Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/s/1545

Last Updated: May 28, 2025

Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act

S. 1545, 119th Congress — read as touching Insurance (P&C and Life).

The sponsor

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$287,300 raised

26 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

85% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of Homeland Security" section, p. 186-188 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. Hearings held.

April 30, 2025

Introduced

Committee Review

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

**Bill Analysis: S 1545 - Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act**

As a visionary entrepreneur and thought leader, I'll dissect this bill through the lens of wealth creation, efficiency, and innovation.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act aims to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, ostensibly to ensure community accountability for areas repeatedly damaged by floods. In reality, this bill is a veiled attempt to impose bureaucratic burdens on local governments and private entities, stifling growth and innovation.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill introduces new requirements for "covered communities" (those with repetitive flood losses) to:

1. Develop community-specific plans for mitigating flood risks. 2. Submit these plans to the Administrator for approval. 3. Implement and update these plans regularly. 4. Make plan details publicly available.

These provisions will inevitably lead to increased regulatory compliance costs, stifling economic growth in affected areas.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The bill's impact will be felt by:

1. Local governments: Increased administrative burdens and potential sanctions for non-compliance. 2. Private property owners: Higher insurance premiums and potential losses due to reduced property values. 3. Developers and builders: Stricter regulations and increased costs associated with flood mitigation measures.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill will have far-reaching consequences, including:

1. **Reduced economic growth**: Increased regulatory burdens will discourage investment in affected areas. 2. **Increased costs for taxpayers**: Local governments will bear the brunt of compliance costs, potentially leading to higher taxes or reduced public services. 3. **Inefficient allocation of resources**: The bill's focus on bureaucratic planning and reporting will divert resources away from more effective flood mitigation measures.

As a visionary leader, I recognize that true innovation and progress can only be achieved by embracing the free market and minimizing government intervention. This bill is a step in the wrong direction, prioritizing bureaucratic red tape over economic growth and efficiency.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

*Sigh* Alright, let's break down this bill, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a bill is a proposed law that must go through various stages before it becomes an actual law.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act (S. 1545) aims to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to ensure community accountability for areas repeatedly damaged by floods. The bill's primary objective is to encourage communities to take proactive measures to mitigate flood risks and reduce the financial burden on the national flood insurance program.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces new requirements for "covered communities," which are defined as communities with a high number of repetitive loss structures or severe repetitive loss structures. These communities must:

1. Identify areas repeatedly damaged by floods 2. Assess continuing risks to these areas 3. Develop a community-specific plan to mitigate flood risks 4. Submit the plan and updates to the Administrator 5. Implement the plan and make progress reports available to the public

The bill also provides assistance to covered communities, including data on insured properties and mitigation grants.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** The affected parties include:

1. Covered communities: These are the communities that will be required to develop and implement flood risk mitigation plans. 2. Property owners: Homeowners and businesses in repeatedly flooded areas may benefit from the community's efforts to mitigate flood risks. 3. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): The program will benefit from reduced claims and financial burdens.

**Potential Impact & Implications** If passed, this bill could lead to:

1. Reduced flood risk for communities: By requiring communities to take proactive measures, the bill aims to reduce the frequency and severity of flooding. 2. Increased accountability: Communities will be held accountable for their efforts to mitigate flood risks, which may lead to improved planning and decision-making. 3. Financial benefits: The NFIP may see reduced claims and financial burdens, which could benefit taxpayers.

However, as we covered in 8th grade civics class, the legislative process is not always straightforward. This bill will need to pass through various stages, including committee review, markups, and votes in both the Senate and House of Representatives. The actual impact and implications may differ from the intended objectives.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go explain the concept of checks and balances to a group of adults who seem to think it's a new idea...

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got my eyes on this S 1545 bill, and let me tell you, it's a doozy. They're calling it the Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act, but I'm here to decode the real agenda.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** On the surface, this bill aims to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to ensure community accountability for areas repeatedly damaged by floods. Sounds noble, right? But scratch beneath the surface, and you'll find it's all about control and manipulation.

