Disaster Relief Planning Reform:

2020 was an unprecedented year. FEMA called it our costliest year yet with a whopping 22 disasters. (Sillman, JD, 2021). It was a year of apocalyptic proportions that included wildfires, hurricanes, extreme temperatures, and a pandemic, during which our disaster relief fund took a significant hit. Although the United States is no amateur in the natural disaster department, this year was expensive and challenging for our disaster relief fund. It was particularly so for the state of Texas who experienced the pandemic as well as extreme temperatures. FEMA recently provided the CSRA with funding to mitigate disaster relief.

The budget control act is nearing its expiry after 2021, and since the disaster relief fund is only a tiny fraction of the discretionary budget, talks about deficit and debt have Congress asking themselves how efficient it truly is. Our disaster relief plan has had many a facelift while remaining the subject of disagreements among our government officials. According to some, the government's role in relieving its citizens in times labeled as "disastrous" should be limited, and it has remained so. Only in extreme cases does the government provide supplemental funding. Currently, our disaster relief fund is funded through the appropriation process as part of FEMA's budget.

Congress has been conflicted about our disaster funding policy, and it appears that many of the issues related to the Disaster Relief Fund are less about the appropriations of funds than they are about the defined role of the federal government.

The first broad and permanent legislation defining federal authority disaster duties was the Defense Act of 1950, which centralized programs for defense against nuclear attack." (Roberts, 2006). This was the first piece of legislation aimed at centralizing disaster relief. The act left each state to mitigate relief efforts with only limited help from the federal government. "It is further declared to be the policy and intent of Congress that this responsibility for a civil defense shall be vested primarily in the several States and their political subdivisions." (Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950). The other issue with this legislation was that it only covered disasters caused by a nuclear attack.

"The inefficiency and inconsistencies of passing an individual law every time a community was in distress prompted Congress to enact the Federal Disaster Relief Program." (FEMA.gov-cite) It was still unclear whose responsibility it was to handle disaster relief. A mix of agencies would share vaguely assigned duties which left local leaders confused and dissatisfied. Defining the role of the federal emergency management agency would prove to be an essential step to a transparent and efficient disaster relief funding policy. In 1979 President Jimmy Carter created the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which brought together 100 various programs for long-term preparation and quick response. The agency's initial goal was and remained to permit more rational decisions on the relative cost and benefits of alternative approaches to disasters.

"The creation of a single FEMA improved disaster response by establishing a one-stop shop to speed communication between the white house, states, localities, the national guard and other agencies that might be called on upon a crisis." (qtd in, Roberts, 2006) The only issue was a consistent lack of cooperation from local leaders to mitigate disaster preemptively instead of waiting for the disaster in question to wreak havoc and scramble for adequate relief. Carter was on the right track, but he could not reach his goal of a centralized agency; FEMA was fragmented and broken. In 1988 the agency absorbed functions from the department of defense, which meant that the agency was responsible for preparing, responding, and mitigating for both human-made and natural disasters. Concerns about the use of disaster authority for non-major disasters led to creation of the Robert T. Stafford Act.

In 2005 the agency's role had to be once again clarified and specified after failing to mitigate rescue efforts efficiently in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. FEMA's unsatisfying response to the unfortunate event has led Congress to wonder whether it was advantageous for the agency to remain active. There were talks of transferring FEMA's duties and their budget to the military, which raised legal implications due to PCA (Posse Comitatus Act), limiting the government's authority to use the army or air force to enforce domestic policy within the U.S.

There has always been a language barrier hiding deep beneath the surface of our disaster funding policy.

Nonetheless, FEMA's existence has been chiefly plagued by dissatisfaction. It is challenging to pinpoint the natural source of the agency's malfunction, which has turned FEMA into a habitual scapegoat. What is clear is that is better off to have a plan; Any plan.

[There is a well-founded belief that disaster relief appropriations have become a political jetton and that decisions regarding disaster declarations are at the mercy of politics and timing. "Several studies in recent years indicate that, to curry favor in upcoming elections, a President may declare an emergency or major disaster unnecessarily." (qtd. in Shroeder, 1196). Following Hurricane Irma, Fort Lauderdale was in desperate need of relief funding. Unfortunately for them, President Trump was not in a hurry to approve the bill. He selfishly saw this catastrophic event as an opportunity to advance his political agenda.

