Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding

Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities,
and Funding
Updated August 15, 2008
Keith Bea
Specialist in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities,
and Funding
Summary
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the
Stafford Act) authorizes the President to issue major disaster or emergency
declarations in response to catastrophes that overwhelm state and local governments.
Such declarations result in the distribution of a wide range of federal aid to
individuals and families, certain nonprofit organizations, and public agencies.
Congress appropriates money to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) for disaster
assistance authorized by the Stafford Act, which is administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). Appropriations to the DRF remain available until expended.
At the conclusion of the 109^th Congress the Senate inserted Stafford Act
amendments into the FY2007 DHS appropriations legislation (H.R. 5441, enacted
as P.L. 109-295). These amendments, Subtitle E of Title VI (120 Stat. 1444 - 1457),
expand FEMA’s authority to expedite emergency assistance to stricken areas, impose
new planning and preparedness requirements on federal administrators, and increase
federal assistance to victims and communities. The amendments, most of which took
effect on the date of enactment (October 4, 2006), are summarized in CRS Report
RL33729, Federal Emergency Management Policy Changes After Hurricane
Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions, coordinated by Keith Bea.
Legislation to amend the Stafford Act has received action in the 110^th Congress.
On July 31, 2008, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ordered
to be reported H.R. 6658, which would make significant changes in the Stafford Act
regarding various issues, including, but not limited to, temporary employees, warning
systems, pre-disaster hazard mitigation; the bill also would establish new authorities
for existing programs and the funding mechanism. Also, H.R. 2775, reported from
the same committee on September 10, 2007, would amend the statute by authorizing
the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program. Third, the full
House approved a bill reauthorizing the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program
(H.R. 6109). In addition, legislation specific to the administration of Stafford Act
provisions in the Gulf Coast (cost-share waivers in H.R. 1591 and cancellation of
loan repayment requirements in S. 965) were folded into P.L. 110-28, the U.S. Troop
Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Act, 2007.
This report will be updated as warranted by events or legislative action.

Contents
Overview of the Stafford Act.........................................1
The 2006 Amendments.........................................2
Pending Legislation in the 110^th Congress...........................6
H.R. 6658................................................6
H.R. 6109................................................8
H.R. 2775................................................8
S. 2006..................................................8
Overview of Stafford Act Declarations.................................9
Prior to a Disaster..............................................9
After a Catastrophe Occurs.....................................10
Damage Assessments and Declaration Criteria..................10
Types of Assistance and Eligibility...................................13
Major Disaster Assistance......................................14
Emergency Declaration Assistance...............................16
Funding Caps and Cost Shares......................................17
Statutory Funding Limitations...................................17
Cost Share Waivers...........................................19
Hazard Mitigation Assistance.......................................27
Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grants............................27
Multihazard Mitigation Council Report............................34
Disaster Relief Fund..............................................34
Mission Assignments..........................................38
Issues for the 110^th Congress........................................39
“Super Catastrophes” and the Stafford Act.........................39
Expanding Eligibility..........................................41
Private Utilities after the 1998 Ice Storms......................41
Private Utilities after the 2001 Terrorist Attacks.................42
Private Health System after 2001 Tropical Storm Allison.........42
Controlling Federal Expenditures................................43
List of Tables
Table 1. Stafford Act Cost-Share Adjustments After Major Disasters,
1997-2005 ..................................................20
Table 2. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Obligations, FY1989-FY2006....27
Table 3. HMGP Obligations, by Type of Activity, 1990-2004..............29
Table 4. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funding, FY2002-FY2005...............31
Table 5. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant (PDM) Obligations, by State and
Activity, FY2002-FY2003......................................32
Table 6. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1989-FY2007........................35

Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities,
and Funding
Overview of the Stafford Act
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the
Stafford Act) authorizes the President to issue major disaster, emergency, and fire
management declarations, which in turn enable federal agencies to provide assistance
to states overwhelmed by disasters.¹ Through an amended executive order, President
Bush delegated to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
responsibility for administering most, but not all, of the provisions of the Stafford
Act.² Prior to this action the authority to implement Stafford authority had been
delegated to the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).³
Since March 1, 2003, FEMA has been part of DHS.
Stafford Act disaster assistance is provided through funds appropriated to the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). Federal assistance supported by DRF money is used by
states, localities, and certain non-profit organizations to provide mass care, restore
damaged or destroyed facilities, reduce the impact of future disasters, clear debris,
and aid individuals and families with uninsured needs, among other activities. In
calendar year 2007 President Bush issued 63 major disaster declarations.⁴

¹ The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121
et seq. “States” include U.S. territories and the District of Columbia. In addition to the
assistance authorized by the Stafford Act, a wide range of disaster aid is provided by other
federal agencies under statutory authority that specifically refers to disaster assistance, as
well as under general assistance provisions. For information on the range of federal
programs see CRS Report RL31734, Federal Disaster Recovery Programs: Brief
Summaries, by Mary Jordan.
² U.S. President George W. Bush, “Amendment of Executive Orders, and Other Actions, in
Connection with the Transfer of Certain Functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security,”
E.O. 13286, Sec. 52, February 28, 2003.
³ U.S. President Jimmy Carter, “Federal Emergency Management,” E.O. 12148, July 20,

1979.

⁴ U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2006 Federal Disaster Declarations, at
[http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2006#em], visited January 28, 2008.

The 2006 Amendments⁵
The 109^th Congress amended the Stafford Act through the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Title VI, P.L. 109-295) and the
Security and Accountability for Every Port Act of 2005, known as the SAFE Port Act
(P.L. 109-347). The amendments expanded the authority of FEMA to provide
assistance, resolved questions about the duties and powers of administration officials,
and imposed requirements on federal officials to ensure that effective pre-disaster
preparation actions would be taken. The Stafford Act amendments were developed
based on investigations conducted into the response to Hurricane Katrina and the
perceived need for legal remedies to make Stafford Act programs more flexible and
responsive to events of a catastrophic nature. While expanding federal assistance
authorities, the amendments maintain state, local, and individual emergency
management responsibility and accountability. In short, the Post-Katrina Act
expands the President’s federal disaster assistance authority, but leaves the basic
tenets of the Stafford Act (such as Presidential discretion, need for state requests,
restrictions on eligibility) unchanged.
The more significant changes may be summarized as follows:
^!Expedited federal assistance. The President is now authorized to
support precautionary evacuation measures, accelerate federal
emergency response and recovery aid, and provide expedited federal
assistance (coordinated with the state to the extent possible) in the
absence of a specific request from state officials.⁶
^!Aid to individuals with special needs. Federal assistance to and
accommodation for individuals with disabilities will be a new focus
with the inclusion in the Stafford Act of the definition of “individual
with a disability” from the Americans With Disabilities Act of

