PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 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.1164 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.1164 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.1164 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.1164 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.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-10 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Fair Disaster Assistance Act of 2025 would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to protect certain disaster-assistance applicants from receiving denial notices while their insurance claims remain undecided. It would cover applicants who report insurance for a home or facility they own that was damaged by a declared major disaster. The proposal concerns when denial notices can be sent.
This Act may be cited as the Fair Disaster Assistance Act of 2025.
The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall issue such regulations as are necessary to ensure that an applicant for assistance under section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174) that has indicated ownership of an insurance policy for a home or facility damaged by a major disaster declared under section 401 of such Act that is owned by such applicant does not receive a notice that indicates a denial of assistance before a final determination has been made regarding the approval or denial of a claim under such policy.
Section 2 would direct FEMA's Administrator to issue the regulations needed to implement the notice restriction. It would apply to assistance applications under section 408 of the Stafford Act when the applicant reports owning an insurance policy covering their own home or facility damaged by a major disaster declared under section 401. The restriction would last until a final determination approving or denying the insurance claim.
The Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall issue such regulations as are necessary to ensure that an applicant for assistance under section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5174) that has indicated ownership of an insurance policy for a home or facility damaged by a major disaster declared under section 401 of such Act that is owned by such applicant does not receive a notice that indicates a denial of assistance before a final determination has been made regarding the approval or denial of a claim under such policy.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated May 14, 2025, records introduction in the House on February 10, 2025, and referrals that day to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and its Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Source snapshot updated 2025-05-14T13:10:13Z. 2025-02-10: Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management. 2025-02-10: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 2025-02-10: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-10. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark disclosures and committee materials were not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential carve-out was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. Its coverage defines the intended beneficiaries of the notice protection. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 14, 2025. How PlainBill uses AI