Regardless of the motivations, it is agreed that specific changes should be made to our disaster relief funding policy. Constant legislation changes continue to make this topic a point of contention and criticism. Taking an ad hoc approach to our disaster relief funding is an unnecessary risk and a cruel inconvenience. An adjustment in the language used within our disaster policy should present a pre-emptive approach to disaster planning. A balance to our disaster fund is still attainable with a preemptive plan, perhaps even more so. The language in the Stafford Act describes FEMA's role as a federal agency to be that of support and not leadership in disaster mitigation.

The pandemic did not leave enough time to develop a new disaster preparedness plan. As a result, the Stafford Act was used for the first time as a disaster response plan which left Congress with three issues to examine. (1) Was the Stafford act the best vehicle for assisting, (2) how should Congress approach funding future for public health, and lastly (3) defining what interplays between natural disaster authorities and public health authorities in this situation. In the current constrained budget environment, Congress continues to weigh the proper level of reserves for FEMA to keep available in the DRF. Any opposition to being more prepared is nonsensical as well as irresponsible.

The DRF in the CARES act provided $2 trillion in emergency funding to households, small and large businesses, states and municipalities, and healthcare providers; this more than doubled the fund's annual appropriation. Fluctuations in budget make it challenging to predict the full extent of disaster relief need. Disaster needs in budget ought to be prioritized in our next disaster plan.

New reforms are underway, and Americans can let out a sigh of relief. President Biden's newly enacted American Rescue Plan appropriated $510 billion to the [Emergency Food and Shelter Program]. More specifically, it includes funding for direct payments to taxpayers, direct aid to state and local tribal governments, expansion of unemployment benefits, tax incentives and public health and related spending, educational support, and more. It is opposed by Republicans who recently attempted to negotiate a smaller package, arguing that Biden's plan was too expensive and not focused enough on the nation's health and economic crises. (Peoples, 2021) Individually, American families still require additional financial help. Recently, Democratic representatives Rashida Tlaib and Pramila Jayapal reintroduced the Automatic Boost to Communities (ABC)act. This reform would guarantee monthly $2000 payments to each household until the end of the pandemic and an additional $1000 per month for the following year. It would be funded directly by the U.S Treasury. The Trump administration supported the measure, which senator Mitch McConnel later blocked. With the Democratic party in control of the house, Talib’s bill has gotten more push.

Looking at the disaster response history of the United States should be enough justification to know that natural disasters will continue to happen, and as President Biden recently put it, "we should be scared of going too big, not too small." An ameliorated plan would include a change in language within the policy to (clearly) include more substantial investment in job training and career help for disabled workers. More importantly, it would make the American Rescue Plan policy, and it would include senator Tlaib's bill policy during disaster declarations and times of federal disaster funding need; This would present the best option moving forward.

The United States has seen its fair share of natural disasters and has unsuccessfully attempted to get one step ahead of the problem. "Between 1980 and July 2019, 250 disasters caused more than $1 billion damage each, which caused a total of $1.7 trillion in damages." (Cords 925) An efficient disaster relief funding plan has taken time to develop and still has room for improvement. A consistent issue has been the vague language used in our policy. Although FEMA has made mistakes, it continues to be our best option when it comes to disaster relief funding management. "The first federal programs assisting state and local governments with flood control and other economic emergencies emerged with the New Deal." (qtd. in Shroeder 1179). Reform could take longer than desired, but it is necessary. The pandemic of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the worst U.S. public

health emergency in more than a century has elicited extraordinary effort across all levels of government and sectors of society .

Works Cited

Cords, Danshera Wetherington. "An Inflection Point for Disaster Relief: Superstorm Sandy." Touro Law Review, vol. 35, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 925–956. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=140243724&site=ehost-live.

Painter, Willliam L "The Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Issues." The Congressional Research Service, 2021 http://crsresports.congress.govAccessed March 18, 2021

Peoples, S. (2021, May 06). Republicans promote pandemic relief they voted against. Retrieved May 11, 2021, from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/may/6/republicans-promote- pandemic-relief-they-voted-aga/

Roberts, P. (2006, June 1). FEMA after Katrina. Retrieved May 11, 2021, from https://www.hoover.org/research/fema-after-katrina

Schroeder, Shannon Collins. "Does America's New Disaster Relief Law Provide the Relief America Needs?" Houston Law Review, vol. 56, no. 5, Spring 2019, pp. 1177 1212. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=136643907&site=ehost-live.