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 wants to create a special team of experts to help people and organizations work together better when cleaning up things like broken trees and trash after a big disaster, like a storm. This team will include people from important groups like FEMA to make sure everything is done safely and quickly.
Summary AI
H.R. 6997, titled the "Disaster Contract Improvement Act," aims to set up an advisory group to promote teamwork among people and organizations involved in disaster recovery, particularly focusing on debris removal. This group will include representatives from federal agencies like FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as state and local governments. The bill requires the creation of guidance and procedures to enhance oversight of debris removal contracts, streamline reimbursements, and reduce inefficiencies. Additionally, it calls for a study by the Government Accountability Office to assess the use and benefits of advance contracts for debris removal, and to make recommendations for improvements in oversight and fraud prevention.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
H.R. 6997, introduced in the 118th Congress, aims to establish an advisory group to enhance disaster recovery activities focusing on debris removal. The bill is titled the “Disaster Contract Improvement Act.” It directs the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to create an advisory working group that includes representatives from various governmental bodies and experts in debris removal. The bill seeks to improve collaboration, oversight, and efficiency in how debris removal is managed post-disaster. Additionally, it mandates the development of guidance and procedures for overseeing debris removal contracts and addressing issues of cost and efficiency. It also requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to undertake a study to assess the use and effectiveness of advance contracts in debris removal.
Summary of Significant Issues
A notable concern is the absence of a specified budget or expenditure limit for the advisory group's operations and the overall oversight of the debris removal program. This could lead to unchecked spending, affecting taxpayers and stakeholders. The bill also lacks clear criteria for the selection of subject matter experts, which raises questions about transparency and the potential for favoritism. Moreover, the requirement for local and Tribal governments to assume oversight responsibilities is not financially or organizationally detailed, posing potential burdens on these entities. There is also a risk of redundancy in developing guidance materials if similar resources already exist. Lastly, the timeframe for the GAO study might be too short to provide meaningful insights, limiting the benefit of the study's findings.
Broad Public Impact
The bill has the potential to improve the efficiency and collaboration involved in debris removal after disasters, which could lead to quicker recovery processes and reduced long-term disruption for affected communities. By establishing an advisory group, the bill encourages input from various stakeholders, potentially leading to more comprehensive and effective disaster recovery strategies. However, without clear budgetary restrictions, the additional administrative layer could lead to increased costs. The study by the GAO could generate valuable insights into best practices, assuming it has sufficient depth and time to gather and analyze data.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For federal agencies like FEMA, the bill outlines a proactive role in orchestrating collaborative efforts and guidelines for debris removal, potentially improving their operational frameworks. State and local governments may benefit from more structured guidance on managing debris post-disaster but could face challenges if they are required to take on expanded oversight responsibilities without corresponding funding. Industry players, specifically debris services contractors, might gain insights into operational best practices through increased standardization and oversight, though they may also face stricter performance monitoring.
In summary, while H.R. 6997 has the potential to enhance disaster recovery processes related to debris removal, certain provisions regarding budget, expert selection, and government responsibilities remain vague, which could pose challenges in its practical application and effectiveness.
Issues
The lack of specified budget or expenditure limits for the oversight and implementation of the debris removal program in Section 2 could lead to unchecked spending, which is a significant financial concern for taxpayers and stakeholders.
The criteria for selecting 'subject matter experts in debris removal' for the advisory working group in Section 2(b)(2)(E) are not defined, raising concerns about potential favoritism or lack of transparency in the selection process.
The responsibility of States, Tribal governments, and local governments to 'take the primary role in the oversight function of debris removal' in Section 2(c)(2)(A) lacks clarity on funding and support mechanisms, posing a potential legal and financial burden on these entities.
The potential redundancy in developing new guidance and checklists if similar materials already exist, as mentioned in Section 2(c)(2)(D), raises concerns about inefficient use of resources and potential overlap with existing effective materials.
The guidance for 'streamlining the reimbursement of debris costs' in Section 2(c)(2)(C) is important but lacks detailed explanation of potential economic impacts, especially regarding changes in funding distribution methods.
There is no clear resolution for potential overlap and inefficiencies due to duplicated efforts among different State and Federal entities outlined in Section 2(c)(2)(G), which could lead to operational inefficiencies.
The timeframe for the GAO study set at only 1 year post-enactment in Section 2(e) may be insufficient to gather meaningful data on the long-term impacts of implemented changes, potentially undermining the effectiveness of the study's findings.
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.