PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 16, 2011
Homeland Security Grant Management Improvement Act - Amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to prohibit the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from requiring the recipient of a grant under the Urban Area Security Initiative or the State Homeland Security Grant Program to use a specified percentage of such grant for any one of the specified permitted uses.
Directs the Administrator to: (1) study the use of grant funds for administrative expenses; (2) determine whether 3% of the grant amount is adequate to ensure proper oversight, management, and administration of the grant; and (3) report recommendations on whether such percentage should be adjusted to better reflect administrative costs to grant recipients.
Requires the Administrator to study the feasibility, advantages, and disadvantages of issuing multiyear program guidance for such grants.
People & committees
Rep. Richardson, Laura [D-CA-37] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response and Communications.
Referred to the House Committee on Homeland Security.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1129 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1129 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1129 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1129 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.