House Approves Triennial FEMA UASI Capability Report Bill
Data as of August 25, 2026 · Refresh this data →
Sponsored by Rep. Carter, Troy A. [D-LA-2] · 2 cosponsors
Plain-English Summary
Homeland Security Capabilities Preservation Reporting Act of 2026 This bill requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to submit a report to Congress every three years (current law requires only one report) regarding urban areas’ security capabilities previously supported with funding from the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) and at risk of being reduced or eliminated without additional federal assistance. FEMA’s UASI grants assist designated high-risk urban areas with developing and sustaining capabilities to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism. Each report must contain a proposal for FEMA to provide financial assistance for at least three consecutive years to urban areas previously receiving UASI funds to allow them to transition to other funding sources to preserve their security capabilities.
Current Status
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
What Problem This Addresses
Under current law FEMA submits only a single report on the status of UASI‑funded capabilities. The lack of periodic reporting leaves Congress without up‑to‑date data on whether high‑risk urban areas are losing essential security functions. UASI grants are time‑limited, and many jurisdictions risk capability reductions when those funds expire. The bill seeks to close this oversight gap by requiring a triennial report that identifies at‑risk capabilities. It also mandates a proposal for at least three years of federal assistance to help jurisdictions transition to alternative funding sources.
Outlook
The measure cleared the House with a unanimous voice vote and was reported by the Committee on Homeland Security on July 13, 2026. It was subsequently received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 14. With only two cosponsors and no public Senate debate yet, the bill faces an uncertain timeline; most similar homeland‑security proposals stall in committee. If the Senate committee advances it, a bipartisan vote could be possible given the non‑controversial nature of reporting, but the lack of a Senate sponsor reduces momentum. Therefore, realistic expectations are that the bill will remain in committee through the remainder of the 119th Congress unless a Senate champion emerges.
Arguments From Supporters
Proponents argue that periodic, detailed reporting will give Congress the data needed to prevent unintentional erosion of urban terrorism‑prevention capabilities. The three‑year transition assistance proposal is presented as a bridge to sustain capabilities while jurisdictions identify alternative funding. Sponsor Rep. Carter emphasizes that the bill fulfills Congress’s constitutional power to oversee federal disaster‑relief programs and protect national security. Supporters also note that the unanimous House vote indicates broad bipartisan recognition of the reporting gap.
Arguments From Opponents
No explicit opposition is recorded in the official action history, and the unanimous House vote suggests minimal visible dissent. Potential critics might raise concerns about the added administrative burden on FEMA and the undisclosed cost of multi‑year assistance, but such objections have not been documented in the record.
Where Both Sides Agree
Both supporters and any realistic critics agree that UASI‑funded capabilities are critical to urban security. They also concur that better congressional oversight of these programs would be beneficial.
Core Disagreement
The disagreement centers on whether Congress should mandate a three‑year funding commitment versus allowing FEMA flexibility to allocate resources as needs evolve. Critics may view the reporting requirement as an unnecessary expansion of federal oversight.
Constitutional Basis Cited
The sponsor cites Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution as the authority for the legislation, which grants Congress power to make all laws necessary and proper for executing its enumerated powers, including disaster‑relief and national‑security functions. No substantive constitutional challenges appear in the record, and the reporting and funding provisions fall within Congress’s spending and oversight authority.
Economic Considerations
The bill does not include a cost estimate for the triennial report or the proposed three‑year assistance, so exact fiscal effects are unknown. Analysts can expect incremental costs for FEMA staff time to compile the report and for the transition assistance, which could run into tens of millions of dollars annually depending on the number of affected jurisdictions. However, supporters argue that preserving security capabilities may avoid higher costs associated with capability loss and subsequent emergency response. Given the lack of official figures, any projected economic impact remains speculative.
Sections beyond the plain-English summary are AI-synthesized analysis based on the sourced legislative record from Congress.gov, read, edited where needed, and approved by a human editor before publication. Full methodology: Editorial & Methodology.
← All Records