The government wants to create a system where they can identify and target communities that are prone to flooding, allegedly to help them prepare and mitigate risks. But what they're really doing is setting up a framework for surveillance, data collection, and eventual control over these areas.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** This bill introduces new definitions, such as "covered community" and "severe repetitive loss structure." These terms might seem innocuous, but trust me, they're just euphemisms for "areas we want to keep an eye on."

The bill requires covered communities to develop plans for mitigating flood risks, which sounds reasonable. However, this is where the government will start exerting its influence, dictating how these communities should prepare and respond to floods.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** On paper, it's just the communities that are repeatedly flooded. But think about it – who else stands to gain from this bill? Insurance companies, for one. They'll have access to more data, allowing them to adjust premiums and coverage accordingly. And what about the government itself? They'll be collecting all sorts of data on these communities, which can be used for... well, we don't know exactly, but it's not hard to imagine.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is just a small part of a larger agenda to control and manipulate communities. By creating this framework, the government is setting the stage for more invasive policies down the line. Think about it – if they can dictate how communities prepare for floods, what's next? Will they start telling us how to build our homes, where we can live, or even what kind of jobs we can have?

Mark my words, folks: this bill is just a Trojan horse for more government overreach. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(Deep breath) Folks, gather 'round, we've got another doozy of a bill on our hands. The Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act - sounds like a real mouthful, doesn't it? (smirk) But don't let the name fool you; this is just another attempt by those elites in Washington to strangle our freedoms with more regulations and bureaucratic red tape.

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's main objective is to "ensure community accountability" for areas repeatedly damaged by floods. (air quotes) Accountability - now that's a word we love to throw around, don't we? It sounds like the government wants to hold these communities responsible for their own flood-prone areas. But let's be real, folks; this is just code for "more federal control" and "less individual freedom."

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 by adding new requirements for "covered communities." These communities will have to identify areas repeatedly damaged by floods, assess the risks, develop a mitigation plan, and submit it to the Administrator (read: more bureaucrats). Oh, and if they don't comply? Sanctions, baby! Suspension from the national flood insurance program or probation - because that's exactly what we need, more punishment for communities trying to recover from natural disasters.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** This bill affects communities participating in the national flood insurance program (NFIP), which is already a bloated and inefficient system. It also impacts property owners, who will likely see increased premiums or even be forced out of their homes due to the new regulations. And let's not forget the bureaucrats at FEMA, who'll get to enjoy more power and control over these communities.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact? More government interference in local affairs, stifling individual freedom and economic growth. The implications? A further erosion of our constitutional rights, as the federal government continues its march towards a nanny state. (dramatic music plays) But hey, at least we'll have more "accountability" - whatever that means.

(winking at the camera) Now, I know what you're thinking: "But wait, isn't this just common sense? Don't we want to help these communities prepare for floods?" Ah, folks, it's not that simple. This is a Trojan horse for more government control, and we can't let our guard down. Stay vigilant, America!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another brilliant piece of legislation from our esteemed Congress. The Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act, because what's a few billion dollars in flood damage when you can have a fancy new law to "prepare" for it?

**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The bill's primary objective is to hold communities accountable for repeatedly flooded areas by requiring them to develop and implement plans to mitigate flood risks. Because, apparently, the fact that these areas keep flooding wasn't enough of an incentive.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to:

1. Define "covered communities" as those with a certain number of repetitive loss structures or severe repetitive loss structures. 2. Require covered communities to identify repeatedly damaged areas, assess risks, and develop plans to mitigate flood risks. 3. Mandate that these plans be submitted to the Administrator for review and approval. 4. Allow communities to incorporate their plans into existing mitigation plans. 5. Provide data and mitigation grants to assist communities in developing their plans.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects:

1. Communities with repeatedly flooded areas (i.e., those who will actually have to do something). 2. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) administrators, who get to review and approve all these lovely plans. 3. Property owners in affected areas, who might see their premiums increase or face sanctions if their community doesn't comply.

**Potential Impact & Implications:** This bill is a masterclass in bureaucratic doublespeak. It sounds great on paper – "community accountability" and "mitigating flood risks" are wonderful buzzwords. But let's be real:

1. This law will create more red tape, not less. Communities will have to navigate another layer of bureaucracy to get their plans approved. 2. The NFIP administrators will have even more power to dictate what communities can and cannot do. 3. Property owners in affected areas might see increased costs or penalties if their community doesn't comply.

