Reported by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. H. Rept. 119-320.
The bill amends section 324 of the Stafford Act to allow ‘‘excess funds for management costs’’—the difference between authorized management cost amounts and what was spent at grant close—to be reallocated by the federal government to grantees or subgrantees for management costs or capacity-building for other disasters, emergencies, preparedness, or mitigation activities. Such reallocated funds remain available for five years.
Liberals emphasize resilience, equity, and tribal benefits from reallocated funds
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory modification that authorizes reutilization of defined 'excess' disaster management funds for other preparedness, mitigation, and management activities, and pairs that change with a near‑term GAO study and a prohibition on new appropriations.
The bill amends section 324 of the Stafford Act to allow ‘‘excess funds for management costs’’—the difference between authorized management cost amounts and what was spent at grant close—to be reallocated by the federal government to grantees or subgrantees for management costs or capacity-building for other disasters, emergencies, preparedness, or mitigation activities.
Such reallocated funds remain available for five years.
The change applies to disaster or emergency declarations made and funded after enactment.
Focused, bipartisan‑friendly administrative fix with no new spending and built‑in oversight; few substantive policy objections apparent.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory modification that authorizes reutilization of defined 'excess' disaster management funds for other preparedness, mitigation, and management activities, and pairs that change with a near‑term GAO study and a prohibition on new appropriations.
Liberals emphasize resilience, equity, and tribal benefits from reallocated funds
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize resilience, equity, and tribal benefits from reallocated funds
Likely broadly favorable: views flexibility to repurpose leftover management funds as a practical way to boost preparedness, recovery capacity, and mitigation funding, including for Tribes and disadvantaged areas.
Would want strong oversight and assurance funds bolster frontline recovery and resilience rather than administrative overhead.
Views the bill as a pragmatic, limited reform that increases flexibility and incentives to close grants while avoiding new spending.
Sees GAO study and five-year limit as reasonable oversight, but wants clarity on accounting and anti-supplanting rules.
Generally supportive of increased flexibility and no new spending, seeing this as efficient use of leftover funds.
Some concern about added federal discretion and potential for expanded ongoing liabilities or mission creep into mitigation programs.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Focused, bipartisan‑friendly administrative fix with no new spending and built‑in oversight; few substantive policy objections apparent.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize resilience, equity, and tribal benefits from reallocated funds
Focused, bipartisan‑friendly administrative fix with no new spending and built‑in oversight; few substantive policy objections apparent.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused statutory modification that authorizes reutilization of defined 'excess' disaster management funds for other preparedness, mitigation, and management act…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.