I 

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. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Disaster Declaration 

5 Improvement Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The process that the Federal Emergency 

9 Management Agency (FEMA) uses to determine 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1859 IH

1 whether major disaster assistance should be rec2 ommended to the President is badly flawed. 

3 (2) The Government Accountability Office’s 

4 2012 report on the FEMA disaster assistance proc5 ess stated that according ‘‘to FEMA and state emer6 gency management officials, FEMA has primarily 

7 relied on a single indicator, the statewide per capita 

8 damage indicator, to determine whether to rec9 ommend that a jurisdiction receive [Public Assist10 ance] funding’’. 

11 (3) The Government Accountability Office’s 

12 2012 report on the FEMA disaster assistance proc13 ess also stated that 244 of 246 approved disaster 

14 declarations during fiscal years 2008 through 2011 

15 had damage estimates that met or exceeded the 

16 Public Assistance per capita indicator. 

17 (4) Federal regulations do not prioritize the 

18 factors to be considered in recommending a major 

19 disaster declaration, but FEMA clearly does, as 99 

20 percent of disasters in fiscal years 2008 through 

21 2011 that satisfied FEMA’s statewide per capita 

22 damage threshold received a disaster declaration. 

23 (5) FEMA should give, in its future evaluation 

24 of Governor-submitted requests for major disaster 

25 assistance, equal consideration to all of the factors 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1859 IH

1 described in section 206.48(a) of title 44, Code of 

2 Federal Regulations, so that the process for recom3 mending major disaster assistance will work as origi4 nally intended. 

5 (6) Another flaw in FEMA’s process, that com6 munities within large States and counties are un7 fairly disadvantaged, must also be addressed. 

8 (7) Evaluation of Governor-submitted requests 

9 for major disaster assistance on the basis of a state10 wide per capita damage threshold, and occasionally 

11 a countywide per capita damage threshold, estab12 lishes a higher threshold for States and counties 

13 with large populations to receive major disaster as14 sistance, even though there is no indication that they 

15 have a greater fiscal capacity to respond to disas16 ters. 

17 (8) The inequity described in paragraphs (6) 

18 and (7) means that communities can suffer high lev19 els of disaster-related damage but not receive the as20 sistance they need to quickly recover from the dis21 aster. 

22 (9) FEMA should consider more than just the 

23 statewide and countywide per capita damage thresh24 olds in evaluating a request for major disaster as25 sistance, so that communities in large population 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1859 IH

1 counties in large population States do not face an 

2 unreasonably high barrier to receiving assistance fol3 lowing a disaster. 

4 SEC. 3. CONSIDERATION OF MAJOR DISASTER ASSISTANCE 

5 REQUESTS. 

6 Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment 

7 of this Act, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency 

8 Management Agency shall issue regulations to ensure 

9 that— 

10 (1) in any review of a request for major dis11 aster assistance conducted by the Federal Emer12 gency Management Agency, the factor described in 

13 section 206.48(a)(1) of title 44, Code of Federal 

14 Regulations (relating to the estimated cost of assist15 ance), is provided consideration that is equal to the 

16 consideration provided to each of the other factors 

17 described in section 206.48(a) of such title; and 

18 (2) a request for major disaster assistance by a 

19 State is considered by the Federal Emergency Man20 agement Agency for recommendation to the Presi21 dent, without regard to any per capita damage 

22 threshold (other than a threshold described in this 

23 paragraph), in any case in which a disaster occurs 

24 with respect to a city or unincorporated jurisdic25 tion— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 1859 IH

1 (A) with a population of less than 250,000; 

2 (B) located in a county with a population 

3 of more than 1,000,000 and a State with a pop4 ulation of more than 5,000,000; and 

5 (C) with respect to which the financial 

6 damage relating to the disaster exceeds— 

7 (i) in the case of a city, 10 percent of 

8 the city’s general fund; or 

9 (ii) in the case of an unincorporated 

10 jurisdiction, $100 per capita. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS