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 · Sep 21, 2012
FEMA Reform Act of 2012 - Requires: (1) 50% of the amount estimated for a preliminary damage assessment by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for any state or local government to be released to such government not later than three days after such assessment is completed, and (2) hazard mitigation funding for a state under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to be disseminated within areas of the state in proportion to the damage of a major disaster in such areas.
Permits the President, in addition to authorizing the repair, restoration, or replacement of federal facilities damaged by a major disaster, to make contributions to a state or local government to repair, restore, or replace vehicles and equipment, particularly those used for public safety, transportation, and service. Allows the actual cash value of such a vehicle or equipment that is more than 50% damaged to be used to replace it.
Authorizes the President to provide financial assistance under the Stafford Act to repair permanent structures, including rental units, necessary for temporary or transitional housing in areas affected by a major disaster.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires: (1) FEMA to establish a recruiting and training office in a major disaster area as soon as possible to facilitate the hiring of local individuals to assist with public assistance applications for any major disaster that will require FEMA employees to be available in such area for an extended period; and (2) FEMA, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the Department of Energy (DOE) to evaluate, complete, and publish a report outlining recommendations to public and private utilities, including electrical, water, sewer, and telecommunications, to reduce service interruptions during and after a hurricane.
People & committees
Rep. Richmond, Cedric L. [D-LA-2] · D–LA
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 Energy and Commerce, 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 Energy and Commerce, 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: Aug 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.6542 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.6542 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.6542 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.6542 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.