HR-2907-119
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Sponsored by Greg Stanton (D-AZ)
What it does
This bill would amend the Stafford Act to change FEMA's predisaster mitigation assistance from discretionary ("may") to mandatory ("shall"). It would require the President to provide financial assistance to states and localities for measures taken before a disaster occurs to reduce future damage, effectively restoring a mandatory version of the program known as Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC), which the findings state was cancelled in 2025 with over $4 billion in grants withdrawn.
Who benefits
State and local governments seeking predisaster mitigation funding, particularly in flood, hurricane, wildfire, and earthquake-prone areas. Communities that had BRIC applications pending or grants clawed back would regain access to funding. Engineering and construction firms that carry out mitigation projects, and insurers who benefit from reduced disaster claims, would also gain.
Who is hurt
The executive branch would lose discretion over whether and how to allocate mitigation funds, potentially constraining budget prioritization during competing fiscal demands. Taxpayers would bear the cost of mandatory spending that is no longer subject to executive discretion. Communities or regions that might have received priority under a discretionary allocation process could see funding distributed differently under mandatory criteria.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that predisaster mitigation saves taxpayer money in the long run, citing research showing every $1 spent on mitigation saves up to $13 in recovery costs, and that making the program mandatory prevents future administrations from unilaterally cancelling funding that Congress intended communities to rely on. They contend that the 2025 cancellation and clawback of over $4 billion in grants left vulnerable communities without resources they had already planned around, and that statutory language removing executive discretion is necessary to ensure predictable, continuous funding for disaster-prone areas.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that converting discretionary mitigation assistance into a mandatory obligation removes the executive branch's flexibility to adjust disaster spending priorities based on emerging needs, budget constraints, or program performance concerns that may have justified the 2025 cancellation. They contend that mandating spending through a two-word statutory change bypasses a fuller legislative and administrative review of how mitigation funds should be allocated, and that locking in "shall" language could commit federal resources without sufficient oversight mechanisms for cost-effectiveness.
Constitutional context
Congress holds the Appropriations Clause power to direct how federal disaster relief funds are spent, and by converting discretionary language to mandatory language, this bill exercises that Article I authority to constrain executive spending discretion, similar to the tension examined in Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer regarding limits on unilateral executive action absent or contrary to congressional direction.
Checks and balances
Congress would gain leverage over the executive branch by converting a discretionary FEMA program into a mandatory one, narrowing the President's ability to withhold or redirect predisaster mitigation funds without new legislation.
Historical precedent
The BRIC program itself was created administratively in 2019 under existing Stafford Act discretionary authority, but this bill would be the first instance of Congress converting that specific mitigation assistance provision from discretionary to mandatory.