1990.⁷ Also, durable medical equipment, such as that needed by the⁸

disabled, may be provided, and the FEMA Administrator must
develop guidelines concerning the accommodation of individuals⁹
with disabilities with regard to emergency facilities and equipment.
The amendments also prohibit discrimination toward the disabled,
those with special needs, and those with limited proficiency in the

⁵ Francis McCarthy, Government and Finance Division, was the primary author of
information included in this section. For more detailed information on the Stafford Act^th
amendments adopted by the 109 Congress see CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency
Management Policy Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions,
coordinated by Keith Bea.
⁶ P.L. 109-295, §681, 120 Stat. 1444, which amended Sec. 402 and 502 of the Stafford Act.
⁷ P.L. 109-295, §688(3), which amended Sec. 102, 120 Stat. 1448 of the Stafford Act.
⁸ P.L. 109-295, §689(b), which amended Sec. 403, 120 Stat. 1449 of the Stafford Act.
⁹ P.L. 109-295, § 689(a), 120 Stat. 1448-1449. For more information see CRS Report
RS22254, The Americans With Disabilities Act and Emergency Preparedness and Response,
by Nancy Lee Jones.

English language.¹⁰ To assist the latter segment of disaster victims,
the FEMA Administrator must ensure that information is made
available to those with limited English proficiency, and must
develop and maintain an informational clearing house of model
language assistance as well as best practices for the state and local
governments working with these individuals.¹¹ Also, the Pets
Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act of 2006 authorizes
grants to states for the improvement of emergency shelters to
accommodate pets and service animals.¹²
^!Expanded assistance to disaster victims. The President is now
authorized to provide transportation assistance to those displaced
from their residences, including that assistance needed to move
among alternative temporary shelters or to return to their original
residence; and provide case management services to state, local, or
qualified private organizations that provide assistance to victims.¹³
^!Housing assistance. Seven new provisions expand the federal
housing assistance to be made available to victims. First, in order to
be considered eligible for housing assistance, victims of major
disasters or emergencies who are disabled now must be unable to
access or inhabit their homes.¹⁴ Prior to enactment of the 2006
amendments the statute did not differentiate disabled access from
that experienced by other disaster victims. Second, alternative
housing sites provided to victims by the federal government must
meet physical accessibility requirements.¹⁵ Third, the amendments
eliminated the statutory ceilings on financial aid to be provided for
housing repair and replacement,¹⁶ but did not eliminate the overall
cap of $25,000 that may be provided to each individual or household
under Section 408.¹⁷ Fourth, the amendments authorize the
President to provide semi-permanent housing where no alternatives

¹⁰ P.L. 109-295, §689a, 120 Stat. 1449.
¹¹ P.L. 109-295, §689e, new Stafford Act Sec. 616, 120 Stat. 1452. Note that Sec. 616 refers
to the FEMA “Director,” not Administrator, the title created in the 2006 amendments.
¹² P.L. 109-308, Sec. 3, Stafford Act amended Sec. 611, 120 Stat. 1725.
¹³ P.L. 109-295, §689f, new Stafford Act Sec. 425 and Sec. 426, 120 Stat. 1452-1453. Note
that the SAFE Ports Act also added a new Sec. 425 to the Stafford Act (“Essential Service
Pr ovi der s”) .
¹⁴ P.L. 109-295, §689(c), Stafford Act amended Sec. 408, 120 Stat. 1449.
¹⁵ P.L. 109-295, §689(c), Stafford Act amended Sec. 408, 120 Stat. 1449.
¹⁶ P.L. 109-295, §686, Stafford Act amended Sec. 408(c), 120 Stat. 1448.
¹⁷ The Stafford Act provides for annual cost of living adjustments to the funding ceiling.
Effective October 1, 2006, the maximum amount that may be provided to an individual or
household under the IHP authority is $28,200. See 71 Federal Register 59514.

exist.¹⁸ Fifth, the statute includes as newly eligible housing-
assistance costs both utility costs (excluding telephone service) and
security deposits.¹⁹ Sixth, the disposal of temporary housing units
(generally referred to as “FEMA trailers”) is to be coordinated with
the Department of the Interior or other federal agencies to facilitate
the transfer of the units to tribal governments.²⁰ Seventh, the
amendments established a demonstration project, the Individuals and
Households Pilot Program, to increase the use of existing rental
housing to provide temporary housing for victims of major disasters.
Through the pilot program, which expires December 31, 2008, the
Administrator is to provide for the repair and improvement of multi-
family rental properties in disaster areas to increase the rental stock
available to disaster victims in the immediate area.²¹
^!Public assistance (PA) to state and local governments. State or
local governments or eligible private nonprofit-facility owners may
apply for federal assistance to build a new facility in a different
location if all parties determine that a damaged facility should not be
repaired or replaced. Such assistance, known as the “in-lieu”
contribution (a grant made in-lieu of replacing or repairing a facility
that existed before the disaster), has been authorized since 1974 and
consists of PA grants based on the federal estimate of the cost of²²
repair or replacement. A 2006 amendment in the SAFE Ports Act
deletes the clause that authorized an in-lieu grant for 90% of the
federal share of the estimate of repairing or replacing the facility
solely in areas with unstable soil. Now all stricken state and local²³
governments may apply for a 90% in-lieu grant. The SAFE Ports
Act also authorizes expedited payments for debris removal to state
or local governments or to owners of qualified private nonprofit
facilities.²⁴ In addition, the SAFE Ports Act amends the Community
Disaster Loan (CDL) provisions by authorizing loans to local
governments (capped at $5 million) that, because of a major disaster,²⁵
suffer significant losses in tax revenue. Another PA change is
included in the Post-Katrina Reform Act. The statute authorizes the

¹⁸ P.L. 109-295, §685, Stafford Act amended Sec. 408(c), 120 Stat. 1447.
¹⁹ P.L. 109-295, §689d, Stafford Act amended Sec. 408, 120 Stat. 1452.
²⁰ P.L. 109-295, §689k, 120 Stat. 1456.
²¹ P.L. 109-295, § 689i, 120 Stat. 1454.
²² P.L. 93-288, 88 Stat. 154, amended by P.L. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4699. In 1988 Congress
reduced the in-lieu grant from 90% to 75% of the federal estimate and retained the 90%
level solely for areas with unstable soil (P.L. 106-390, 114 Stat. 1563).
²³ P.L. 109-347, §609, Stafford Act amended Sec. 406, 120 Stat. 1942.
²⁴ P.L. 109-347, §610, Stafford Act amended Sec. 407, 120 Stat. 1942-1943.
²⁵ P.L. 1090-347, §608, 120 Stat. 1942. For background on CDL see CRS Report RL33174,
FEMA’s Community Disaster Loan Program: Action in the 109^th Congress, by Nonna A.
Noto.

