To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to reestablish the hazard mitigation program cap at 15 percent of major disaster assistance, and for other purposes.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 6, 2005
Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to: (1) increase from 75 % to 90% the amount the President may contribute toward the cost of cost-effective hazard mitigation measures which substantially reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering in any area affected by a major disaster; and (2) double from 7.5% to 15% of the estimated aggregate amount of federal disaster relief grants to be made with respect to a major disaster the limit on the total amount of contributions the President may make for cost-effective hazard mitigation measures in the disaster area.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 2, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.4442 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.4442 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.4442 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.4442 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.