In short, this bill is a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. It's a feel-good measure that won't actually address the root causes of flooding or provide meaningful relief to those affected. But hey, at least it sounds good in a press release.

Diagnosis: This bill suffers from a bad case of " Politician-itis" – a disease characterized by an excessive desire for self-aggrandizement and a complete lack of understanding of the underlying issues. Treatment: a healthy dose of skepticism and a strong stomach to withstand the inevitable bureaucratic mess that will ensue.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act (S 1545)**

**Main Purpose & Objectives**

The Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act aims to ensure community accountability for areas repeatedly damaged by floods, promoting mitigation and resilience in flood-prone communities. The bill seeks to reduce the financial burden of repeated flooding on the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and support affected communities.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law**

The bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 by adding a new section, "Community Accountability for Repeatedly Damaged Areas." Key provisions include:

1. Definition of "covered community": A community with at least 50 repetitive loss structures or 5 severe repetitive loss structures that have not undergone mitigation activities. 2. Requirements for covered communities: * Identify repeatedly damaged areas * Assess flood risks * Develop a community-specific plan to mitigate flood risks * Submit and implement the plan, making it publicly available 3. Incorporation of plans into existing mitigation plans 4. Assistance to communities: Data provision and consideration of compliance in financial assistance determinations 5. Sanctions for non-compliance, including suspension or probation from the NFIP

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders**

1. Communities participating in the NFIP with repeatedly flooded areas 2. Property owners and residents in affected areas 3. Local governments and emergency management agencies 4. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the NFIP 5. Insurance companies and policyholders

**Potential Impact & Implications**

The bill's provisions aim to:

1. Reduce flood risk and damage in repeatedly flooded communities 2. Promote community resilience and mitigation efforts 3. Decrease the financial burden on the NFIP 4. Encourage proactive planning and investment in flood mitigation measures 5. Improve transparency and public awareness of flood risks

However, potential challenges and implications include:

1. Increased administrative burdens for local governments and communities 2. Potential costs associated with developing and implementing community-specific plans 3. Balancing individual property rights with community-wide flood mitigation efforts 4. Ensuring equitable distribution of resources and support among affected communities

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

Let's break down this gnarly bill, bro.

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act (S 1545) is all about helping communities that get slammed by floods over and over again. The main goal is to make sure these communities are prepared for the next big one and take steps to mitigate the damage. It's like, you know when you're out surfing and you see a huge wave coming? You gotta be ready to paddle or bail, bro.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** This bill amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which is like, super old, dude. The new law requires communities that are repeatedly flooded (think: more than 50 properties with multiple claims over 10 years) to:

* Identify areas that are most at risk * Assess the risks and come up with a plan to mitigate them * Submit their plans to the feds and make 'em public * Implement those plans and report back on progress

It's like, communities gotta take responsibility for their own flood prep, bro.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** This bill affects:

* Communities that are repeatedly flooded (obviously) * Property owners in those areas (they might see changes to their insurance rates or mitigation requirements) * The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which will be providing guidance and assistance to communities * Taxpayers, who might see some benefits from reduced flood damage costs

**Potential Impact & Implications** This bill could have some major implications, bro:

* Communities that are repeatedly flooded might see increased costs for mitigation efforts, but they'll also get more support from the feds. * Property owners in those areas might face higher insurance rates or stricter building codes, but they'll be safer and less likely to lose their homes. * The bill could help reduce the overall cost of flood damage, which is like, a huge burden on taxpayers.

Overall, this bill is all about helping communities prepare for floods and reducing the risk of damage. It's like, you know when you're out surfing and you see a big wave coming? This bill is like, paddling to meet it head-on, bro.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Bill Analysis: S 1545 - Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act**

**Main Purpose & Objectives** The Repeatedly Flooded Communities Preparation Act aims to amend the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 to ensure community accountability for areas repeatedly damaged by floods. The bill's primary objective is to require communities with a history of flood damage to develop and implement plans to mitigate future flood risks.

