PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2047-2048; text of measure as introduced: CR S2048)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 26, 2015
Fairness in Federal Disaster Declarations Act of 2015
Requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to amend the rules concerning the factors it considers when evaluating a governor's request for a major disaster declaration to provide that, with respect to the evaluation of the need for public assistance: (1) specific weighted valuations shall be assigned to the estimated cost of the assistance (10%), localized impacts (40%), insurance coverage in force (10%), hazard mitigation (10%), recent multiple disasters (10%), programs of other federal assistance (10%), and economic circumstances (10%); and (2) FEMA shall consider the economic circumstances of both the local economy of the affected area (including the local assessable tax base and local sales tax, median income, and poverty rate) and the state economy (including the unemployment rate).
Requires such rules to provide that, with respect to the evaluation of the severity, magnitude, and impact of the disaster and the evaluation of the need for assistance to individuals: (1) specific weighted valuations shall be assigned to concentration of damages (20%), trauma (20%), special populations (20%), voluntary agency assistance (10%), insurance (20%), average amount of individual assistance by state (5%), and economic considerations (5%); and (2) FEMA shall consider the economic circumstances of the affected area (including the local assessable tax base and local sales tax, median income, and poverty rate).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Makes such rules applicable to any disaster for which a governor requested a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and was denied on or after January 1, 2012.
People & committees
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S2047-2048; text of measure as introduced: CR S2048)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.870 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.870 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.870 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.870 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.