President, through the FEMA Administrator, to conduct a pilot
program of incentives for local and state government involvement
in debris removal and the acceleration of repair work.²⁶
^!Assistance to nonprofit organizations. Three significant changes
have been adopted regarding the federal aid provided to private
nonprofit organizations affected by a major disaster. First, the
statute authorizes the President, within stated constraints, to define
facilities that provide “essential services of a governmental nature to
the general public.”²⁷ These provisions, similar to those in FEMA
regulations, establish eligibility to museums, zoos, performing arts
facilities, community arts centers, and other facilities that “provide
health and safety services of a governmental nature” as long as they
provide “essential services of a governmental nature to the general²⁸
public,” as defined by the President. Third, the amendments added
the word “education” to the listing in the section of the law that
defines critical services. Through this change, private nonprofit
education organizations may apply directly for a FEMA grant²⁹
without having to apply for a Small Business Administration loan.
^!Hazard mitigation. Section 404 of the Stafford Act authorizes the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the source of grants to
states in which major disasters have been declared.³⁰ These funds
must be used for activities that prevent future disasters or reduce
their impact if they cannot be prevented. The Post-Katrina Act
adjusts the percentage amounts for HMGP awards by establishing a
scale that authorizes a higher percentage (15% of the total Stafford
Act assistance in a state) for major disasters in which no more than
$2 billion is provided, 10% for assistance that ranges from more than
$2 billion to $10 billion, and 7.5% for major disasters that involve
Stafford Act assistance of more than $10 billion to $35.3 billion.³¹
^!Administrative changes. The 2006 amendments authorize the
President to appoint one Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO) for a
multi-state event, in addition to deputy FCO’s as needed.³²
Traditionally, one FCO has been named for each separate disaster
declaration in each respective state. The statute also amends the
Stafford Act by requiring that the President designate a Small State
and Rural Advocate in FEMA to ensure that rural community needs

²⁶ P.L. 109-295, §689j, 120 Stat. 1455.
²⁷ P.L. 109-295, § 688(1), Stafford Act amended Sec. 102(9), 120 Stat. 1448.
²⁸ Ibid. The regulations are found at 44 CFR §206.221(e)(7).
²⁹ P.L. 109-295, § 689h, Stafford Act amended Sec. 406, 120 Stat. 1453.
³⁰ 42 U.S.C. 5170c.
³¹ P.L. 109-295, §684, Stafford Act amended Sec. 404, 120 Stat. 1447.
³² P.L. 109-295, §687, Stafford Act amended Sec. 302, 120 Stat. 1448.

are met in the declaration process and to help small states prepare
declaration requests, among other duties.³³ Other administrative
changes concern the authority and capabilities of organizations
charged with the response to the major disaster site. The
amendments authorize the President to establish at least three
national response teams and others as deemed necessary (including
regional response teams), and requires that FEMA team members
possess essential capabilities, training skills, and equipment.³⁴ In
addition, the SAFE Ports Act amends the Stafford Act by adding a
new definition, “essential service providers,” defined as persons
affiliated with municipal governments or private entities who will
help restore essential services to a stricken area. Such workers are
not to be impeded when they seek access to a disaster site.³⁵
Pending Legislation in the 110^th Congress
Members of Congress have introduced over 50 bills that would amend the
Stafford Act, largely by expanding existing authorities, establishing new program
authorities, or making administrative changes. Three bills have received action thus
far.³⁶
H.R. 6658. On July 31, 2008, the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee marked up and voted to report out H.R. 6658, the Disaster Response,
Recovery, and Mitigation Enhancement Act of 2008. This legislation proposes a
range of actions from re-authorizing Pre-Disaster Mitigation grants, returning
Mortgage and Rental Assistance (MRA) as a Stafford Act program after an eight year
absence, and authorizing certain programs and funds, such as the Urban Search and
Rescue (USAR) system and the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), that previously were
only identified in budgetary documents and appropriations legislation.
Title I, “Major Disaster and Emergency Assistance Administration,” would
amend the statute as follows:
^!reauthorize the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program
through FY2011, change the existing grant allocation requirements
to increase the minimum from $500,000 to $575,000, and authorize
$250 million for each fiscal year (Section 101);³⁷

³³ P.L. 109-295, §689g, new Stafford Act Sec. 326, 120 Stat. 1453.
³⁴ P.L. 109-295, §633, Stafford Act amended Sec. 303, 120 Stat. 1421. Note that the statute
refers to the “Director” of FEMA, whereas the position is identified elsewhere as
“Administrator.”
³⁵ P.L. 109-347, §607, new Stafford Act Sec. 425, 120 Stat. 1941. Note that the Post Katrina
Act also added a new Sec. 425 (“Transportation Assistance”) to the Stafford Act.
³⁶ Francis X. McCarthy, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, contributed to this
section.
³⁷ For more information on the reauthorization of the PDM program see CRS Report
(continued...)

^!mandate that the President (through the FEMA Administrator),
modernize the disaster alert system by including location and
situation specific information, require that the system meet
specifications, and authorize $37 million for FY2009 (Section 102);
^!allow temporary personnel hired by federal agencies to participate
in the Federal Employees Health Benefits program (Section 103);
^!authorize the President to transfer material and equipment (including
temporary housing units) received for a disaster to non-federal
entities at a “fair and equitable” price under specified conditions,
with the funds deposited in the Disaster Relief Fund and available
for use for incidents that do not result in major disaster or emergency
declarations (Section 104);
^!authorize the National Urban Search and Rescue Response System,
allow task force members to be appointed to the federal service for
specified events, with certain benefits to be applied, provide for
compensation for sponsoring agencies, mandate preparedness and
response cooperative agreements, and authorize $52 million for each
fiscal year, 2009 - 2011 (Section 105);
^!embed authority for the Disaster Relief Fund and allow up to $300
million per fiscal year to be spent on programs and activities not
associated with specific major disasters or emergencies (Section

106).

Title II of H.R. 6658, “Major Disaster and Emergency Assistance Programs,”
would further amend the statute by making the following changes.
^!The Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)
authority would include a new subsection that would provide an
incentive (an increase of four percent of the total major disaster
assistance grants made) for states to enact and enforce building
codes that met requirements and had been submitted for approval
(Section 201).
^!The mortgage and rental assistance (MRA) program that was
stripped from the Stafford Act in 2000 would be reinstated to
provide financial aid to disaster victims unable to pay for their
housing (Section 202).³⁸

³⁷ (...continued)
RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program: Overview and Issues, by Francis X.
McCarthy.
³⁸ For more information on the MRA see CRS Report RS22828, Mortgage and Rental
Assistance as Disaster Relief: Legislation in the 110th Congress, by Francis X. McCarthy.

