, courts have construed Section 230 broadly to confer on some of the world’s largest companies a sweeping immunity that is found nowhere in the text of the statute.18 They have done so in a way that nullifies the limits Congress placed on the types of actions that Internet companies can take while continuing to benefit from Section 230. One way to start correcting this error is for the FCC to remind courts how the various portions of Section 230 operate. At the outset, the FCC can clarify that Section 230(c)(1) does not apply broadly to every decision that a platform makes. Rather, its protections apply only when a platform does not remove information provided by someone else. In contrast, the FCC should clarify that the more limited Section 230(c)(2) protections apply to any covered platform’s decision to restrict access to material provided by someone else. Combined, these actions will appropriately limit the number of cases in which a platform can censor with the benefit of Section 230’s protections. Such clarifications might also include drawing out the traditional legal distinction between distributor and publisher liability; Section 230 did not do away with the former, nor does it collapse into the latter. l Impose transparency rules on Big Tech. Today, Big Tech offers a black box. After Google manipulates search results, a small business can see its web traffic drop precipitously overnight for no apparent reason, potentially flipping its outlook from black to red. On Facebook, social media posts are left up or taken down, accounts suspended or permanently banned, without any apparent consistency. Out of the blue, YouTube can demonetize individuals who have risked their capital and invested their labor to build online businesses. At present, the FCC requires broadband providers to comply with a transparency rule that can provide a good baseline for Big Tech. Under the FCC’s rule, broadband providers must provide detailed disclosures about practices that would shape Internet traffic—from blocking to prioritizing or discriminating against content. The FCC could take a similar approach to

Federal Communications Commission

Weak
Vector: 64%
Pages: 882-884AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Emergency Reporting Act focuses on improving FCC data collection and reporting of network outages during disasters, which does not address the Project 2025 FCC priorities of Section 230 reform, Big Tech accountability, or Universal Service Fund contributions. The only shared elements are the FCC's regulatory role and a general interest in consumer protection."

Key themes:FCC oversightconsumer protectionemergency communicationsnetwork resilience

— 849 — Federal Communications Commission Big Tech, and it should look to Section 230 and the Consolidated Reporting Act as potential sources of authority.19 In acting, the FCC could require these platforms to provide greater specificity regarding their terms of service, and it could hold them accountable by prohibiting actions that are inconsistent with those plain and particular terms. Within this framework, Big Tech should be required to offer a transparent appeals process that allows for the challenging of pretextual takedowns or other actions that violate clear rules of the road. l Support legislation that scraps Section 230’s current approach. The FCC should work with Congress on more fundamental Section 230 reforms that go beyond interpreting its current terms. Congress should do so by ensuring that Internet companies no longer have carte blanche to censor protected speech while maintaining their Section 230 protections. As part of those reforms, the FCC should work with Congress to ensure that antidiscrimination provisions are applied to Big Tech—including “back-end” companies that provide hosting services and DDoS protection. Reforms that prohibit discrimination against core political viewpoints are one way to do this and would track the approach taken in a social media law passed in Texas, which was upheld on appeal in late 2022 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.20 In all of this, Congress can make certain points clear. It could focus legislation on dominant, general-use platforms rather than specialized ones. This could include excluding comment sections in online publications, specialized message boards, or communities within larger platforms that self-moderate. Similarly, Congress could legislate in a way that does not require any platform to host illegal content; child pornography; terrorist speech; and indecent, profane, or similar categories of speech that Congress has previously carved out. l Support efforts to empower consumers. The FCC and Congress should work together to formulate rules that empower consumers. Section 230 itself codifies “user control” as an express policy goal and encourages Internet platforms to provide tools that will “empower” users to engage in their own content moderation. As Congress takes up reforms, it should therefore be mindful of how we can return to Internet users the power to control their online experiences. One idea is to empower consumers to choose their own content filters and fact checkers, if any. The FCC should also work with Congress to ensure stronger protections against young children accessing social media sites despite age restrictions that generally prohibit their use of these sites. — 850 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise It should be noted at this point that the views expressed here are not shared uniformly by all conservatives. There are some, including contributors to this chapter, who do not think that the FCC or Congress should act in a way that regulates the content-moderation decisions of private platforms. One of the main arguments that this group offers is that doing so would intrude— unlawfully in their view—on the First Amendment rights of corporations to exclude content from their private platforms. l Require that Big Tech begin to contribute a fair share. Big Tech has avoided accountability in several additional ways as well. One of them concerns the FCC’s roughly $9 billion Universal Service Fund. This initiative provides the support necessary to subsidize the agency’s affordable Internet and rural connectivity programs. The FCC obtains this funding through a line-item charge that carriers add to consumers’ monthly bills for traditional telecommunications service. While Big Tech derives tremendous value from the federal government’s universal service investments—using those federally supported networks to deliver their products and realize significant profits—these large corporations have avoided paying a fair share into the program. On top of that, the FCC’s current funding mechanism has been on an unsustainable path.21 By requiring traditional telephone customers to contribute to a fund that is being used increasingly to support broadband networks, the FCC’s current approach is the regulatory equivalent of taxing horseshoes to pay for highways. To put the FCC’s universal service program on a stable footing, Congress should require Big Tech companies to start contributing an appropriate amount. Conservatives are not unanimous in agreeing that the FCC should expand the USF contribution base. Instead, some argue that Congress should revisit the program’s entire funding structure and determine whether to continue subsidizing the provision of service. Future funding decisions, the argument goes, should be made by Congress through the normal appropriation process through which the USF program can compete for funding with other national initiatives. These decisions should be made with an eye to right-sizing the federal government’s existing broadband initiatives in light of both technological advances and the recent influx of billions of dollars in new appropriations that can be used to support efforts to end the digital divide. Protecting America’s National Security. During the Trump Administra- tion, the FCC ushered in a new and appropriately strong approach to the national

