HR-8368-119
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsored by Troy Carter (D-LA)
What it does
This bill would appropriate federal funds to FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), which is the primary account used to pay for federal disaster response and recovery activities under the Stafford Act. The bill text does not specify a dollar amount, suggesting the amount would be determined during committee markup. It is currently in committee in the House.
Who benefits
Individuals and households in presidentially declared disaster areas who receive FEMA assistance for housing, repairs, and other needs. State and local governments that receive reimbursements for emergency protective measures and debris removal. First responders and emergency management agencies whose costs are covered by the DRF. Contractors and vendors who provide disaster recovery services. Communities recovering from hurricanes, wildfires, floods, tornadoes, and other major disasters.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who bear the cost of the appropriation. If the bill is offset by spending cuts elsewhere, programs or beneficiaries subject to those cuts would be negatively affected. If the appropriation adds to the deficit, future taxpayers and holders of U.S. debt may bear indirect costs. Competing budget priorities — other federal programs that may receive less funding if this appropriation is not offset — could also be affected.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the DRF is the federal government's primary tool for delivering life-saving assistance after major disasters, and that underfunding it leaves disaster survivors without timely help for housing, debris removal, and infrastructure repair. They contend that when the DRF runs low, FEMA is forced to implement "immediate needs funding" protocols that delay long-term recovery projects already underway, compounding harm to affected communities.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that standalone emergency appropriations to the DRF, passed outside the normal annual appropriations process, reduce fiscal discipline and make it easier to add to the deficit without offsets or scrutiny. They contend that Congress should address DRF funding through the regular budget process, where it can be weighed against competing priorities, and that repeated supplemental appropriations reflect a failure to adequately plan for predictable disaster costs.