^!The existing emergency communications and transportation
authorities would be expanded to include grants, equipment, and
supplies, with federal assistance to be at least 75 percent of eligible
costs (Section 203).
^!The list of eligible activities that could be provided after the
President issues an emergency declaration would include assistance
with sheltering and rescuing household pets (Section 204).
^!The FEMA Administrator would be required to assess temporary
housing units held by the agency and develop a plan for storing or
disposing of the units. Exceptions would be made for travel trailers
if safe exposure levels to formaldehyde had not been established
(Section 205).
Title III of the House bill, “Other Matters,” would:
^!authorize the Citizen Corps program (Section 301);
^!authorize grants needed for administering the Emergency
Management Assistance Compact (Section 302);
^!authorize the President to accept gifts provided through grants
(Section 303);
^!mandate that regulations pertaining to major disaster declaration
criteria be reviewed and updated within a year (Section 304); and,
^!replace the title “Director” with “Administrator” (Section 305).
H.R. 6109. The full House agreed to the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Act of 2008
under suspension of the rules on June 23, 2008. This bill is similar to Section 101
of H.R. 6658, and would reauthorize the PDM program and require that grants be
awarded on a competitive basis.
H.R. 2775. The bill, reported from the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure on September 10, 2007, would amend Title VI of the Stafford Act
by authorizing the FEMA Administrator to continue to implement the Emergency
Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program, establish fund allocation
procedures, and authorize $450 million for the program in FY2009, $500 million in
FY2010, and $550 million in FY2011. The federal share of the grants would be 50
percent of costs, except for those associated with upgrading or constructing
emergency operations centers; the federal share of those costs would not exceed 75
percent.
S. 2006. The Rate Payer Recovery Act of 2007, discharged from the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee by unanimous consent on September 17,

2007, would amend the Stafford Act by authorizing owners of private or investor-

owned power facilities, under specified conditions, to apply for Public Assistance
(PA) grants, currently authorized by Section 406 of the Stafford Act.

Overview of Stafford Act Declarations
Major disaster and emergency declarations are two of the five types of actions³⁹
that may be taken under authority of the Stafford Act. The other three include fire
management declarations, the provision of defense resources before a major disaster⁴⁰
is declared, and the decision to pre-position supplies and resources.
Prior to a Disaster
Three types of declarations (or commitments) may be made under Stafford Act
authority before a catastrophe occurs. First, at the request of a governor, the
President may direct the Department of Defense (DOD) to commit resources for
emergency work essential to preserve life and property in “the immediate aftermath
of an incident” that may result in the declaration of a major disaster or emergency
(discussed below).⁴¹ The statute does not define the term “incident.” According to
regulations, upon receiving a gubernatorial request for such assistance, the FEMA
Associate Director may determine that DOD aid is necessary to save lives and protect
property and may authorize such assistance.⁴²
Second, the Stafford Act authorizes the President to provide fire management
assistance in the form of grants, equipment, personnel, and supplies to supplement
the resources of communities when fires on public property or on private forests or

³⁹ The text of the statute and pertinent regulations are presented in CRS Report RL33090,
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act: Legal Requirements for
Federal and State Roles in Declarations of an Emergency or a Major Disaster, by Elizabeth
B. Bazan.
⁴⁰ Whereas the first two pre-event actions are specifically authorized by the Stafford Act,
the pre-event actions are inferred from general authority. Following an investigation into
the response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992 the General Accounting Office (now the
Government Accountability Office) reported that “Current federal law governing disaster
response does not explicitly authorize federal agencies to undertake preparatory activities
before a disaster declaration by the President, nor does it authorize FEMA to reimburse
agencies for such preparation, even when disasters like hurricanes provide some warning
that such activities will be needed.” U.S. General Accounting Office, Disaster
Management: Improving the Nation’s Response to Catastrophic Disasters (Washington:
July 23, 1993), p. 3.
⁴¹ The statute reads “During the immediate aftermath of an incident which may ultimately
qualify for assistance under this title or title V of this Act...the Governor of the state in
which such incident occurred may request the President to direct the Secretary of Defense
to utilize the resources of the Department of Defense for the purpose of performing on
public and private lands any emergency work which is made necessary by such incident and
which is essential for the preservation of life and property. If the President determines that
such work is essential for the preservation of life and property, the President shall grant such
request to the extent the President determines practicable. Such emergency work may only
be carried out for a period not to exceed 10 days.” 42 U.S.C. 5170b(c).
⁴² 44 CFR 206.35(c).

grasslands threaten destruction that might warrant a major disaster declaration.⁴³
Implementation of this authority, which has been delegated to FEMA officials,
requires that a gubernatorial request be submitted while an uncontrolled fire is
burning. To be approved, state applications must demonstrate that either of the two
cost thresholds established by FEMA through regulations has been reached.⁴⁴ The
thresholds involve calculations of the cost of an individual fire or those associated
with all of the fires (declared and non-declared) in a state each calendar year.⁴⁵
FEMA officials determine whether a fire management assistance declaration will be
issued.⁴⁶
Third, when a situation threatens human health and safety, and a disaster is
imminent but not yet declared, the Secretary of DHS may pre-position employees and
supplies. DHS monitors the status of the situation, communicates with state
emergency officials on potential assistance requirements, deploys teams and
resources to maximize the speed and effectiveness of the anticipated federal response
and, when necessary, performs preparedness and preliminary damage assessment
activities.⁴⁷ A new and related provision authorizes the FEMA Administrator to
provide evacuation preparedness assistance to non-federal officials.⁴⁸
After a Catastrophe Occurs
The Stafford Act authorizes the President to issue two types of declarations —
major disaster and emergency — after an incident overwhelms state and local
resources. Before either of the declarations may be issued, certain steps specified in
statute and in regulations must be undertaken.
Damage Assessments and Declaration Criteria. The Stafford Act, like
its antecedent statutes, requires that federal aid be made available to help state
governments overwhelmed by the consequences of a catastrophe.⁴⁹ For all major

⁴³ Sec. 420 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5187.
⁴⁴ Regulations are found at 44 CFR 204.1 et seq.
⁴⁵ 44 CFR 204.51.
⁴⁶ 44 CFR 204.24.
⁴⁷ This activity is not explicitly set out in the Stafford Act. The National Response Plan,
developed by DHS pursuant to congressional mandate, sets forth the following guidance:
“When advance warning is possible, DHS may deploy liaison officers and personnel to a
state emergency operations center (EOC) to assess the emerging situation.” U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, National Response Plan (Washington: 2004), p. 91.
⁴⁸ P.L. 109-295, §632, 120 Stat. 1421.
⁴⁹ See 42 U.S.C. 5121 (a)(b), “It is the intent of Congress, by this chapter, to provide an
orderly and continuing means of assistance by the federal government to state and local
governments in carrying out their responsibilities ...” Also, 42 U.S.C. 5170 (procedure for
a major disaster declaration) and 42 U.S.C. 5191(a) (procedure for an emergency
declaration) require that a gubernatorial request for Stafford Act assistance “be based on a
finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond
(continued...)