Department of Energy and Related Commissions

Weak
Vector: 63%
Pages: 434-436AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The Emergency Reporting Act focuses on improving communication network resilience and outage reporting during disasters, which is unrelated to Project 2025's energy policy objectives concerning electric grid reliability, reserve margins, renewable subsidies, and natural gas infrastructure. There is no direct thematic or policy overlap between the bill's telecommunications focus and the energy market reforms outlined in the Project 2025 section."

Key themes:resilienceinfrastructure

— 401 — Department of Energy and Related Commissions nation in the summer110 and winter.111 Cyber and physical attacks also threaten the grid. Specific areas for reform include the following: l Limit the impact of subsidized renewables on price formation. Subsidized renewable resources are undermining electric reliability in RTOs. The increase in subsidized, intermittent resources is undermining the ability of RTOs’ pricing models to support the reliable dispatchable generation that is needed to serve the grid at all times.112 l Reform the application of reserve margins. Reserve margins have become largely meaningless. Traditionally, the electric industry has used “reserve margins” to ensure that the grid has enough power plants to guarantee reliability. Generally, reserve margins represent the amount of generation available (power plants) to meet peak electric demand (the time of day and year when people are using the most electricity) plus a percentage of additional generation for backup.113 However, given the increasing number of intermittent resources (like solar, which may be available during the heat of the day but disappears as the sun sets), other dispatchable generation needs to be available to meet customers’ electricity requirements. Therefore, the definitions and calculations of reserve margins and peak load need to be updated to focus on the modern grid’s reliability challenges for all times of the day and year. l Recognize the interdependence of electric generation and natural gas. The interdependence of electric generation and natural gas pipelines continues to grow. Given natural gas’s important role in generating electricity, especially as backup when renewables are not available, lack of natural gas pipelines or attacks on existing pipelines could threaten our ability to generate electricity. l Expand resource diversity and reliability. Resource diversity is needed to support grid reliability. Pressure to use 100 percent renewables or non– carbon emitting resources threatens the electric grid’s reliability. A grid that has access to dispatchable resources such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas for generating power is inherently more reliable and resilient. l Protect against cyber and physical attacks. The threat of cyber and physical attacks on electric infrastructure by foreign actors like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, as well as terrorists, continues to grow. The attacks with guns on substations in North Carolina in December 2022 that left customers without power demonstrate the grid’s vulnerability.114 — 402 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise New Policies l Reform RTOs to require reliability. FERC should direct RTOs to establish reliability pricing for eligible dispatchable generation resources or require intermittent resources to procure backup power for times when they are not available to operate. In addition, Congress should repeal subsidies for generation resources. l Update the definition and calculation of reserve margins to support reliability. FERC, NERC, and DOE should revise the definition of reserve margins to ensure the grid’s reliability throughout the day and the year. This will mean recognizing that reserve margins may need to consider “net peak” and exclude non-dispatchable resources from inclusion in reserve margin calculations. l Expand and protect natural gas infrastructure in support of electric generation. FERC needs to ensure that its consideration of natural gas pipeline applications recognizes the role that natural gas plays in electric reliability. FERC also needs to make sure that RTO pricing mechanisms support generators that need to contract for natural gas service on a firm basis. l Support resource diversity and reliability. FERC, NERC, and DOE play key roles in balancing consumer, industrial, and national defense interests to ensure an ongoing reliable, plentiful, and accessible national electricity supply. NERC reliability reviews and FERC’s reliability roles should be aware that overreliance on any one power generation fuel source entails concurrent cost and availability risk. FERC should reform market rules that unduly discriminate against dispatchable resources needed for reliability. l Strengthen security against cyber and physical threats. FERC and NERC need to enhance the security of the bulk power system by, for example, banning Chinese-made components, investing in transformers, and hardening substations and other critical infrastructure. DOE should play a leading role in identifying and addressing threats to the grid. FERC: RTOS/ISOS AND “ELECTRIC POWER MARKETS” Mission/Overview For more than 20 years, FERC has issued regulations and directed policies for the creation and operation of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) and independent system operators (ISOs) to manage the dispatch of generation and

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