PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 15, 2025
Housing Survivors of Major Disasters Act
This bill expands eligibility for disaster housing assistance under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Individuals and Households Program (IHP) with respect to property damage, availability of housing resources, and constructive (i.e., implied) ownership.
Specifically, the bill lowers the level of damage required to be eligible for IHP housing assistance, so the residence must be damaged by a major disaster instead of rendered uninhabitable.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Also, under current law, FEMA is authorized to provide IHP assistance for permanent housing construction where (1) no alternative housing resources are available; and (2) other types of temporary housing assistance are unavailable, infeasible, or not cost-effective. The bill authorizes IHP permanent housing construction where FEMA determines such assistance is a cost-effective alternative to other housing solutions, such as providing for temporary housing costs.
Additionally, the bill requires FEMA to consider an individual's or household’s claim of constructive ownership, where evidence supports such ownership is more likely than not, when determining eligibility for IHP financial assistance for home repair or replacement for a residence without documented ownership rights. FEMA must consider all evidence provided (e.g., deeds, tax receipts, insurance documents) when determining whether constructive ownership more likely than not exists. If FEMA determines the evidence is insufficient, FEMA may require a signed declarative statement describing the constructive ownership.
People & committees
Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13] · D–NY
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 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
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: Sep 19, 2026. 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.426 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.426 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.426 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.426 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.