49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–596 

DISASTER RECOVERY PERSONAL PROTECTION ACT OF 

2006 

JULY 25, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, from the Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 5013] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, to whom 

was referred the bill (H.R. 5013) to amend the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit the confiscation of firearms during certain national emergencies, having 

considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE LEGISLATION

The purpose of H.R. 5013 is to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) to prohibit the confiscation of lawfully possessed firearms by an individual operating under the color of Federal law while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, unless the confiscation is otherwise permitted by law. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

In the wake Hurricane Katrina, State and local law enforcement 

and public safety service organizations were overwhelmed. As a result, many citizens felt threatened. Many of these citizens lawfully 

kept firearms for the safety of themselves, their loved ones; their 

businesses, and their property. Some of these firearms were conVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:41 Jul 29, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR596.XXX HR596

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
2 

fiscated. H.R. 5013 prohibits the confiscation of lawfully possessed 

firearms by an individual operating under the color of Federal law 

while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, unless the confiscation is otherwise permitted by law. 

SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

Section 1. Short title; Table of contents 

This section provides that the short title for this legislation is the 

Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. 

Section 2. Findings 

This section contains a number of congressional findings. 

Section 3. Prohibition on confiscation of firearms during certain national emergencies 

This section amends the Stafford Act to prohibit federal employees, any entities (including state and local governments) receiving 

federal funds, and other relief workers from confiscating, requiring 

the registration of, or prohibiting possession of firearms during a 

disaster or an emergency if those firearms are legally possessed 

under federal or state laws. The bill also provides for a private 

right of action for restitution from an individual violating this section and for the return of the firearm confiscated in violation of 

this section. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 28, 2006, Mr. Jindal introduced H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006, which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. 

On May 17, 2006, the Full Committee met in open session and 

considered H.R. 5013. A manager’s amendment to ensure that federal officials may seize firearms if they are possessed in violation 

of federal, state, or local law during a major disaster or emergency 

was offered by Mr. Shuster and withdrawn. A motion by Mr. Shuster to approve and favorably report to the House H.R. 5013 was 

agreed to by voice vote by the Full Committee, with a quorum 

present. There were no recorded votes taken during Committee 

consideration of H.R. 5013. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives requires 

each committee report to include the total number of votes cast for 

and against on each rollcall vote on a motion to report and on any 

amendment offered to the measure or matter, and the names of 

those members voting for and against. There were no recorded 

votes taken in connection with ordering H.R. 5013 favorably reported House. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in this report. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
3 

COST OF LEGISLATION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely 

submitted prior to the filing of the report and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included in this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, and 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee references the 

report of the Congressional Budget Office included below. 

2. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that H.R. 5013 contains no measure that authorizes funding, 

so no statement of general performance and objectives for which 

any measure authorizes funding is required. 

3. With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received the 

following cost estimate for H.R. 5013 from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, June 8, 2006. 

Hon. DON YOUNG, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5013, the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Matthew Pickford (federal costs), and Melissa Merrell (for the state and local impact). 

Sincerely, 

DONALD B. MARRON, 

Acting Director. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 5013—Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 

H.R. 5013 would amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 

and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit federal employees, any 

entities (including state and local governments) that receive federal 

assistance, and other relief workers from confiscating, requiring the 

registration of, or prohibiting possession of firearms during a disaster or an emergency if those firearms are legally possessed under 

current federal or state laws. CBO estimates that implementing 

H.R. 5013 would have no significant impact on the federal budget. 

Enacting H.R. 5013 would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 5013 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would preempt, during a major disaster or an emergency, some local gun-conVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:41 Jul 29, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR596.XXX HR596

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
4 

trol ordinances that are more strict than state or federal law. Individuals would be able to possess firearms that are legal under state 

and federal law even though such possession would otherwise be 

prohibited under local ordinances. CBO estimates that local governments would incur no direct cost as a result of that preemption; 

therefore, the annual threshold established in UMRA would not be 

exceeded ($64 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation). The 

bill contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

This bill also would impose new restrictions on state and local 

governments that receive federal assistance. It would prohibit 

those governments from confiscating firearms, requiring registration of firearms, or in any way regulating the possession of firearms during a major disaster or an emergency if those firearms are 

legally possessed under state or federal law. This prohibition would 

prevent state and local governments from issuing emergency regulations, such as banning firearms in shelters or evacuation vehicles, unless there is an explicit state law prohibiting such possession. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew Pickford 

(for federal costs) and Melissa Merrell (for the state and local impact). This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine. Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause (3)(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, committee reports on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character shall include a statement citing the specific 

powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the 

measure. The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

finds that Congress has the authority to enact this measure pursuant to its powers granted under article I, section 8 of the Constitution. 

FEDERAL MANDATES STATEMENT

The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of Federal mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 

pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

(Public Law 104–4). 