**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law** The bill introduces new requirements for "covered communities," defined as those with at least 50 repetitive loss structures or five severe repetitive loss structures that have not undergone mitigation activities. These communities must:

1. Identify areas repeatedly damaged by floods 2. Assess continuing risks to these areas 3. Develop a community-specific plan to mitigate flood risks 4. Submit and implement the plan, making it publicly available

The bill also allows covered communities to incorporate their plans into existing mitigation plans developed under other federal programs.

**Affected Parties & Stakeholders** Key stakeholders include:

1. Communities with a history of flood damage (covered communities) 2. Property owners in these communities 3. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which administers the National Flood Insurance Program 4. State and local governments, which may be involved in plan development and implementation

**Potential Impact & Implications** The bill's provisions could lead to:

1. Increased accountability for communities with a history of flood damage 2. Improved mitigation efforts and reduced flood risks 3. Enhanced transparency through publicly available plans and progress reports 4. Potential sanctions, including suspension from the National Flood Insurance Program, for non-compliant communities

However, the bill may also face opposition from:

1. Communities concerned about the costs and administrative burdens associated with plan development and implementation 2. Property owners who may be affected by changes to flood insurance rates or availability 3. Industry groups representing developers, builders, or insurers, which may see the bill as overly restrictive or costly

**Monied Interest Analysis** While there is no explicit mention of specific PACs or industry lobby groups in the bill text, it is likely that organizations such as:

1. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) 2. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) 3. The Insurance Information Institute (III)

may have an interest in the bill's provisions and potential impact on their members or industries. These groups may advocate for changes to the bill or its implementation to minimize costs and regulatory burdens.

**Committee Capture and Conflicts of Interest** The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has a history of receiving significant contributions from the financial services and insurance industries. This may raise concerns about potential conflicts of interest or committee capture, particularly if industry representatives are able to influence the bill's language or implementation.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$287,300

24 donors

PACs

Organizations

$23,300

Committees

Individuals

$264,000

No PAC contributions found

FAIRWAY INVESTMENTS, LLC

2 transactions

$16,500

MK INTERNATIONAL LLC

1 transaction

$3,300

OSWALD COOKE & ASSOCIATES, LLC

1 transaction

$1,500

HUDSON CAPITAL ADVISORS LLC

1 transaction

$1,000

MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

No committee contributions found

EMMET, RICHARD

2 transactions

$26,400

BOLDRICK, JAMES

1 transaction

$13,200

DUHAMEL, WILLIAM

1 transaction

$13,200

GROFF, SUSAN

1 transaction

$13,200

SLUSKY, ALEX

1 transaction

$13,200

HAMMOND, GREGORY

1 transaction

$13,200

NAVARRO, ANNE

1 transaction

$13,200

NEWMAN, BRAD

1 transaction

$13,200

ANDERSON, MORGAN

1 transaction

$13,200

BROWN, JAMES

1 transaction

$13,200

CANN, DAVID

1 transaction

$13,200

CHAMBERLAIN, LEE

1 transaction

$13,200

COLQUITT, DAVID

1 transaction

$13,200

CONVERSE, JUSTIN

1 transaction

$13,200

DEERING, TONY

1 transaction

$13,200

DEJONG, ROBERT

1 transaction

$13,200

GOLDBAUM, ROBERT

1 transaction

$13,200

HASLAM, BILL

1 transaction

$13,200

HASLAM, JAMES

1 transaction

$13,200

Cosponsors & Their Campaign Finance

This bill has 1 cosponsors. Below are their top campaign contributors.

Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]

ID: S001194

Top Contributors

CHEROKEE NATION

OrganizationTAHLEQUAH, OK

$3,300

Dec 30, 2024

CATAWBA INDIAN NATION

OrganizationROCK HILL, SC

$3,300

May 17, 2024

SENECA NATION OF INDIANS

OrganizationSALAMANCA, NY

$3,300

Apr 17, 2024

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 12, 2023

PASCUA YAQUI TRIBE

OrganizationTUCSON, AZ

$3,300

Sep 29, 2023

OTOE MISSOURIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

OrganizationRED ROCK, OK

$3,300

Aug 12, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Aug 12, 2023

HABEMATOLEL POMO OF UPPER LAKE

OrganizationUPPER LAKE, CA

$3,300

Aug 12, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Aug 12, 2023

TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAND OF CHIPPEWA

OrganizationBELCOURT, ND

$3,300

Aug 12, 2023

Donor Network - Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 47 nodes and 29 connections (55 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $297,200

Top Donors - Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]

Showing top 24 donors by contribution amount

5 Orgs19 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 2 helped.

+Insurance (P&C and Life)confidence 0.90
Section 2(e)(4)(B) allows the Administrator to consider a community's compliance and progress in reducing flood risks when determining financial assistance under the Act, which could benefit insurers by promoting flood mitigation and reducing claims.
+Construction & Engineeringconfidence 0.85
Section 2(e)(2)(C) requires covered communities to develop and implement flood mitigation plans, which may involve construction and engineering services for infrastructure improvements, benefiting firms in this sector.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HELPS

Insurance (P&C and Life)$17,375
from 20 contributions
- CRANDALL, ROGER$9,900
- HOUSTON, DANIEL$2,000
- CIMONS, WAYNE$1,000
- CARTER, MICHAEL$1,000
- MANISTA, RAYMOND$1,000
Construction & Engineering$604
from 2 contributions
- WARREN, JIM$500
- SMITH, BRUCE$104

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of Homeland Security

Strong

Vector: 62%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill aligns with Project 2025's FEMA reform goals by targeting NFIP financial sustainability through community accountability and mitigation, reducing federal liability and encouraging local responsibility in flood-prone areas."

Key themes:FEMA reformNational Flood Insurance Programflood mitigationcommunity resiliencefederal financial liability

— 153 — Department of Homeland Security l 287(g) program. Issue a memo prohibiting any jurisdiction that applies from being denied access to the program unless good cause is shown. l Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) priorities. Issue Department Management Directive (and ICE companion Directive) to refocus HSI on immigration offenses and criminal offenses typically associated with immigration (for example, human trafficking). All criminal investigative work without a clear nexus to the border or otherwise to Title 8 should be turned over to the appropriate federal agency. l Blackie’s Warrants. ICE OPLA, ERO, and HSI should issue a joint internal memo on operationalizing Blackie’s Warrants for immediate use on worksite enforcement and other appropriate investigations and operations. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) Needed Reforms FEMA is the lead federal agency in preparing for and responding to disasters, but it is overtasked, overcompensates for the lack of state and local preparedness and response, and is regularly in deep debt. After passage of the 1988 Stafford Act,12 the number of declared federal disasters rose dramatically as most disaster costs were shifted from states and local governments to the federal government. In addition, state-friendly FEMA regulations, such as a “per capita indicator,” failed to maintain the pace of inflation and made it easy to meet disaster declaration thresholds. This combination has left FEMA unprepared in both readiness and funding for the truly catastrophic disasters in which its services are most needed. Reform of FEMA requires a greater emphasis on federalism and state and local preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus on large, widespread disasters. Under the Stafford Act, FEMA has the authority to adjust the per capita indi- cator for damages, which creates a threshold under which states and localities are not eligible for public assistance. FEMA should raise the threshold because the per capita indicator has not kept pace with inflation, and this over time has effectively lowered the threshold for public assistance and caused FEMA’s resources to be stretched perilously thin. Alternatively, applying a deductible could accomplish a similar outcome while also incentivizing states to take a more proactive role in their own preparedness and response capabilities. In addition, Congress should change the cost-share arrangement so that the federal government covers 25 per- cent of the costs for small disasters with the cost share reaching a maximum of 75 percent for truly catastrophic disasters. FEMA is also responsible for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), nearly all of which is issued by the federal government. Washington provides — 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners

Department of Homeland Security

Moderate

Vector: 64%

Pages: 186-188AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and Project 2025 aim to reduce the financial burden on the NFIP and increase community resilience, but the bill seeks to reform NFIP through accountability and mitigation while Project 2025 advocates winding down NFIP and replacing it with private insurance, resulting in moderate thematic overlap."