disasters, and for emergencies that do not primarily involve federal responsibility and
authority, governors of the affected states must request the presidential declaration
after certifying that necessary action has been taken under state law; damage
estimates have been made; state and local resources have been committed; and, cost
sharing requirements of the statute will be met.⁵⁰
The collection of information on damages involves a collaborative effort
involving FEMA staff, state officials, and personnel from affected local governments.
Teams of assessors conduct a Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) to estimate the
degree of damage and potential costs resulting from the disaster event.⁵¹ The
assessment is broken down into categories (such as number of homes damaged or
destroyed, and number of public facilities damaged or destroyed) that correspond to
the broad categories of disaster relief and assistance that FEMA provides through the
Individuals and Households Program (IHP) or Public Assistance (PA) programs
authorized by the Stafford Act.
Information in the PDAs is used to determine whether a declaration will be
issued and, if one is issued, whether IHP or PA programs, or both, will be provided
to the areas (generally counties, parishes, and independent cities) included in the
declaration. The following subsections summarize the criteria used to issue major
disaster and emergency declarations, as well as the types of assistance authorized to
be provided under the Stafford Act. Neither the Stafford Act nor implementing
regulations provide for a congressional role in the declaration process.⁵²
Major Disaster Declarations. After receiving a request from the governor
of an affected state for a major disaster declaration, the President may take one of
three possible actions: issue a major disaster declaration, an emergency declaration,
or decline the request.⁵³ Major disaster declarations may be issued after a natural

⁴⁹ (...continued)
the capabilities of the state and the affected local governments and that federal assistance
is necessary.”
⁵⁰ Regulations provide specific requirements for the type of information that must be
compiled when requests for emergency (44 CFR 206.35) or major disaster (44 CFR 206.36)
declarations are submitted. Emergencies that primarily involve matters of federal
jurisdiction or authority do not require a gubernatorial request, but the President is required
(42 U.S.C. 5191(b)) to “consult the Governor of any affected state, if practicable.”
⁵¹ PDAs are not always required. Incidents that result, or are expected to result in unusually
catastrophic damages, do not require the completion of damage assessments; see 44 CFR

206.36(d). For example, President Bush issued a major disaster declaration on August 29,

2005 for the state of Louisiana even before Hurricane Katrina’s damage was assessed. The
major disaster declaration is available at [http://www.fema.gov/news/dfrn.fema?id=4506],
visited January 28, 2008.
⁵² For regulations on the request and declaration process, see 44 CFR §§206.35-206.39. The
gubernatorial request for a declaration is forwarded to the President through FEMA
officials. Only the President may issue an emergency declaration.
⁵³ For criteria considered in the declaration of a major disaster, see 44 CFR 206.48. The
gubernatorial request for a declaration is forwarded to the President through FEMA
(continued...)

catastrophe “(including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water,
tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm,
or drought)” or, “regardless of cause, [after a] fire, flood or explosion.”⁵⁴
Regulations further specify the factors considered by FEMA in evaluating a
gubernatorial request for a major disaster declaration. The factors considered to
determine whether federal PA assistance is needed include an assessment of the per
capita impact of the disaster within affected states;⁵⁵ insurance coverage in force; the
presence and impact of hazard mitigation measures; the cumulative impact of
disasters over the previous year; and, whether federal aid authorized by statutes other
than the Stafford Act would better meet the needs of stricken areas.⁵⁶ Factors
considered to determine whether federal IHP assistance is needed include
concentration of damages; number of injuries, deaths, or the extent to which essential
services are disrupted; the impact on special populations that require higher levels of
assistance; the extent to which voluntary agencies are able to meet the needs of
victims; insurance coverage; and, measurements of needs such as disaster housing
needs approved, number of homes destroyed or damaged, financial assistance
required, and others.⁵⁷
Emergency Declarations. The declaration process for emergencies is
similar to that used for major disasters, but the criteria (based on the definition of
“emergency”) are less specific.⁵⁸ Whereas all major disaster declarations require a
gubernatorial request and, generally, findings and certifications as summarized
above, emergency declaration requirements are less rigorous. For example, the

⁵³ (...continued)
officials. Only the President may issue a major disaster declaration.
⁵⁴ 42 U.S.C. 5122(2).
⁵⁵ Each year FEMA issues a notice that identifies the threshold to be used as one factor to
be considered in the determination of whether PA or IA or both will be made available after
a major disaster declaration has been issued. The regulations establish a minimum threshold
of $1 million in PA damages for each state; see 44 CFR 206.48(a)(1). Major disasters
declared on or after October 1, 2005, would generally be expected to reach the threshold of
$1.18 per capita for PA assistance to be authorized; see 70 FR 58734. However, the
statewide threshold is not the sole factor. Assessments consider concentrations of damages
in local jurisdictions even if statewide damages are not severe. Countywide impacts from
major disasters declared on or after October 1, 2005, would generally be expected to reach
the threshold of $2.94 per capita for PA assistance to be authorized; see 70 FR 58734.
⁵⁶ Citations to emergency assistance statutory authorities administered by agencies other
than the Department of Homeland Security are identified in Table 2 of CRS Report
RL33064, Organization and Mission of the Emergency Preparedness and Response^th
Directorate: Issues and Options for the 109 Congress, by Keith Bea.
⁵⁷ Refer to the table in regulations (44 CFR 206.48(b)(6)) for computed averages of
individual assistance needed for small, medium and large states, based upon losses incurred
from 1994 to 1999.
⁵⁸ A Stafford Act “emergency” is “any occasion or instance for which, in the determination
of the President, federal assistance is needed to supplement state and local efforts and
capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen
or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. 5122(1).