PREEMPTION CLARIFICATION

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires the 

report of any Committee on a bill or joint resolution to include a 

statement on the extent to which the bill or joint resolution is intended to preempt state, local or tribal law. H.R. 5013 contains an 

intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) because it would preempt, during a major disaster or an emergency, some local gun-control ordinances that are 

more strict than state or federal law. Individuals would be able to 

possess firearms that are legal under state and federal law even 

though such possession would otherwise be prohibited under local 

ordinances. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that local 

governments would incur no direct cost as a result of that preemption; therefore, the annual threshold established in UMRA would 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
5 

not be exceeded. The bill contains no private-sector mandates as 

defined in UMRA. 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b) of the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this legislation. 

APPLICABILITY TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The Committee find that the legislation does not relate to the 

terms and conditions of employment or access to public services or 

accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act. (Public Law 104–1). 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

ROBERT T. STAFFORD DISASTER RELIEF AND 

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ACT 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VII—MISCELLANEOUS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 706. FIREARMS POLICIES. 

(a) PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS.—No officer or 

employee of the United States (including any member of the uniformed services), or person operating pursuant to or under color of 

Federal law, or receiving Federal funds, or under control of any 

Federal official, or providing services to such an officer, employee, 

or other person, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, may—

(1) temporarily or permanently seize, or authorize seizure of, 

any firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under 

Federal or State law, other than for forfeiture in compliance 

with Federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation; 

(2) require registration of any firearm for which registration 

is not required by Federal or State law; 

(3) prohibit possession of any firearm, or promulgate any 

rule, regulation, or order prohibiting possession of any firearm, 

in any place or by any person where such possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal or State law; or 

(4) prohibit the carrying of firearms by any person otherwise 

authorized to carry firearms under Federal or State law, solely 

because such person is operating under the direction, control, or 

supervision of a Federal agency in support of relief from a 

major disaster or emergency. 

(b) PRIVATE RIGHTS OF ACTION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Any individual aggrieved by a violation of 

this section may seek relief in an action at law, suit in equity, 

or other proper proceeding for redress against any person who 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
6 

subjects such individual, or causes such individual to be subjected, to the deprivation of any of the rights, privileges, or immunities secured by this section. 

(2) REMEDIES.—In addition to any existing remedy in law or 

equity, under any law, an individual aggrieved by the seizure 

or confiscation of a firearm in violation of this section may 

bring an action for return of such firearm in the United States 

district court in the district in which that individual resides or 

in which such firearm may be found. 

(3) ATTORNEY FEES.—In any action or proceeding to enforce 

this section, the court shall award the prevailing party, other 

than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of 

the costs. 

* * * * * * * 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
(7) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has a 

strong tradition of bipartisanship and it is not often that the Minority feels compelled to file separate views to the Committee’s report on a bill. However, because of the seriousness of the issue and 

the potential that this bill, as currently drafted, will jeopardize 

safety of federal and state emergency responders, we feel compelled 

to do so in this instance. 

H.R. 5013 was scheduled for markup at the Full Committee 

without the benefit of any hearings on the bill or a markup by the 

Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and 

Emergency Management. As a result, there has been no real debate on the bill and no opportunity for Members to determine the 

true intent of the bill and discuss possible unintended consequences of its language. 

The issue of which powers police and federal law enforcement 

will have to disarm citizens in a disaster is far-reaching and deserves more thoughtful consideration by this Committee. In serious 

emergencies there will be instances in which the officials in charge 

must make difficult decisions, such as allocating limited supplies of 

food and water, or medical services, and keeping evacuations orderly. Some of these decisions may displease citizens, and if these 

citizens are armed, an explosive confrontation could result. 

We recognize the need for law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves against criminals breaking into their homes, particularly when law enforcement is unable to protect its citizens 

after a catastrophic disaster. And although we are told that this is 

the intent of the bill, the actual language of the bill appears to go 

much further and, as currently drafted, would seemingly prohibit 

federal or state officials from asking a person to surrender his or 

her firearm in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack 

even when public safety would require such action. 

For example, under the bill as reported, a Coast Guard officer 

would be prohibited from requiring persons boarding a Coast 

Guard rescue helicopter or boat to surrender their firearms before 

they board. Although the Coast Guard’s Air Operations Manual 

specifically bans passengers from carrying weapons on helicopters 

or vessels, federal laws do not include this specific prohibition. 

If a Coast Guard officer required passengers to surrender weapons as required by the Coast Guard’s Air Operations Manual (chapter 4, section R.4), that officer will violate section 3 of the bill (‘‘sec. 

706(a)(1)’’) because he is temporarily seizing a ‘‘firearm the possession of which is not prohibited under Federal or State law’’. The officer also will likely violate the subsection of section 3 (‘‘sec. 

