Reforming Disaster Recovery Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 15, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to streamline and make more predictable the federal response to catastrophic major disasters by institutionalizing HUD's CDBG-DR program with a dedicated fund, formulaic allocations, and a focus on equitable recovery and resilience.
What it actually does
This bill establishes a permanent Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund within the U.S. Treasury and authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to provide Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) assistance from this fund. It also creates a new Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency within HUD and sets forth detailed rules for grant allocation, eligible uses, grantee planning, financial controls, and inter-agency data sharing, with a strong emphasis on benefiting low- and moderate-income populations and promoting mitigation.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the current ad-hoc approach to disaster recovery funding through supplemental appropriations is inefficient, unpredictable, and causes significant delays in critical assistance. They contend that a permanent fund and formalized CDBG-DR program will provide faster, more effective, and equitable recovery, especially for vulnerable populations, by integrating proactive mitigation and pre-disaster planning into the federal response.
Opponents contend
Potential opponents might argue that establishing a permanent, formula-based fund could reduce congressional oversight over disaster spending and that the proposed allocation formula might not adequately address the unique and diverse needs of all disaster-impacted communities. Concerns could also be raised regarding the potential for increased federal spending and the administrative burden on grantees to comply with new, stringent regulations.
The bill is moderately complex due to its programmatic details and numerous cross-references to existing law, requiring a dedicated read to understand its full implications.
Section 4(b)
Establishes HUD Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency
This provision amends the Department of Housing and Urban Development Act to create a new Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency within the Office of the Secretary. This office will be responsible for overseeing and coordinating all of HUD's disaster preparedness and response duties, and will coordinate with other federal agencies like FEMA and SBA to provide a comprehensive approach to recovery and resilience activities.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that a dedicated office will improve HUD's ability to respond to disasters, streamline coordination with other federal agencies, and ensure a more consistent and effective long-term recovery process.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against administrative reorganizations aimed at improving efficiency, though some might question the necessity of a new office versus strengthening existing structures.
Tradeoffs
The tradeoff is between creating a new bureaucratic structure versus relying on existing departmental coordination mechanisms. The tension lies in ensuring this new office genuinely improves efficiency rather than adding another layer of bureaucracy.
Section 5
Creates a Permanent Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund
This section establishes a dedicated account in the U.S. Treasury, known as the 'Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund.' This fund will receive amounts appropriated, transferred from certain existing CDBG program recaptured funds, and unobligated balances from prior disaster appropriations. Funds will remain available until expended and will be used for CDBG-DR grants and HUD's supporting administrative and technical assistance activities. It also authorizes future appropriations to the Fund.
Section 6, adding Section 123(a) to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
Authorizes CDBG-DR Grants and Establishes Allocation Formula
This section authorizes the Secretary of HUD to make CDBG-DR grants from the new Long-Term Disaster Recovery Fund for necessary expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, housing and infrastructure restoration, economic revitalization, and mitigation in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from catastrophic major disasters. It mandates the Secretary to establish a formula by regulation for allocating assistance, considering criteria for catastrophic disasters, unmet needs, and an additional amount (up to 30%) for mitigation. It also allows for preliminary grants up to $5 million to speed recovery.
Section 6, adding Section 123(c)(1) and (4)
Mandates Grantee Plans and 70% Low-to-Moderate Income Benefit
This provision requires grantees to submit a detailed plan to HUD within 90 days of a grant allocation, outlining how funds will be used for disaster relief, long-term recovery, housing and infrastructure restoration, economic revitalization, and mitigation. A critical component is the requirement that not less than 70% of a grant must be used for activities that benefit persons of low and moderate income, unless the Secretary grants a specific waiver based on compelling need and demonstrated address of LMI housing needs.
Section 6, adding Section 123(c)(7)
Establishes Minimum Construction Standards and Insurance Requirements in Hazard-Prone Areas
This provision mandates that the Secretary of HUD, in consultation with the Administrator of FEMA, establish minimum construction standards, insurance purchase requirements, and other rules for the use of grant funds in hazard-prone areas. These areas include those at risk from natural hazards like floods, wildfires, and earthquakes. For areas with special flood hazards, the insurance requirements must meet or exceed those under the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, and all grants under this section are treated as financial assistance for flood insurance purposes.
Section 6, adding Section 123(e) and (h)
Mandates Financial Controls, Duplication of Benefits Prevention, and Performance Reviews
This section requires HUD to develop stringent requirements and procedures for grantees to demonstrate adequate financial controls, procurement processes, and measures to detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and duplication of benefits. Grantees must be certified as proficient in these areas before receiving a grant. HUD will also conduct annual performance reviews against critical spending thresholds, with the authority to temporarily suspend grants and require performance improvement plans if targets are not met. It also outlines penalties for duplication of benefits.
Section 8
Authorizes Data Sharing Agreements Between Federal Agencies and Grantees
This section mandates HUD to establish data sharing agreements with FEMA, SBA, and other relevant federal agencies to prevent duplication of benefits, expedite recovery, and reduce the burden on disaster survivors. It specifically authorizes FEMA and SBA to provide disaster applicant data, including personally identifiable information when necessary, to HUD. HUD is also authorized to share relevant information with its grantees, technical assistance providers, and lenders, all while safeguarding privacy through specific information sharing or computer matching agreements and public notification.
Authorizes the Secretary to approve the use of CDBG-DR grants interchangeably and without limitation for the same activities in areas impacted by another catastrophic major disaster that qualifies for assistance, or a major disaster for which funds were allocated prior to the Fund's establishment. It also designates amounts repurposed under this authority that were previously emergency-designated by Congress as emergency requirements.
Section 6, adding Section 123(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for providing practical flexibility in fund management and addressing specific budgetary scoring implications related to emergency spending.
Case for: Proponents would argue this provides crucial flexibility for grantees to respond to evolving disaster landscapes and efficiently reallocate resources without needing new appropriations, especially in regions prone to multiple disasters, thereby speeding up recovery.
Case against: Critics might argue that such interchangeability could dilute the original intent of specific disaster appropriations or make tracking funds more complex, potentially reducing accountability for specific disaster events.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, allowing for more dynamic and responsive use of disaster recovery funds across different events and over time, enhancing the efficiency of federal disaster aid.
Allows the Secretary to extend the 6-year deadline for grantees to use CDBG-DR funds by not more than 4 years (or not more than 6 years for mitigation activities) if the grantee submits written documentation of exigent circumstances or justification due to program complexity, and the Secretary submits a written justification for the extension to the Congressional Appropriations Committees.
Section 6, adding Section 123(j)(4)
Why it matters:This is a practical legislative detail acknowledging the inherent complexities and delays in large-scale disaster recovery projects, which often exceed initial timelines due to unforeseen challenges like environmental reviews, land acquisition, or supply chain issues.
Case for: Supporters would argue that this flexibility is essential for realistic disaster recovery, as major projects (especially mitigation) often face unforeseen delays, and without extensions, funds might be prematurely recaptured from ongoing, vital work.
Case against: Some might argue that frequent extensions could lead to program inefficiencies, reduce urgency, and tie up funds longer than necessary, delaying their potential recapture and reallocation to other pressing needs.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant for large, complex recovery and mitigation efforts, preventing premature recapture of funds from ongoing projects and allowing for more realistic project timelines.