President may issue an emergency declaration without a gubernatorial request if
primary responsibility rests with the federal government.⁵⁹ Also, specific thresholds
or calculations of past averages are not considered, but FEMA officials do assess
whether “all other resources and authorities available to meet the crisis are
inadequate” before recommending that the President issue an emergency
decl arat i on.⁶⁰
Types of Assistance and Eligibility
The Stafford Act identifies the universe of eligible applicants (e.g., states, local
governments, owners of certain private nonprofit facilities, individuals, or families).
However, not all persons or entities affected by a catastrophe are eligible for Stafford
Act assistance even if the President issues a declaration. FEMA officials determine
the need for assistance after a major disaster or emergency declaration is issued. Aid
is provided only to those persons or entities determined to need the assistance. For
example, a family with adequate insurance and alternative housing options might not
be considered eligible to receive financial aid. A unit of local government that
suffers damages to some facilities, but not to the extent considered necessary
pursuant to FEMA regulations and guidelines, might not receive funds to rebuild
infrastructure.
The type of assistance made available varies from one disaster to another and
among eligible applicants within a state, commensurate with decisions by FEMA
officials on the extent of damage and the eligibility of applicants. For instance, under
a major disaster declaration, local jurisdictions with large numbers of damaged or
destroyed residences might be eligible for assistance under the IHP program, whereas
those with severely damaged infrastructure but relatively few damaged homes might
be eligible only for assistance under the PA program. Similarly, if a local
government had extensive debris in public rights-of-way due to a disaster, but very
little damage to public facilities, a determination might be made to provide assistance
only for debris removal activities under the PA program. On the other hand, areas
severely devastated by a catastrophe are often eligible for both IHP and PA.
The Stafford Act authorizes the President to make the initial determination of
eligibility for federal relief and recovery assistance through the issuance of either a
major disaster or emergency declaration. The following subsections summarize the
types of assistance authorized under each.

⁵⁹ “The President may exercise any authority vested in him by ... this title with respect to an
emergency when he determines that an emergency exists for which the primary
responsibility for response rests with the United States because the emergency involves a
subject area for which, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States
exercises exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority. In determining whether or
not such an emergency exists, the President shall consult the Governor of any affected state,
if practicable. The President’s determination may be made without regard to subsection (a)
of this section.” 42 U.S.C. 5191(b).
⁶⁰ 44 CFR 206.37(2).

Major Disaster Assistance
A major disaster declaration authorizes the President to direct that the following
types of federal disaster assistance be provided:
^!general federal assistance for technical and advisory aid and support
to state and local governments to facilitate the distribution of
consumable supplies;⁶¹
^!essential assistance from federal agencies to distribute aid to victims
through state and local governments and voluntary organizations,
perform life- and property-saving assistance, clear debris, and use
resources of the Department of Defense before a major disaster or
emergency declaration is issued;⁶²
^!hazard mitigation grants to reduce risks and damages that might
occur in future disasters;⁶³
^!federal facilities repair and reconstruction;⁶⁴
^!repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged facilities (the
Public Assistance (PA) program) owned by state and local
governments, as well as private nonprofit facilities that provide
essential services, or contributions for other facilities or hazard
mitigation measures in lieu of repairing or restoring damaged
facilities;⁶⁵

⁶¹ Sec. 402 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170a.
⁶² Sec. 403 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170b. FEMA has established two categories of
public assistance (PA) emergency work under Section 403 authority — debris removal
(Category A) and emergency protective measures to save lives and property (Category B).
⁶³ Sec. 404 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c. The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP), authorized by Section 404 of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. 5170c), funds activities
that reduce the impacts of future disasters. A second hazard mitigation program, the Pre-
Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program, is authorized in Title II of the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C.
5133). These two Stafford Act provisions are discussed in the “Hazard Mitigation” section
of this CRS report.
⁶⁴ Sec. 405 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5171.
⁶⁵ Sec. 406 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5172. Private nonprofit facilities that provide
“critical services” (power, water, sewer, wastewater treatment, communications, and
emergency medical care) may receive grants. Owners of other facilities that provide
essential, but not critical services, must first apply for a Small Business Administration
(SBA) loan, and may then receive grants if they are ineligible for such a loan or require aid
above the amount approved by the SBA. The permanent work supported under this
authority has been designated by FEMA as follows: “Category C,” roads and bridges;
“Category D,” water control facilities; “Category E,” buildings and equipment; “Category
F,” utilities; and “Category G,” parks, recreational facilities, and other items. For more
information see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
(continued...)

^!debris removal through the use of federal resources or through
grants to state or local governments or owners of private nonprofit
facilities;⁶⁶
^!assistance to individuals and households (the Individual and
Household Program (IHP)), including financial grants to rent
alternative housing, direct assistance through temporary housing
units (mobile homes), limited financial assistance for housing repairs
and replacement, and financial assistance for uninsured medical,
dental, funeral, personal property, transportation, and other expenses
(referred to as Other Needs Assistance (ONA);⁶⁷
^!unemployment assistance to individuals unemployed as a result of
the major disaster, for up to 26 weeks, as long as they are not
entitled to other unemployment compensation or credits⁶⁸
^!grants to assist low-income migrant and seasonal farmworkers to be
provided by the Secretary of Agriculture (total limited to $20 million
annually) “where the Secretary determines that a local, state or
national emergency or disaster” has resulted in a loss of income or
inability to work;⁶⁹
^!food coupons and food distribution for low-income households
unable to purchase nutritious food;⁷⁰
^!food commodities for emergency mass feeding;⁷¹
^!legal services for low-income individuals;⁷²

⁶⁵ (...continued)
Agency, “Public Assistance Guide - FEMA Publication 322,” available at
[http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/paguided.shtm], visited August 1, 2006.
⁶⁶ Sec. 407 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.S. 5173. Debris removal grants authorized by
Section 407 are provided to states and are separate from the Category A debris removal PA
assistance authorized by Section 403.
⁶⁷ Sec. 408 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C 5174. [Sec. 409, food coupons and distribution,
was redesignated Sec. 412.]
⁶⁸ Sec. 410 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5177. For background information see CRS
Report RS22022, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA), by Julie M. Whittaker.
⁶⁹ 42 U.S.C. 5177a.
⁷⁰ Sec. 412 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5179.
⁷¹ Sec. 413 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5180.
⁷² Sec. 415 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5182.

^!crisis counseling assistance and training grants for state and local
governments or private mental health organizations to provide
associated services or to train disaster workers;⁷³
^!community disaster loans to local governments that lose tax or other
revenues needed for governmental services;⁷⁴
^!emergency communications to establish temporary communications
during “or in anticipation of an emergency or major disaster,”;⁷⁵ and,
^!emergency public transportation to provide transportation to
essential places.⁷⁶
Each major disaster declaration specifies the type of incident covered, the time
period covered, the types of disaster assistance available, the units of local
government (generally counties, parishes, and independent cities) included in the
declaration, and the name of the federal coordinating officer. As the effects of the
catastrophe subside over time, the initial major disaster declaration may be amended
to modify the types of assistance to be provided and the areas (generally counties)
included in the major disaster declarations.
Emergency Declaration Assistance
Considerably less assistance is authorized to be provided under an emergency
declaration in comparison to that authorized for a major disaster declaration. The
types of emergency assistance authorized to be provided under an emergency
declaration include the following:
^!activities to support state and local emergency assistance;
^!coordination of disaster relief provided by federal and non-federal
organizations;
^!technical and advisory assistance to state and local governments;
^!emergency assistance through federal agencies;
^!debris removal through grants to state and local governments
(Section 407);

⁷³ Sec. 416 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5183.
⁷⁴ Sec. 417 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5184. Information on this program is provided in
CRS Report RL33174, FEMA’s Community Disaster Loan Program: Action in the 109^th
Congress, by Nonna A. Noto and Steven Maguire.
⁷⁵ Sec. 418 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5185.
⁷⁶ Sec. 419 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5186.

