PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 20, 2007
Directs the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide funds under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to a state or local government to replace a public facility that was damaged as a result of Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita if: (1) the extent of the damage would require the replacement of that facility based on a cost estimate provided by FEMA; (2) that government acquired real property for such replacement based on reasonable reliance on that estimate; and (3) such funds would otherwise be available to that government for that facility in accordance with such Act.
People & committees
Sen. Landrieu, Mary L. [D-LA] · D–LA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs referred to Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jan 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 S.925 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.925 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.925 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.925 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.