Key themes:NFIP financial burdenflood risk mitigationcommunity resilienceaccountability for flood-prone areasreducing federal subsidies

— 154 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise insurance at prices lower than the actuarially fair rate, thereby subsidizing flood insurance. Then, when flood costs exceed NFIP’s revenue, FEMA seeks taxpay- er-funded bailouts. Current NFIP debt is $20.5 billion, and in 2017, Congress canceled $16 billion in debt when FEMA reached its borrowing authority limit. These subsidies and bailouts only encourage more development in flood zones, increasing the potential losses to both NFIP and the taxpayer. The NFIP should be wound down and replaced with private insurance starting with the least risky areas currently identified by the program. Budget Issues FEMA manages all grants for DHS, and these grants have become pork for states, localities, and special-interest groups. Since 2002, DHS/FEMA have provided more than $56 billion in preparedness grants for state, local, tribal, and territorial governments. For FY 2023, President Biden requested more than $3.5 billion for federal assistance grants.13 Funds provided under these programs do not provide measurable gains for preparedness or resiliency. Rather, more than any objective needs, political interests appear to direct the flow of nondisaster funds. The principles of federalism should be upheld; these indicate that states better understand their unique needs and should bear the costs of their particularized programs. FEMA employees in Washington, D.C., should not determine how bil- lions of federal tax dollars should be awarded to train local law enforcement officers in Texas, harden cybersecurity infrastructure in Utah, or supplement migrant shelters in Arizona. DHS should not be in the business of handing out federal tax dollars: These grants should be terminated. Accomplishing this, however, will require action by Members of Congress who repeatedly vote to fund grants for political reasons. The transition should focus on building resilience and return on investment in line with real threats. Personnel FEMA currently has four Senate-confirmed positions. Only the Administrator should be confirmed by the Senate; other political leadership need not be con- firmed by the Senate. Additionally, FEMA’s “springing Cabinet position” should be eliminated, as this creates significant unnecessary challenges to the functioning of the whole of DHS at points in time when coordinated responses are most needed. CYBERSECURITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECURITY AGENCY (CISA) Needed Reforms CISA is supposed to have two key roles: (1) protection of the federal civilian government networks (.gov) while coordinating the execution of national cyber defense and sharing information with non-federal and private-sector partners — 155 — Department of Homeland Security and (2) national coordination of critical infrastructure security and resilience. Yet CISA has rapidly expanded its scope into lanes where it does not belong, the most recent and most glaring example being censorship of so-called misinformation and disinformation. CISA’s funding and resources should align narrowly with the foregoing two mission requirements. The component’s emergency communications and Chem- ical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) roles should be moved to FEMA; its school security functions should be transferred to state homeland security offices; and CISA should refrain from duplicating cybersecurity functions done elsewhere at the Department of Defense, FBI, National Security Agency, and U.S. Secret Service. Of the utmost urgency is immediately ending CISA’s counter-mis/disinforma- tion efforts. The federal government cannot be the arbiter of truth. CISA began this work because of alleged Russian misinformation in the 2016 election, which in fact turned out to be a Clinton campaign “dirty trick.” The Intelligence Commu- nity, including the NSA or DOD, should counter foreign actors. At the time of this writing, release of the Twitter Files has demonstrated that CISA has devolved into an unconstitutional censoring and election engineering apparatus of the political Left. In any event, the entirety of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee should be dismissed on Day One. For election security, CISA should help states and localities assess whether they have good cyber hygiene in their hardware and software in preparation for an election—but nothing more. This is of value to smaller localities, particularly by flagging who is attacking their websites. CISA should not be significantly involved closer to an election. Nor should it participate in messaging or propaganda. U.S. COAST GUARD (USCG) Needed Reforms The U.S. Coast Guard fleet should be sized to the needs of great-power compe- tition, specifically focusing efforts and investment on protecting U.S. waters, all while seeking to find (where feasible) more economical ways to perform USCG missions. The scope of the Coast Guard’s mission needs to be focused on protecting U.S. resources and interests in its home waters, specifically its Exclusive Economic Zone (200 miles from shore). USCG’s budget should address the growing demand for it to address the increasing threat from the Chinese fishing fleet in home waters as well as narcotics and migrant flows in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific. Doing this will require reversing years of shortfalls in shipbuilding, maintenance, and upgrades of shore facilities as well as seeking more cost-effective ship and facility designs. In wartime, the USCG supports the Navy, but it has limited capability and capacity to support wartime missions outside home waters.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on flood risk mitigation and NFIP accountability, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses air quality, greenhouse gas regulations, and permitting reforms; they share only broad themes of risk reduction and federal‑local coordination but operate in distinct policy domains."

