H. Res. 664 is a commemorative House resolution that marks the 20th anniversaries of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, compiles factual findings about the storms’ human and economic tolls, and issues four nonbinding statements: support for victims, commendation of responders, recognition of regional contributions, and a reaffirmation of commitment to rebuild the Gulf Coast.
The text collects casualty and damage estimates, evacuation and displacement figures, rescue statistics, and recovery indicators such as population and tourism figures.
The resolution matters because it places a contemporaneous, congressional record of those facts on the House floor and signals ongoing legislative attention to Gulf Coast recovery needs. Although the resolution creates no new legal duties or funding, it consolidates historical data and congressional priorities that committees, agencies, and stakeholders can cite in future oversight, appropriations, or policy discussions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill is a House simple resolution that recites findings about Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and resolves four symbolic actions: express support to victims, commend responders, recognize regional contributions, and reaffirm commitment to rebuild. It lists specific casualty, damage, displacement, and rescue figures and references affected States and infrastructure damage.
Who It Affects
Directly affected stakeholders named in the text include residents and displaced persons of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Georgia, along with first responders, charitable organizations, and federal responders such as the U.S. Coast Guard and Armed Forces. Committees and agencies involved in disaster recovery (notably Transportation and Infrastructure, FEMA, and the Army Corps) are likely to see the findings used in future work.
Why It Matters
As a nonbinding resolution, its primary effect is symbolic and evidentiary: it creates a concise congressional record of the storms’ impacts and recovery indicators that can be cited in hearings, grant justifications, or policy briefs. For practitioners, the resolution is a reference point that aggregates numbers and acknowledgements the House formally recognizes.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
H. Res. 664 compiles a short, factual history of Hurricane Katrina (August 29, 2005) and Hurricane Rita (September 24, 2005) and then issues four formal, but nonbinding, statements of congressional support.
The ‘‘whereas’’ clauses record casualty counts, economic damage estimates, the scale of evacuations and displacements, infrastructure failures, and the roles played by federal responders and charities. The bill lists concrete figures—fatalities, dollar estimates of damage, power outages, rescue tallies, and examples of destroyed bridges and highways—so the record is specific rather than purely rhetorical.
After the factual findings, the resolution resolves that the House (1) expresses support for victims, (2) commends those who assisted recovery efforts, (3) recognizes the contributions of Gulf Coast communities across six States, and (4) reaffirms a commitment to rebuild, renew, and restore the region. Each resolved clause is declaratory: it does not appropriate funds, change statutory authorities, or impose obligations on agencies.
Its practical usefulness comes from being an official statement of congressional posture and a concise aggregation of recovery metrics.Although short and symbolic, the resolution is targeted: it highlights certain recovery indicators that matter for oversight and planning—population rebound in the Gulfport‑Biloxi‑Pascagoula metro area and a rebound in New Orleans tourism are included as signs of progress. It also names the charitable and volunteer organizations and quantifies federal rescue activity, which together create a documented baseline that stakeholders and committees can point to when arguing for continued programs, grants, or infrastructure work.Because the bill is a simple House resolution, its direct legal footprint is nil.
Its value is informational and political: a formal congressional recognition of both catastrophe and resilience that may be cited in future legislative or administrative debates about remaining recovery gaps, infrastructure replacement, or disaster preparedness investments.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The resolution records 1,833 recorded fatalities from Hurricane Katrina and 120 from Hurricane Rita, per the National Hurricane Center.
It cites estimated total damages of $161,000,000,000 for Katrina (LA, MS, AL, FL) and $10,000,000,000 for Rita (LA, MS, TX).
The bill records that the U.S. Coast Guard rescued more than 33,544 people after Katrina and assisted evacuation of 9,409 patients and medical personnel; for Rita it records more than 100 rescues and evacuation assistance for 4,000 patients and medical personnel.
The ‘‘whereas’’ findings list large‑scale displacement and infrastructure impacts: over 1,000,000 displaced residents, hundreds of thousands unemployed, more than 200,000 homes and 20,000 businesses destroyed (Katrina), and specific highway losses such as the I‑10 Twin Span Bridge and multiple US‑90 bridges.
