PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Aug 5, 2015
Prepare, Ready, Equip, and Prevent Areas at Risk of Emergency Wildfires Act of 2015 or the PREPARE Act of 2015
Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to establish a pilot program to make grants to states or Indian tribal governments for wildfire mitigation.
Permits a grant to be used: (1) to reduce the use of fuels that may contribute to catastrophic wildfires in high-risk areas; (2) to invest in personnel, organizations, vehicles, and other equipment to conduct wildfire mitigation; (3) to mitigate against damage from runoff into waterways and floods caused by erosion from wildfires; (4) to build essential community collaboration and outline the necessary groundwork systems in anticipation of future fires; and (5) for other wildlife mitigation activities at the discretion of the governor of a state or the chief executive of an Indian tribal government.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Sets forth a grant eligibility requirement based on specified ratios of the relative population of, and the relative number fire management assistance grants received in the previous 10 years by, a prospective recipient. Authorizes the President to waive that requirement if a recipient demonstrates that significant environmental changes or shifts in forest health put the recipient at an elevated risk for catastrophic wildfires.
Allows the governor of a state to award grant funds to: (1) any county or municipality with a community wildfire protection plan or a local multi-hazard mitigation plan, (2) any Indian tribal government with a tribal mitigation plan, or (3) any other entity that is explicitly referenced in and central to the design of a community wildfire protection plan or a local multi-hazard mitigation plan.
Directs FEMA, in awarding such grants, to: (1) give preference to a recipient that has a high level of need for assistance based on the best scientific data available or that used previous grant funds efficiently and effectively for wildfire mitigation activities, and (2) consider environmental conditions in a state or area.
Directs FEMA to use specified unobligated amounts in the National Predisaster Mitigation Fund for each of FY2016-FY2021 in carrying out this Act.
Amends the Stafford Act to authorize the President, whether or not a major disaster is declared, to provide hazard mitigation assistance in any area affected by a fire for which assistance was otherwise provided.
Directs FEMA to require FEMA, in evaluating a governor's request for major disaster assistance under the Public Assistance Program, to consider whether: (1) post-fire flooding occurred within five years of, and as a result of, a single wildfire event in the state; and (2) the state received fire management assistance related to the major disaster for which the governor is requesting assistance.
Directs FEMA to create and make publicly available a post-fire recovery funding and resource guide for local communities.
People & committees
Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO] · D–CO
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 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 S.1997 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 S.1997 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 S.1997 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 S.1997 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.