To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to authorize funding for emergency management performance grants to provide for domestic preparedness and collective response to catastrophic incidents, 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 · Sep 29, 2008
Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to direct the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish an emergency management performance grants program to address domestic preparedness and collective response to a catastrophic incident.
Limits the federal share of the cost of a program funded activity to 50%. Sets forth guidelines for the Administrator to apportion funds to carry out the program among the states on the basis of population. Authorizes appropriations.
Revises the program providing grants to states for emergency operations centers to provide that such centers are to be equipped, upgraded, and constructed for domestic preparedness and collective response to a catastrophic incident.
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 Homeland Security, 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 Homeland Security, 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 Homeland Security, 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
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.7218 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.7218 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.7218 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.7218 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.