706(a)(3)’’) that prohibits an officer from ‘‘prohibiting possession of 

any firearm, in any place or by any person where such possession 

is not otherwise prohibited by Federal or State law’’. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
8 

If the Coast Guard officer did in fact insist that a person surrender his weapon before boarding a rescue helicopter or boat, subsection 3 (‘‘sec. 706(b)’’) of the bill would give the rescued individual 

the right to sue that Coast Guard officer. Subsection 3 creates a 

private right of action against any person who, whether knowingly 

or mistakenly, violates the bill. That officer, who is serving his 

country and may be risking his own life to save the life of another, 

could be sued for his actions. Under the bill, he would be personally 

liable for damages and attorneys’ fees. He could lose his savings 

and could put the financial welfare of his family in jeopardy simply 

for doing his job. We do not believe that federal or state officials 

should have to take that chance. 

The Coast Guard officer is therefore faced with violating this Act 

or the Coast Guard’s Air Operations Manual—let alone common 

sense. In its review of the bill, the Coast Guard stated in an e-mail: 

‘‘From a CG [Coast Guard] perspective, this proposal may undermine the authority of Captains of the Ports to control the carriage 

of articles, including firearms, aboard waterfront facilities, vessels, 

and security zones when deemed necessary for security.’’ An additional Coast Guard e-mail summarized the Coast Guard’s view of 

the bill: ‘‘As written, the Coast Guard would have serious concerns 

for both aircraft and vessel crewmember safety.’’ This Committee has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard and has 

consistently fought to secure its best interests. In fact, this is the 

first time that we can recall the Committee favorably reporting legislation that threatened the safety and security of Coast Guard personnel. It is regrettable that we have reached that point. 

As a further example, in the event of terrorist attack, the bill 

would prohibit a police or military officer from ordering all persons 

in the area of the attack to surrender their guns. In that case, the 

officer may not have the time to determine who is in lawful possession of the weapon, but for the safety and security of the public, 

may simply issue a general directive for everyone to surrender 

their weapons. This bill would prohibit the officer from doing that. 

If the officer did mistakenly disarm someone who was in legal possession of a firearm, the officer could then be sued and be held personally liable for damages—even if the officer later returned that 

person’s weapon. 

In addition, the bill provides that no person may prohibit the 

possession of any firearm in any place or by any person where such 

possession is not otherwise prohibited by Federal, State or local 

law. The bill appears intended to prohibit authorities, in the event 

of a national emergency, from requiring that people do not bring 

their weapons into a shelter. Given the chaos that ensued in 

Katrina, does anyone believe that the situation at the Superdome 

would have improved if the evacuees were armed? Does anyone 

really believe that a Catholic charity running a shelter should be 

prohibited from ordering that rival gang members can not bring 

guns into the church? 

These examples are not idle speculation. Section 2 of the bill contains a finding that appears to be directed at just such circumstances. Paragraph 9 of that section addresses the issue of people being prohibited from bringing guns into emergency shelters 

after Hurricane Katrina. The bill concludes that these people ‘‘were 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS
9 

treated as second-class citizens who had forfeited their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.’’ We believe that there are often 

legitimate safety and security concerns—both for those persons 

staffing the shelter and for those persons taking refuge in the shelter—for prohibiting firearms in an emergency shelter. A federal 

law that would preempt state and local law on community security 

issues across the board is at best misplaced and at worst reckless. 

Further, the bill provides that the individual—the FEMA worker, the local sheriff, the Catholic Charity volunteer, and the Coast 

Guard officer—are all personally liable if they mistakenly interpret 

these ambiguous statutory authorities. They can be sued and be required to pay damages and attorneys’ fees. We ask enough of the 

Coast Guard, law enforcement, and volunteers during such disasters—we shouldn’t ask them to be lawyers too. 

If the Committee had followed regular order and held hearings 

on this bill prior to proceeding with a Full Committee markup, we 

believe that many of these issues could have been resolved with a 

bipartisan manager’s amendment, as is the tradition in this Committee. There is a way to strike the proper balance: to ensure that 

people can protect themselves in a time of emergency, but not give 

criminals free reign to terrorize the law-abiding public. We would 

like to work with the majority to craft language that would strike 

this balance, and that would not, as we believe the bill currenty 

does, threaten the safety and well-being of charitable volunteers 

and federal and state officials. We appreciate the commitment that 

Chairman Young and Subcommittee Chairman Shuster made at 

the Committee markup to work together to make any necessary 

changes to the bill before we move forward. By working together 

we can take a more thoughtful approach to this important issue— an approach that better balances the legitimate rights of citizens 

to protect themselves with the needs of the Coast Guard and other 

federal, state, and local officials to ensure the safety and security 

of themselves and our citizens. 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR. 

JERROLD NADLER. 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. 

BOB FILNER. 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS. 

CORRINE BROWN. 

EARL BLUMENAUER. 

BILL PASCRELL, Jr. 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER. 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP. 

RUSS CARNAHAN. 

JULIA CARSON. 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with REPORTS