Key themes:mitigationrisk assessmentfederal‑state‑local coordinationcost considerationsresilience

— 425 — Environmental Protection Agency are statutorily required, and remove any regulatory differences between attainment and maintenance that are not explicitly required by law. l Streamline the process for state and local governments to demonstrate that their federally funded highway projects will not interfere with NAAQS attainment. l Adopt policies to prevent abuse of EPA’s CAA “error correction” authority.20 EPA historically has used this to coerce states into adopting its favored policies on pain of imposition of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). l Limit EPA’s reliance on CAA § 30121 general rulemaking authority to ensure that it is not abused to issue regulations for which EPA lacks substantive authority elsewhere in the statute. l If possible, return the standard-setting role to Congress. Climate Change l Remove the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) for any source category that is not currently being regulated. The overall reporting program imposes significant burdens on small businesses and companies that are not being regulated. This is either a pointless burden or a sword-of- Damocles threat of future regulation, neither of which is appropriate. l Establish a system, with an appropriate deadline, to update the 2009 endangerment finding. l Establish a significant emissions rate (SER) for greenhouse gasses (GHGs). Regulating Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) Under the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act22 l Repeal Biden Administration implementing regulations for the AIM Act that are unnecessarily stringent and costly. l Refrain from granting petitions from opportunistic manufacturers to add new restrictions that further skew the market toward costlier refrigerants and equipment. — 426 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l Conduct realistic cost assessments that reflect actual consumer experiences instead of the current unrealistic ones claiming that the program is virtually cost-free. Mobile Source Regulation by the Office of Transportation and Air Quality l Establish GHG car standards under Department of Transportation (DOT) leadership that properly consider cost, choice, safety, and national security. l Review the existing “ramp rate” for car standards to ensure that it is actually achievable. l Include life cycle emissions of electric vehicles and consider all of their environmental impacts. l Restore the position that California’s waiver applies only to California- specific issues like ground-level ozone, not global climate issues. l Ensure that other states can adopt California’s standards only for traditional/criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. l Stop the use of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) to increase standards on airplanes. l Reconsider the Cleaner Trucks Initiative to balance the goal of driving down emissions without creating significant costs or complex burdens on the industry. Air Permitting Reforms for New Source Review (Pre-Construction Per- mits) and Title V (Operating Permits) l Develop reforms to ensure that when a facility improves efficiency within its production process, new permitting requirements are not triggered. l Restore the Trump EPA position on Once-In, Always-In (that major sources can convert to area sources when affiliated emissions standards are met). l Revisit permitting and enforcement assumptions that sources will operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year; this artificially inflates a source’s potential to emit (PTE), which can result in more stringent permit terms.

Environmental Protection Agency

Weak

Vector: 61%

Pages: 458-460AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on flood risk mitigation and community accountability under the NFIP, while the Project 2025 EPA section addresses air quality, greenhouse gas regulations, and Clean Air Act reforms—there is minimal thematic overlap between flood resilience and the EPA-specific policies outlined."

Key themes:regulatory reformstate and local government assistance

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Minimal

Vector: 61%

Pages: 542-544AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"The bill focuses on flood risk mitigation and community accountability for repeatedly flooded areas under the NFIP, while the Project 2025 policy centers on HUD reforms related to FHA mortgage insurance, homeownership promotion, and rental assistance programs. There is no substantive overlap in objectives, mechanisms, or policy domains between the two."

