Overview
Title
To establish an advisory group to encourage and foster collaborative efforts among individuals and entities engaged in disaster recovery relating to debris removal, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 6997 is a plan to create a special team to help people work together better when cleaning up after disasters, like when there's a big mess after a storm. This team will make sure everyone has good rules to follow so the cleanup is done right and doesn't cost too much.
Summary AI
H. R. 6997, also known as the "Disaster Contract Improvement Act," aims to create an advisory group to promote collaboration in debris removal after disasters. This group, led by the Administrator of FEMA, will include representatives from federal agencies, local governments, tribes, and experts from the debris removal industry. The bill requires evaluating current procedures and, if necessary, developing new guidelines to ensure effective oversight and cost management in debris removal contracts. Additionally, it mandates FEMA to train local governments and conduct a study on advance contracts to improve efficiency and prevent fraud in debris removal programs.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
House Bill 6997, introduced in the 118th Congress, aims to establish an advisory group to enhance collaboration among entities involved in disaster recovery, specifically focusing on debris removal. The bill, titled the "Disaster Contract Improvement Act," outlines the creation of an advisory working group under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This group will consist of representatives from various federal agencies, State and Tribal governments, and subject matter experts in debris removal. The bill also directs the development of new guidance and procedural frameworks to assess and potentially improve existing contracts, oversight, and the management of debris removal. Furthermore, the Comptroller General is tasked with conducting a study focusing on advance contracts and other aspects of debris removal management within a year of the bill's enactment.
Summary of Significant Issues
One of the primary issues identified in the bill is the absence of a specified budget or expenditure limits for its implementation, raising concerns about unchecked spending. The criteria or qualifications for selecting subject matter experts for the advisory group are not clearly defined, potentially leading to favoritism. Additionally, the bill requires state and local entities to take the primary oversight role in debris removal without clarifying how these responsibilities are to be adequately funded or supported. There are also potential overlaps in the delineation of roles among federal and local authorities, which could result in inefficiencies. The one-year timeframe for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to complete the study may be insufficient to fully understand the long-term effects of the proposed changes.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, effective and quick disaster recovery processes are crucial, especially in light of increasingly frequent natural disasters. By prioritizing improved collaboration and oversight in debris removal, the bill aims to enhance the efficiency of disaster recovery efforts. However, without clear budgetary constraints and oversight mechanisms, there could be a misuse of funds, which may indirectly affect taxpayers.
The bill’s requirement for local governments to assume more responsibility in overseeing debris removal could lead to expedited recovery post-disaster, enhancing public safety and community well-being. Nonetheless, this could also place an additional burden on local governments if not accompanied by sufficient resources or support systems.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For stakeholders like FEMA, the Army Corps of Engineers, and State and Tribal governments, this bill could mean enhanced collaboration, streamlined processes, and improved resource management in debris removal. Improved guidance and procedures could also mean that these entities can work more efficiently and reduce duplicative efforts.
On the other hand, this bill could impose strategic and financial challenges on local governments, requiring them to take a larger share of the oversight responsibilities without clear guidance on funding support, thus stretching limited local resources. Contractors and experts involved in debris removal may benefit from the identified need for expertise and services but may also face changes in contract structures and oversight.
In summary, while this bill has the potential to significantly bolster disaster recovery operations, its successful implementation relies heavily on clearly defined funding sources, criteria for expertise, and a balanced distribution of oversight responsibilities across involved entities. Without these, there is a risk of financial inefficiencies and increased burdens on already strained local systems.
Issues
The bill lacks a specified budget or expenditure limit for the oversight and implementation of the debris removal program (Section 2). This could lead to potentially unchecked spending, which is a significant financial concern.
The criteria or qualifications for 'subject matter experts in debris removal' within the advisory working group are not specified (Section 2). This vagueness could lead to favoritism or conflicts of interest in the selection process.
There is insufficient clarity on how the responsibility of States, Tribal governments, and local governments 'to take the primary role in the oversight of debris removal' will be funded and supported (Section 2). This could result in financial burdens on lower levels of government.
The potential overlap between the roles and responsibilities of different State and Federal entities is not addressed (Section 2). This could lead to inefficiencies or duplication of efforts, which may impact how effectively disaster recovery efforts are organized and managed.
The timeframe for the GAO study is set at only 1 year post-enactment (Section 2). This may be insufficient to gather meaningful data on the long-term impacts of implemented changes, raising concerns about the adequacy of oversight and evaluation.
Guidance for streamlining the reimbursement of debris costs and the development of additional guidance and procedures lack detailed explanations of potential economic impacts or changes in funding distribution methods (Section 2). This raises concerns about the financial implications for both the federal budget and local entities.
The requirement for the development of guidance and checklists could lead to redundancy if similar materials already exist and their current effectiveness is not evaluated (Section 2). This could result in unnecessary expenditure and bureaucratic complexity.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that the official name of the legislation is the "Disaster Contract Improvement Act."
2. Oversight on debris removal Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
In this section, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency is responsible for setting up an advisory group to improve collaboration in debris removal after disasters. The section outlines procedures for creating new guidance and training programs and mandates a study by the Government Accountability Office to analyze contracts and improve oversight and fraud prevention in debris removal programs.