Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Referred to one or more standing committees for review, hearings, and possible markup.
Specific committees not parsed from action data.
The committee may hold hearings, amend the bill, or let it die without action.
Next: Reported
Full chamber floor — Speaker / Majority Leader controls scheduling
Creates a pilot program for grants to help communities develop catastrophe insurance programs.
The problem
Communities often lack affordable insurance options for major disasters. Private insurers may not cover high-risk areas. Residents face financial ruin after catastrophic events.
The proposal
FEMA will award grants to eligible organizations to help design, develop, and run community-based catastrophe insurance programs as a pilot initiative.
The impact
Community organizations, disaster-prone areas, and residents gain access to new insurance options. FEMA dedicates resources to test alternative disaster coverage models.
Low-income and high-risk areas often cannot afford traditional disaster insurance. This pilot could provide affordable alternatives. Community-based programs may be tailored to local needs.
Pilot programs allow testing of innovative approaches before full rollout. Success could inform national disaster insurance policy. Reduces risk of wasting money on flawed programs.
If community insurance works, FEMA and taxpayers pay less for disaster aid. Private and community solutions cost less than government assistance. Promotes self-reliance.
Insurance encourages communities to prepare for disasters. People with insurance may invest in prevention. Reduces overall disaster damage and recovery costs.
FEMA grants require federal funding. No budget amount is specified in the bill. Grants might not reduce overall disaster spending if programs fail.
No guarantee that community-based insurance will work or be affordable. Pilot programs sometimes fail to solve the original problem. Results may vary by region.
Not all communities may qualify for grants. Wealthy areas might benefit more than poor areas. Could increase inequality in disaster protection.
Bill does not specify how grants will be monitored or evaluated. Limited detail on what organizations qualify. Potential for waste or misuse of funds.
Generated by AI from the bill text. Not a prediction and not legal or policy advice. The percentage is the model's own rating of each item — self-reported, and not a measure of how accurate it is.
Loading map…
Loading...
0 citizens have already voted
Free · No spam · See how your representatives voted
Be the first to weigh in
Your vote starts the conversation
How citizen engagement works
Citizens vote & comment
Public opinion data is aggregated and updated in real time.
Patterns become visible
Representatives can see constituent sentiment broken down by district.
Your voice on the record
Contact your rep directly — one constituent call can shift a staffer's priority list.
Research shows that constituent contacts — especially calls — are among the most effective ways to influence a legislator's position on active bills.
Individual contributions, grouped by employer · FEC
No donor data found for current cycle
Itemized individual contributions via FEC, grouped by the employer each contributor self-reported. Companies and unions cannot contribute to federal candidates from their treasuries, so these totals are money from people who work at an employer — never from the organization itself. They are campaign contributions covering a full election cycle and are not connected to this bill.
Senate LDA lobbying disclosures
Couldn't load lobbying disclosures right now.