^!grants to individuals and households for temporary housing and
uninsured personal needs (Section 408); and
^!distribution of medicine, food, and consumables.⁷⁷
Funding Caps and Cost Shares
In addition to their utility in determining whether a stricken state is eligible for
Stafford Act assistance, PDAs facilitate the negotiation of contractual agreements
between FEMA and the state. These agreements set forth the terms under which
FEMA will obligate and distribute disaster assistance funding to the state for
redistribution to eligible applicants (e.g., local governments).
Statutory Funding Limitations
Pursuant to Stafford Act requirements, federal assistance is limited either to a
fixed dollar amount or to a percentage of eligible costs. All parties use the
agreements to establish federal, state, and local cost shares pursuant to statutory
requirements and allowances. The Stafford Act stipulates that the minimum federal
assistance for certain eligible activities “shall be not less than 75% of the eligible cost
of such assistance.”⁷⁸ Other provisions specify ceilings, rather than floors, for federal
aid. Specific cost share requirements set out in the statute include the following.
^!Essential assistance: The federal share must be at least 75% of
eligible costs.⁷⁹
^!Repair, restoration, or replacement of public facilities: In general,
at least 75% of eligible costs must be provided, but this threshold
may be reduced to 25% if a facility has previously been damaged by
the same type of disaster and mitigation measures have not been
adopted to address the hazard. Federal aid generally will be reduced
if facilities in flood hazard areas are not covered by flood insurance.
Cost estimation requirements must be adhered to, but the President
may approve costs that exceed the regulatory limitations.
“Associated costs,” such as the employment of national guard forces,
use of prison labor, and base and overtime wages for employees and
“extra hires,” may be reimbursed. The President must notify

⁷⁷ Section 502 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5192.
⁷⁸ The Stafford Act, as amended (P.L. 100-707), Sections 403(b), 403 (c)(4), 406(b), and
407(d). The same 75% minimum is also applicable to presidential emergency declarations
(42 U.S.C. 5193, Section 503(a)). Neither the statute nor the regulations impose a formula
for the distribution of cost-share requirements among state and local governments. Some
states, for example, have established a 15% local and a 10% state match combination; other
states equally divide the required cost share — 12.5% each for the state and for each local
government that receives Stafford Act assistance.
⁷⁹ 42 U.S.C. 5170b(b).

congressional committees with jurisdiction before providing more
than $20 million to repair, restore, or replace facilities.⁸⁰
^!Debris removal: The federal share must be at least 75% of the
eligible costs.⁸¹
^!Individual and household assistance: Temporary housing units may
be provided directly to victims of disasters, without charge, for up
to 18 months, unless the President extends the assistance “due to
extraordinary circumstances.” Fair market rents may be charged at
the conclusion of the 18 month period.⁸² The federal share of
housing assistance is 100%. Financial assistance is also provided for
uninsured medical, dental, funeral, transportation, personal property,
and other needs; the federal share for this assistance is capped at
75% of eligible costs; the total amount that may be provided under
the Individuals and Household Program (IHP) cannot exceed
$25,000 (adjusted annually).⁸³
^!Small project grants: If the estimated costs of assistance for facility
repair or replacement (Section 406), essential assistance (Section
403), debris removal (Section 407), or emergency assistance
(Section 502) do not exceed $35,000 (adjusted annually), a small
project grant may be issued.⁸⁴
^!Emergency declaration assistance: Federal assistance must
constitute at least 75% of eligible costs. Expenditures made under
an emergency declaration are limited to $5 million per declaration
unless the President determines that there is a continuing need;
Congress must be notified if the $5 million ceiling is breached.⁸⁵

⁸⁰ 42 U.S.C. 5172. The statute provides that “base and overtime wages for the employees”
and hires of state and local governments may be reimbursed under this authority (42 U.S.C.
5172(a)(2)(C). Regulations, however, specify that “straight- or regular-time salaries and
benefits” of permanent employees (referred to as “force account labor costs”) are not
eligible if they are engaged in activities associated with essential assistance (Sec. 403) or
debris removal grants (Sec. 407). See 44 CFR 206.228(a)(4).
⁸¹ 42 U.S.C. 5173(d).
⁸² 42 U.S.C. 5174(c). Financial assistance to build permanent or “semi-permanent” housing
may be provided in insular areas outside the continental United States “and in other
locations” where temporary housing alternatives are not available.
⁸³ 42 U.S.C. 5174. FEMA has established a limitation of $27,200 for IHP assistance to an
individual or household in each emergency or major disaster declared after October 1, 2005.
See 70 FR 58735. (The 2006 amendments deleted the caps on housing repair and
replacement.)
⁸⁴ 42 U.S.C. 5189. FEMA has established a limitation of $57,500 for small project grants
for major disaster or emergencies declared after October 1, 2005. See 70 FR 58735.
⁸⁵ Sec. 503 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5193.

Cost Share Waivers
In instances where the state-local match is unduly burdensome due to factors
such as the impact of the disaster or the fiscal condition of the state and its units of
local government, the President may waive some or all of the cost-sharing
requirement for PA programs. However, the President may not waive the 25% state-
local requirement for assistance provided under the Individual Assistance (IA)
Program, except for insular areas.⁸⁶
Table 1 of this report indicates that the state-local match requirement has been
reduced or waived for a specified period of time (usually 72 hours) for specific
categories of eligible PA work. For example, in 2004, there were 16 disaster
declarations for which the cost-share requirement was adjusted. For these 16 states,
four were granted a cost-share ratio of 90% federal and 10% state-local match for all
PA Program categories. In addition, after 12 major disasters, the President waived the
entire state-local match for eligible costs incurred during a period of 72 consecutive
hours, and only for eligible costs associated with debris removal and emergency
protective measures activities. For the remainder of the incident (disaster) period, the
state-local match was either 10% (in five cases) or 25% (in seven cases).
If a state or a local government believes that the economic impact from the
disaster warrants, officials may contact FEMA to request a reduction in their portion
of the federal cost-share. The regulations specify that an adjustment in the cost-share
requirement may be made “whenever a disaster is so extraordinary that actual federal
obligations under the Stafford Act, excluding FEMA administration cost, meet or⁸⁷
exceed” specified thresholds. (The costs incurred are based on Stafford Act
obligations for the disaster and may differ from those of the preliminary damage⁸⁸
assessment.) Currently, the threshold for qualifying for a reduction of the state-
local match is if recovery costs based on FEMA obligations reach or exceed $122 per⁸⁹
capita, based on the state population before the disaster struck. If that threshold is
reached, the federal cost share will be recommended to be 90% of eligible costs for⁹⁰
public assistance and debris clearance, rather than 75%. In addition, if an affected
area had suffered from another disastrous event within the previous 12 months, the
cumulative impact of the events would also be factored into FEMA’s waiver of state-
local match evaluation.

