PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 81 · Passed House without amendment · Jun 20, 2006
(This measure has not been amended since it was reported to the House on May 19, 2006. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005 - Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit fraud in any matter involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with a major disaster or emergency declaration under the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 or in connection with the procurement of property or services related to a disaster by a contractor or supplier. Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to 30 years for violations.
Imposes a fine of $1 million and/or prison term of up to 30 years for wire, radio, television, or mail fraud in connection with a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency.
Directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to: (1) promulgate or amend sentencing guidelines to provide for increased penalties for persons convicted of fraud or theft offenses in connection with a major disaster or emergency declaration; and (2) submit to the Judiciary Committees of Congress an explanation of actions taken to combat such offenses.
People & committees
Rep. Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr. [R-WI-5] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H4231-4232)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H4231-4232)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4356.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4231-4233)
Mr. Sensenbrenner moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 261.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-473.
Reported by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 109-473.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Discharged.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 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.4356 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.4356 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.4356 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.4356 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.