Save BRIC Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Stanton, Greg [D-AZ-4]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 14, 2025
Bottom line
The Save BRIC Act mandates federal predisaster hazard mitigation assistance, aiming to restore and solidify a program previously cancelled, based on arguments of cost-effectiveness and proactive disaster preparedness.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to make the provision of predisaster hazard mitigation assistance by the President mandatory rather than discretionary. Specifically, it changes the word 'may' to 'shall' in two subsections of Section 203, ensuring that the President is required to provide assistance for such measures.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that predisaster mitigation is a fiscally responsible and life-saving investment, citing scientific research that every $1 invested saves up to $13 in disaster recovery costs. They contend that making this assistance mandatory ensures proactive measures are taken to reduce loss of life and property, especially given the increasing frequency and cost of weather and climate disasters.
Opponents contend
Opponents, while often supporting the concept of mitigation, might argue against mandating such programs due to concerns about federal spending, potential for executive overreach, or a desire for greater flexibility in allocating disaster relief funds. They may also raise questions about the criteria for mandatory assistance and the administrative burden on federal agencies.
The bill is exceptionally short and straightforward, making it very accessible for a quick read and understanding of its core legislative change.
Section 3
Mandatory Predisaster Hazard Mitigation Assistance
This provision changes the language in subsections (b) and (c) of Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act from 'may' to 'shall'. This means that the President, through FEMA, would be legally required to provide predisaster hazard mitigation assistance, rather than having the discretion to do so. This effectively reinstates and codifies the mandatory nature of programs like the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that making mitigation assistance mandatory is crucial for national resilience and fiscal prudence. They point to the 'Findings' section, which highlights that every $1 invested in predisaster mitigation saves up to $13 in disaster recovery costs, making it a sound long-term investment in public safety and economic stability.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that mandating such assistance removes necessary executive flexibility to prioritize funding based on evolving national needs or specific disaster contexts. They could argue that a mandatory program might lead to less efficient allocation of resources or impose an inflexible budgetary burden without sufficient oversight or adaptability.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension lies between the long-term economic and safety benefits of mandatory predisaster mitigation versus the immediate budgetary implications and the desire for executive flexibility in allocating federal resources. It balances proactive investment against discretionary spending control.