Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 252.
This bill repeals section 695 of the Post‑Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (6 U.S.C. 794), removing certain DHS contracting requirements deemed obsolete. It also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an initial report two years after enactment and annual reports until five years after enactment documenting whether the repeal prevented waste, fraud, and abuse, promoted taxpayer savings, and providing details on urgent, non‑bid FEMA contracts entered or extended during each covered period.
Liberty/efficiency tradeoff: liberals worry about lost safeguards; conservatives emphasize fewer constraints.
Narrow, technical reform with oversight provision; some members may push amendments over procurement safeguards.
This bill repeals section 695 of the Post‑Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (6 U.S.C. 794), removing certain DHS contracting requirements deemed obsolete.
It also requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit an initial report two years after enactment and annual reports until five years after enactment documenting whether the repeal prevented waste, fraud, and abuse, promoted taxpayer savings, and providing details on urgent, non‑bid FEMA contracts entered or extended during each covered period.
Technocratic, low‑cost repeal paired with oversight is commonly acceptable; core risk is procurement‑safety pushback or amendments.
How solid the drafting looks.
Liberty/efficiency tradeoff: liberals worry about lost safeguards; conservatives emphasize fewer constraints.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberty/efficiency tradeoff: liberals worry about lost safeguards; conservatives emphasize fewer constraints.
Likely cautiously favorable: supports removing truly obsolete barriers if accountability remains.
The mandated reporting and contract detail help ensure oversight.
Would watch for any erosion of anti‑fraud safeguards or impacts on worker, civil, or environmental protections.
Generally supportive: pragmatic balance of removing obsolete requirements while keeping oversight.
The report requirement addresses fiscal accountability.
Would seek clarity on cost, timelines, and whether repeal truly affects current operations.
Likely supportive: favors removing antiquated regulatory requirements to improve operational flexibility.
Appreciates reporting as reasonable oversight but may prefer fewer reporting mandates and broader deregulation to enable faster response.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technocratic, low‑cost repeal paired with oversight is commonly acceptable; core risk is procurement‑safety pushback or amendments.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberty/efficiency tradeoff: liberals worry about lost safeguards; conservatives emphasize fewer constraints.
Technocratic, low‑cost repeal paired with oversight is commonly acceptable; core risk is procurement‑safety pushback or amendments.
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for HELP Response and Recovery Act.
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.