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 · Jul 21, 2025
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities for All Act of 2025
This bill changes grants historically provided under the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program from competitive grants to noncompetitive formula grants allocated to each eligible state. These grants fund activities that reduce risk from natural hazards. The bill also provides eligibility for projects to receive grant funds from two different mitigation programs.
Under current law, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may provide BRIC grants to states and Indian tribal governments through a competitive application process. The bill requires FEMA to instead allocate such grants based on a specified formula which distributes funding to each eligible state while giving certain preference proportionally to states with higher populations and states with the most vulnerability of critical infrastructure to natural hazards. States must distribute at least 50% of the grant funds to local governments carrying out mitigation projects. The bill also specifies a minimum for the amount to be provided to tribes.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
To be eligible to receive a formula grant under the bill, a state must annually recommend to FEMA specific predisaster mitigation projects. States generally may only use the grants for projects they recommended.
Additionally, under current law, a project is not eligible to receive funds from two different FEMA grant programs for the same purpose. The bill prohibits FEMA from considering a project’s receipt of BRIC (or other predisaster mitigation) grant funding in determining such project’s eligibility to receive funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and vice versa.
People & committees
Rep. Figures, Shomari [D-AL-2] · D–AL
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 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: Jun 12, 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.4560 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.4560 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.4560 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.4560 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.