H. Res. 664 resolves four nonbinding actions: express support for victims, commend responders, recognize contributions of Gulf Coast communities (LA, MS, AL, FL, TX, GA), and reaffirm a commitment to rebuild the region.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Compact factual record of storm impacts
This block of clauses assembles casualty counts, economic loss estimates, displacement numbers, infrastructure damage, power‑outage statistics, rescue tallies, and recovery indicators such as population and tourism rebounds. Practically, these findings create a tidy repository of figures—sourced in the text to agencies like the National Hurricane Center and FEMA—that Members can cite without reassembling disparate reports. For compliance officers and grant writers, the value is in the specific numerics the House chooses to memorialize.
Expresses support to victims
The first operative clause declares the House’s support for Hurricane victims. This is a symbolic expression with no appropriations or statutory changes. Its main utility is moral and rhetorical: it memorializes harm and signals congressional recognition, which can be referenced in communications with constituents, grant applications, or advocacy materials.
Commends responders and volunteers
The second clause commends federal forces, first responders, and voluntary organizations named in the text (Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, Feeding America, Catholic Charities, Southern Baptist Disaster Relief, United Way, and others). While it imposes no obligations, the explicit naming may influence future recognition, award processes, and the historical record used in program evaluations.
Recognizes regional contributions
This clause formally recognizes contributions from communities in six States—Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Texas, and Georgia. For regional officials and local governments this is a congressional acknowledgment that may be leveraged in requests for continuing federal assistance or for inclusion in committee briefing materials.
Reaffirms commitment to rebuild
The final operative clause reaffirms the House’s commitment to rebuild, renew, and restore the Gulf Coast. Because the resolution does not define metrics, deadlines, or responsible agencies, its practical effect depends on follow‑up actions by committees or appropriators. The clause functions as a broad declaratory signal that the House places recovery on its list of priorities without creating new programmatic requirements.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Displaced Gulf Coast residents and survivors — the resolution formally recognizes their losses and the need for continued attention, which advocacy groups can cite when pressing for services or funding.
- State and local governments in LA, MS, AL, FL, TX, and GA — the recognition and compiled statistics provide a documented congressional record they can reference in grant applications and oversight hearings.
- Nonprofit relief organizations and volunteer networks — the resolution commends specific organizations, which helps preserve their role in the recovery narrative and can support future fundraising and partnership efforts.
- Federal emergency responders and military units involved in the rescue operations — the text memorializes their contributions and rescue statistics, strengthening institutional recognition and historical record.
- Regional economic stakeholders (tourism and local business coalitions) — by citing recovery indicators such as tourism and population rebounds, the resolution gives these stakeholders a congressional statement historians and economists can use to argue recovery progress.
Who Bears the Cost
- Congressional staff and the referred Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure — they absorb drafting, referral, and any committee time if members use the resolution as a basis for hearings or briefings.
- Federal agencies (FEMA, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Transportation) — while the resolution creates no new obligations, named agencies may face renewed expectations for updates or oversight driven by the resolution’s findings.
- Local governments and municipal service providers — symbolic reaffirmation can create pressure for continued action without new funding, potentially leading to unfunded expectations at the state and local level.
- Taxpayers — indirect and minimal administrative costs if congressional attention translates into new oversight activities or appropriations later on, though the resolution itself contains no spending provisions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is symbolic recognition versus substantive action: the resolution memorializes loss and praises recovery efforts, offering an authoritative congressional record, but it stops short of defining measurable commitments or funding—so it honors progress while leaving unresolved whether and how the federal government will address the still‑unmet needs the findings imply.
The bill is declaratory and contains no funding or regulatory directives; that limits its immediate policy bite but also raises a practical question: what should ‘‘reaffirm[ing] commitment to rebuild’’ mean in measurable terms? The resolution compiles many useful figures, yet it does not define remaining gaps, timelines, or responsible actors—making the text a starting point for policy conversations rather than a roadmap.
Practitioners should note that numerical indicators included (for example, tourism and population rebounds) are selective measures of recovery and may obscure persistent displacement, housing quality issues, and socioeconomic harms that the resolution does not quantify.
Another implementation challenge is evidentiary: the resolution relies on multiple historical sources but does not create a mechanism to update or verify figures. If committees or agencies use this language in future hearings or grant narratives, they will need to reconcile these static findings with current data.
Finally, by naming specific organizations and rescue tallies the bill fixes a particular narrative of recovery; that is useful for recognition but may narrow attention away from less visible recovery needs (mental health services, long‑term housing stability, and environmental remediation) that are harder to memorialize in a short resolution.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.