S. Res. 247 (119th)Bill Overview

A resolution designating May 2025 as "National Wildfire Preparedness Month".

Simple ResolutionEmergency Management|Commemorative events and holidaysEmergency Management
Cosponsors
Support
Bipartisan
Introduced
May 22, 2025
Discussions
Bill Text
Current stageIntroduced

Resolution agreed to in Senate without amendment and with a preamble by Unanimous Consent.

Introduced
Committee
Floor
President
Law
Congressional Activities
01 · The brief
Simple ResolutionWhat this resolution actually does

This resolution is a nonbinding statement by the Senate that designates May 2025 as "National Wildfire Preparedness Month" and encourages awareness and preparedness. It does not create new law, authorize spending, or compel action by other governments or private parties. Instead, it expresses the Senate's support for education, planning, mitigation, and health protections related to wildfires. The resolution urges federal, state, local, Tribal, and community actors to promote preventative measures and preparedness activities.

This Senate resolution designates May 2025 as "National Wildfire Preparedness Month." It highlights recent wildfire trends, public-health and firefighter risks, and the economic costs of wildfires.

The resolution encourages federal, state, local, Tribal, and nongovernmental efforts to increase awareness, preparedness, and education about prevention, mitigation, evacuation, and smoke-health protections.

It is a nonbinding, symbolic measure without funding or regulatory mandates.

Passage5/100

As a Senate resolution it is symbolic and not a lawmaking vehicle; easy to adopt in chamber but does not become law.

CredibilityAligned

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a standard commemorative Senate resolution: it clearly states the problem context and purpose, formally designates a month for awareness, and urges relevant actors to increase preparedness and educational efforts. It does not create binding obligations, allocate funds, assign implementation responsibilities, or establish oversight or metrics.

Contention12/100

All three see benefits, but differ on desire for funding or mandates

02 · What it does

Who stands to gain, and who may push back.

Likely benefits vs burdens50% / 50%
Local governmentsHomebuyers

These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.

Likely helped
  • Potential benefitRaises public awareness of wildfire risks and recommended preparedness actions.
  • Potential benefitMay increase voluntary adoption of home-hardening, evacuation plans, and vegetation management practices.
  • Local governmentsEncourages coordinated messaging across Federal, State, local, Tribal, and nonprofit actors.
Likely burdened
  • Potential burdenThe resolution is symbolic and does not provide funding or binding implementation authority.
  • Potential burdenRelies on existing agencies and organizations, risking uneven outreach and variable effectiveness.
  • HomebuyersHome hardening and mitigation actions may impose unaffordable costs on low-income homeowners.
03 · Why people split

Why the argument around this bill splits.

All three see benefits, but differ on desire for funding or mandates
Progressive95%

Likely to view the resolution favorably as a constructive, awareness-raising step that highlights climate-driven wildfire risks and public-health harms.

Values the emphasis on prevention, community resilience, firefighter health, and inclusive outreach to Tribal and vulnerable communities.

May wish the resolution went further by authorizing funding or stronger federal action for mitigation and adaptation.

Leans supportive
Centrist90%

Likely to view the resolution as a useful, low-cost federal acknowledgement encouraging multi-jurisdictional preparedness.

Appreciates focus on prevention, early warning, and evacuation planning while noting the resolution does not create new obligations or spending.

Will emphasize practical implementation, measurable outcomes, and coordination between federal and state authorities.

Leans supportive
Conservative80%

Likely to generally support the symbolic designation and preparedness messaging, preferring local and state-led solutions.

Will welcome emphasis on human-caused ignitions and practical measures like reducing flammable vegetation and limiting dangerous combustibles.

May be wary of any implied federal expansion or prescriptive land-management mandates absent state consent.

Leans supportive
04 · Can it pass?

The path through Congress.

Introduced

Reached or meaningfully advanced

Committee

Still ahead

Floor

Still ahead

President

Still ahead

Law

Still ahead

Passage likelihood5/100

As a Senate resolution it is symbolic and not a lawmaking vehicle; easy to adopt in chamber but does not become law.

Scope and complexity
24%
Scopenarrow
24%
Complexitylow
Why this could stall
  • Whether a House companion resolution will be introduced or considered
  • Any follow-on funding or programmatic commitments are unspecified
05 · Recent votes

Recent votes on the bill.

No vote history yet

The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.

06 · Go deeper

Go deeper than the headline read.

Included on this page

All three see benefits, but differ on desire for funding or mandates

As a Senate resolution it is symbolic and not a lawmaking vehicle; easy to adopt in chamber but does not become law.

Unlocked analysis

Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill functions as a standard commemorative Senate resolution: it clearly states the problem context and purpose, formally designates a month for awareness, and urges relev…

Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.

Perspective breakdownsPassage barriersLegislative design reviewStakeholder impact map
Open full analysis