Latest action: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
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 grants to help colleges and universities prepare for emergencies.
The problem
Higher education institutions lack sufficient federal funding and resources to develop comprehensive emergency preparedness plans and response capabilities.
The proposal
Establishes a federal grant program providing financial support to colleges and universities for emergency preparedness planning, training, equipment, and infrastructure improvements.
The impact
College students, staff, and faculty benefit from improved safety measures. Institutions gain resources for disaster planning. Taxpayers fund the program.
Grant funding helps colleges prepare for natural disasters, active threats, and other emergencies. Better planning and equipment protect students, faculty, and staff. Enhanced preparedness saves lives during crises.
Reduces financial burden on colleges to fund emergency preparedness alone. Smaller schools benefit equally with larger institutions. Levels the playing field for safety investments.
Grants enable comprehensive training programs for staff and students. Universities can develop detailed emergency response plans. Better coordination between campus security and local authorities.
Funds can upgrade facilities to withstand emergencies and maintain operations. Improved backup systems and communication networks. Protects valuable educational infrastructure and research facilities.
Creates new federal spending obligations and expands government budget. Costs taxpayers money without addressing other priorities. May require cuts to other programs or increased deficits.
Colleges must apply for grants and comply with federal reporting requirements. Creates paperwork and administrative overhead. Diverts resources from actual emergency preparedness work.
Grants may favor larger, well-resourced institutions with better grant-writing staff. Smaller colleges may struggle to access available funds. Creates unequal safety improvements across institutions.
Without official summary, program goals and funding criteria are unknown. Congress may disagree on how funds should be used. Risk of politicizing emergency preparedness decisions.
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
Where their individual donors work · 2026 cycle
Money from people who work there, not from the company. Not tied to this bill.
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.