```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1859 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1859

To revise the process by which the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
   evaluates a request for major disaster assistance, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2013

  Mr. Schiff (for himself and Ms. Chu) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To revise the process by which the Federal Emergency Management Agency 
   evaluates a request for major disaster assistance, and for other 
                               purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Disaster Declaration Improvement Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

    Congress finds the following:
            (1) The process that the Federal Emergency Management 
        Agency (FEMA) uses to determine whether major disaster 
        assistance should be recommended to the President is badly 
        flawed.
            (2) The Government Accountability Office's 2012 report on 
        the FEMA disaster assistance process stated that according ``to 
        FEMA and state emergency management officials, FEMA has 
        primarily relied on a single indicator, the statewide per 
        capita damage indicator, to determine whether to recommend that 
        a jurisdiction receive [Public Assistance] funding''.
            (3) The Government Accountability Office's 2012 report on 
        the FEMA disaster assistance process also stated that 244 of 
        246 approved disaster declarations during fiscal years 2008 
        through 2011 had damage estimates that met or exceeded the 
        Public Assistance per capita indicator.
            (4) Federal regulations do not prioritize the factors to be 
        considered in recommending a major disaster declaration, but 
        FEMA clearly does, as 99 percent of disasters in fiscal years 
        2008 through 2011 that satisfied FEMA's statewide per capita 
        damage threshold received a disaster declaration.
            (5) FEMA should give, in its future evaluation of Governor-
        submitted requests for major disaster assistance, equal 
        consideration to all of the factors described in section 
        206.48(a) of title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, so that the 
        process for recommending major disaster assistance will work as 
        originally intended.
            (6) Another flaw in FEMA's process, that communities within 
        large States and counties are unfairly disadvantaged, must also 
        be addressed.
            (7) Evaluation of Governor-submitted requests for major 
        disaster assistance on the basis of a statewide per capita 
        damage threshold, and occasionally a countywide per capita 
        damage threshold, establishes a higher threshold for States and 
        counties with large populations to receive major disaster 
        assistance, even though there is no indication that they have a 
        greater fiscal capacity to respond to disasters.
            (8) The inequity described in paragraphs (6) and (7) means 
        that communities can suffer high levels of disaster-related 
        damage but not receive the assistance they need to quickly 
        recover from the disaster.
            (9) FEMA should consider more than just the statewide and 
        countywide per capita damage thresholds in evaluating a request 
        for major disaster assistance, so that communities in large 
        population counties in large population States do not face an 
        unreasonably high barrier to receiving assistance following a 
        disaster.

SEC. 3. CONSIDERATION OF MAJOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE REQUESTS.

    Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, 
the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall 
issue regulations to ensure that--
            (1) in any review of a request for major disaster 
        assistance conducted by the Federal Emergency Management 
        Agency, the factor described in section 206.48(a)(1) of title 
        44, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to the estimated cost 
        of assistance), is provided consideration that is equal to the 
        consideration provided to each of the other factors described 
        in section 206.48(a) of such title; and
            (2) a request for major disaster assistance by a State is 
        considered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for 
        recommendation to the President, without regard to any per 
        capita damage threshold (other than a threshold described in 
        this paragraph), in any case in which a disaster occurs with 
        respect to a city or unincorporated jurisdiction--
                    (A) with a population of less than 250,000;
                    (B) located in a county with a population of more 
                than 1,000,000 and a State with a population of more 
                than 5,000,000; and
                    (C) with respect to which the financial damage 
                relating to the disaster exceeds--
                            (i) in the case of a city, 10 percent of 
                        the city's general fund; or
                            (ii) in the case of an unincorporated 
                        jurisdiction, $100 per capita.
                                 <all>
```