Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The bill requires the NOAA Administrator to establish and maintain a publicly available database and webpage documenting each "billion-dollar disaster" in the United States. The database must be updated at least biannually and include estimated cost, disaster type, location, dates, and other administrator-determined information, plus visual graphs and mapping features similar to an earlier National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) product that covered 1980–2024.
Purpose and implications: liberals see the database as a climate- and equity-relevant accountability tool; conservatives view it as potential justification for expanded federal action and bureaucracy.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that is strong on specifying content and presentation but limited in operational and fiscal scaffolding.
The bill requires the NOAA Administrator to establish and maintain a publicly available database and webpage documenting each "billion-dollar disaster" in the United States.
The database must be updated at least biannually and include estimated cost, disaster type, location, dates, and other administrator-determined information, plus visual graphs and mapping features similar to an earlier National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) product that covered 1980–2024.
NOAA may collaborate with federal and non-federal partners, may optionally include non-billion-dollar disasters, and must maintain the previous NCEI database for archiving and research.
Because the bill is narrowly focused on restoring and maintaining a public NOAA/NCEI data product with limited fiscal and regulatory implications, it aligns with many transparency and administrative‑improvement bills that historically attract bipartisan support. The principal barriers are procedural (funding questions, committee scheduling, or holds) rather than substantive policy opposition.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that is strong on specifying content and presentation but limited in operational and fiscal scaffolding.
Purpose and implications: liberals see the database as a climate- and equity-relevant accountability tool; conservatives view it as potential justification for expanded federal action and bureaucracy.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Purpose and implications: liberals see the database as a climate- and equity-relevant accountability tool; conservatives view it as potential justification for expanded federal action and bureaucracy.
A liberal/left-leaning person would likely view the bill positively as a transparency and evidence-building measure that documents the economic scale and geographic distribution of costly disasters.
They would see it as a tool to highlight the growing toll of extreme weather and to support calls for stronger climate mitigation, adaptation funding, and justice-focused recovery policies.
They may want the database to include social and demographic impacts, non-market damages, and more frequent updates than the biannual minimum.
A centrist/moderate would generally support the bill as a pragmatic, data-driven step to improve public information about costly disasters while seeking clarity on scope, methodology, cost, and interagency coordination.
They would appreciate maintaining the existing NCEI archival resource and the public-facing mapping tools, but want assurances that the effort avoids duplication and is fiscally responsible.
Centrists would emphasize transparent methods, collaboration with FEMA and other agencies, and clear lines about how the data will be used.
A mainstream conservative would be skeptical of the bill's necessity and wary of how the information might be used to justify regulation or large federal spending on climate policies.
They might accept a neutral archival role for NOAA but question restarting or expanding a database that NCEI previously maintained, concerned about bureaucratic growth, potential partisan framing, and added costs.
Conservatives would emphasize limiting mission creep, ensuring methodological neutrality, and avoiding new regulatory mandates tied to the database.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Because the bill is narrowly focused on restoring and maintaining a public NOAA/NCEI data product with limited fiscal and regulatory implications, it aligns with many transparency and administrative‑improvement bills that historically attract bipartisan support. The principal barriers are procedural (funding questions, committee scheduling, or holds) rather than substantive policy opposition.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Purpose and implications: liberals see the database as a climate- and equity-relevant accountability tool; conservatives view it as potenti…
Because the bill is narrowly focused on restoring and maintaining a public NOAA/NCEI data product with limited fiscal and regulatory implic…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a focused reporting requirement that is strong on specifying content and presentation but limited in operational and fiscal scaffolding.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.