Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
The bill directs the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish and maintain a publicly available database and webpage listing each "billion-dollar disaster" in the United States. The database must be updated at least biannually, include estimated cost, type, location, date(s), and other appropriate information for each event, and provide visual graphs and maps similar to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) features that covered 1980–2024.
Scope and funding: liberals want explicit resources and expanded data (including equity metrics); conservatives worry about unfunded expansion and mission creep.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted administrative directive that specifies the core product, data elements, update cadence, and ties to an existing NOAA/NCEI product, but it omits key execution details such as funding, deadlines, technical standards, and accountability mechanisms.
The bill directs the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish and maintain a publicly available database and webpage listing each "billion-dollar disaster" in the United States.
The database must be updated at least biannually, include estimated cost, type, location, date(s), and other appropriate information for each event, and provide visual graphs and maps similar to the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) features that covered 1980–2024.
NOAA may collaborate with federal and non-federal partners, may include non–billion-dollar disasters at its discretion, and must maintain the previously existing archived NCEI disaster database for research.
On content alone, this is a targeted administrative transparency bill with low fiscal and federalism impacts and straightforward implementation paths. Those features historically correlate with a relatively high likelihood of enactment. The main barriers are procedural (Senate scheduling/consent) and the absence of an appropriation in the text; if Congress chooses to prioritize it or include it in a larger legislative vehicle, passage is plausible. Lack of funding authorization and potential political sensitivity around disaster/climate data introduce some uncertainty.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted administrative directive that specifies the core product, data elements, update cadence, and ties to an existing NOAA/NCEI product, but it omits key execution details such as funding, deadlines, technical standards, and accountability mechanisms.
Scope and funding: liberals want explicit resources and expanded data (including equity metrics); conservatives worry about unfunded expansion and mission creep.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Scope and funding: liberals want explicit resources and expanded data (including equity metrics); conservatives worry about unfunded expansion and mission creep.
A liberal/left-leaning observer would likely view this bill favorably as a transparency and data-driven step that documents the economic impacts of major weather and climate-related disasters.
They would see it as helpful for informing climate policy, adaptation funding, and environmental justice initiatives.
They would also want strong, sustained funding and data disaggregation to support vulnerable communities and to ensure the database is comprehensive rather than merely symbolic.
A centrist/moderate would likely view the bill as a reasonable, evidence-building measure that improves transparency without immediately imposing regulatory requirements.
They would appreciate the potential for better planning and research while being attentive to costs, duplication, and methodological clarity.
Centrists would emphasize practical implementation details and fiscal responsibility.
A mainstream conservative would likely be cautiously receptive to a public dataset that documents disaster costs for planning and market clarity, but would be concerned about expanded federal activity, funding implications, potential mission creep, and the possibility the data would be used to justify regulatory or spending programs.
They would seek assurances that the database remains a neutral informational tool and does not become a vehicle for policy advocacy.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a targeted administrative transparency bill with low fiscal and federalism impacts and straightforward implementation paths. Those features historically correlate with a relatively high likelihood of enactment. The main barriers are procedural (Senate scheduling/consent) and the absence of an appropriation in the text; if Congress chooses to prioritize it or include it in a larger legislative vehicle, passage is plausible. Lack of funding authorization and potential political sensitivity around disaster/climate data introduce some uncertainty.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Scope and funding: liberals want explicit resources and expanded data (including equity metrics); conservatives worry about unfunded expans…
On content alone, this is a targeted administrative transparency bill with low fiscal and federalism impacts and straightforward implementa…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a well-targeted administrative directive that specifies the core product, data elements, update cadence, and ties to an existing NOAA/NCEI product, but it omits ke…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.