— 510 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise l FHA leadership should increase the mortgage insurance premium (MIP) for all products above 20-year terms and maintain MIP for all products below 20-year terms and all refinances. FHA should encourage wealth-building homeownership opportunities, which can be accomplished best through shorter-duration mortgages.39 Ideally, Congress would contemplate a fundamental revision of FHA’s statutory restriction of single-family housing mortgage insurance to first-time homebuyers.40 This would include (with support from HUD leadership): 1. Moving the Home Equity Conversion Mortgages (HECM) program once again to its own special risk insurance fund. 2. Revising loan limit determinations. 3. Providing statutory flexibility for shorter-term products that amortize principal earlier and faster. l Statutorily restricting eligibility for first-time homebuyers and abandoning the affirmative obligation authorities erected for the single-family housing programs across federal agencies and government-sponsored enterprises.41 l The HUD Secretary should move the HUD Real Estate Assessment Center (REAC) from PIH to the Office of Housing, which already implements property standards in its multifamily housing lending programs through the multifamily accelerated processing (MAP) lending guidelines. Giving HUD the authority to streamline the enforcement of compliance with housing standards across the federal government and flexibility for physical inspections through private accreditation should also be considered. l HUD should maintain its requested budget authority for modernization initiatives that are applicable to the Office of the Chief Information Officer and program offices across the department. LONGER-TERM POLICY REFORM CONSIDERATIONS42 Congress has charged HUD principally with mandates for construction of the nation’s affordable housing stock in addition to setting and enforcing standards for decent housing and fair housing enforcement. Regardless of intent, HUD’s efforts have yielded mixed results at best. Even today, more than a half-century after Congress put enforcement of so-called fair housing in the hands of the HUD bureaucracy, implementation of this policy is muddled by the repeated applica- tion of affirmative race-based policies. Also, the production mandate for HUD’s — 511 — Department of Housing and Urban Development housing portfolio has waned for decades with the department effectively working to maintain the public housing portfolio from the late 1990s when the Faircloth Amendment capped HUD’s public housing portfolio.43 Longer-term reforms of HUD rental assistance programs should encourage choice and competition for renters, encourage participation by landlords where appropriate,44 and encourage all non-elderly, able-bodied adults to move toward self-sufficiency. This can be pursued through regulations and legislative reforms that seek to strengthen work requirements, limit the period during which house- holds are eligible for housing benefits, and add flexibility to rent payment terms to facilitate the movement of households toward self-sufficiency. Obviously, using government vouchers or other such programs to expand hous- ing choice options is not without its downsides. The turn toward mobility vouchers constitutes an abandonment of America’s public housing stock, and efforts to increase competition in the public housing market must not come at the expense of local autonomy and the ability of cities, towns, neighborhoods, and commu- nities to choose for themselves the sort of housing they want to allow. Freedom of association and self-government at the most local level possible must remain primary considerations in any conservative effort to increase competition in the public housing market. Congress should also consider those areas in which federal policy negatively interacts with private markets, including when federal policy crowds out pri- vate-sector development and exacerbates affordability challenges that persist across the nation. It is essential that legislation provides states and localities max- imal flexibility to pursue locally designed policies and minimize the likelihood of federal preemption of local land use and zoning decisions. In the same manner, Congress should prioritize any and all legislative support for the single-family home. Homeownership forms the backbone of the American Dream. The purchase of a home is the largest investment most Americans will make in their lifetimes, and homeownership remains the most accessible way to build generational wealth for millions of Americans. For these reasons, American homeowners and citizens know best what is in the interest of their neighborhoods and communities. Localities rather than the federal government must have the final say in zoning laws and regulations, and a conservative Administration should oppose any efforts to weaken single-family zoning. Along the same lines, Congress can propose tax credits for the renovation or repair of housing stock in rural areas so that more Americans are able to access the American Dream of homeownership. Additionally, enhanced statutory authorities for local autonomy should extend to the prioritizing of federal rental assistance subsidies that emphasize choice and mobility in housing voucher subsidies over static, site-based subsidies and provide authority for maximal flexibility to direct PHA land sales that involve the existing stock of public housing units. Congress must consider the future of the public

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Scott, Tim

SBA Disaster Transparency Act

119/s/371

Renewing the African American Civil Rights Network Act

119/s/4767

High-Quality Charter Schools Act

119/s/1813

Back to All Bills