⁸⁶ 48 U.S.C. 1469(a)(d). Notices published in the Federal Register indicate that adjustments
to the IA cost-share for insular areas occurred nine times since 1997.
⁸⁷ 44 CFR 206.47(b).
⁸⁸ Due to the difficulty of conducting preliminary damage assessments immediately after a
disaster occurs, it is not unusual for amendments to be made to the disaster declaration
providing more assistance to affected areas once the greater degree of damage has become
known and verified.
⁸⁹ See 70 FR 5201.
⁹⁰ See 73 FR 4887.

CRS-20
Table 1. Stafford Act Cost-Share Adjustments After Major Disasters, 1997-2005
(Adjustments in Percentages: Federal Share/State-Local Share)
PA Program Subdivision
CalendarPA:Cat A:Cat B:Cat Duration:
StateDR #^ayearDisaster TypeAll Cat^b IA^cDebrisEPMA & BCat A or B
ansas11621997Severe Storms, Tornadoes100 none given
ota11731997Severe Storms, Flooding100none given
ota11741997Severe Storms, Flooding90/10100none given
11751997Severe Storms, Flooding90/1010023 days
rthern Mariana11921997Typhoon90/1090/1090/10
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33053}
^g/w11931997Typhoon Paka90/101007 days90/10
^s^.orrthern Mariana11941997Typhoon100100
^le^ak
^://wikislands12101998Severe drought90/1090/10
^h^ttp12401998Hurricane Bonnie10072 hours
12461998Hurricane Georges10072 hours
12471998Hurricane Georges90/1090/10
12921999Hurricanes Floyd and Irene90/101004 days
ansas13542000Severe Winter Storm100100 days
lahoma13552001Severe Winter Storm100193 days
xas13562001Severe Winter Storm100182 days
13572001Severe Winter Storm10060 days
13912001Terrorist Attack100100
rginia13922001Terrorist Attack0100
rthern Mariana14302002Typhoon Chata’an90/1090/10

CRS-21
PA Program Subdivision
CalendarPA:Cat A:Cat B:Cat Duration:
StateDR #^ayearDisaster TypeAll Cat^b IA^cDebrisEPMA & BCat A or B
14462002Super Typhoon Pongsona90/10100100
rthern Mariana14472002Super Typhoon Pongsona90/1090/1090/10
erican Samoa14732003Flooding, Landslides and90/1090/1090/10
Mudslides
irgin Islands15032003Flooding Rains
erican Samoa15062004Tropical Cyclone Heta90/1090/1090/10
15112004Typhoon Sudal90/1090/10
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33053}
^g/wrthern Mariana15322004Typhoon Tingting90/1090/10
^s^.or
^le^ak15392004Tropical Storm Bonnie and90/1010072 hours
Hurricane Charlie
^://wikirthern Mariana15412004Super Typhoon Chaba90/1090/1090/10
^h^ttp
15452004Hurricane Frances90/1010072 hours
15462004Tropical Storm Frances10072 hours
15482004Hurricane Ivan10072 hours
a15492004Hurricane Ivan90/1010072 hours
15502004Hurricane Ivan10072 hours
15512004Hurricane Ivan90/1010072 hours
15522004Tropical Storm Jeanne10072 hours
15532004Hurricane Ivan10072 hours
ia15542004Hurricane Ivan10072 hours

CRS-22
PA Program Subdivision
CalendarPA:Cat A:Cat B:Cat Duration:
StateDR #^ayearDisaster TypeAll Cat^b IA^cDebrisEPMA & BCat A or B
irginia15582004Severe Storms, Flooding and10072 hours
Landslides
15612004Hurricane Jeanne90/1010072 hours
erican Samoa15822005Tropical Cyclone Olaf90/1090/1090/10
a15932005Hurricane Dennis10072 hours
15942005Hurricane Dennis10072 hours
15952005Hurricane Dennis10072 hours
ota15972005Severe Storms, Flooding10072 hours
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33053}16022005Hurricane Katrina10072 hours
^g/w16032005Hurricane Katrina90/1010090 days
^s^.or16042005Hurricane Katrina90/1010090 days
^le^aka16052005Hurricane Katrina10060 days
^://wikixas16062005Hurricane Rita10034 days16072005Hurricane Rita10034 days
^h^ttp16092005Hurricane Wilma10072 hours
xas31712003Emergency Declaration: Loss100none given
of Space Shuttle Columbia
31722003Emergency Declaration: Loss100none given
of Space Shuttle Columbia
ansas32152005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
xas32162005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
nnessee32172005Emergency Declaration:100none given

Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

CRS-23
PA Program Subdivision
CalendarPA:Cat A:Cat B:Cat Duration:
StateDR #^ayearDisaster TypeAll Cat^b IA^cDebrisEPMA & BCat A or B
ia32182005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
lahoma32192005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32202005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
irginia32212005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33053}32222005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^g/wHurricane Katrina Evacuation
^s^.or32232005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^le^akHurricane Katrina Evacuation
32242005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^://wikiHurricane Katrina Evacuation
^h^ttpan32252005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
bia32262005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ton32272005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
on32282005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

32292005Emergency Declaration:100none given

Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

CRS-24
PA Program Subdivision
CalendarPA:Cat A:Cat B:Cat Duration:
StateDR #^ayearDisaster TypeAll Cat^b IA^cDebrisEPMA & BCat A or B
32302005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ntucky32312005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32322005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32332005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33053}ota32342005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^g/wHurricane Katrina Evacuation
^s^.orlvania32352005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^le^akHurricane Katrina Evacuation
nsas32362005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^://wikiHurricane Katrina Evacuation
^h^ttpa32372005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32382005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32392005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
rginia32402005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ona32412005Emergency Declaration:100none given

Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

CRS-25
PA Program Subdivision
CalendarPA:Cat A:Cat B:Cat Duration:
StateDR #^ayearDisaster TypeAll Cat^b IA^cDebrisEPMA & BCat A or B
32422005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ada32432005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32442005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
a32452005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33053}32462005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^g/wHurricane Katrina Evacuation
^s^.orota32472005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^le^akHurricane Katrina Evacuation
32482005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^://wikiHurricane Katrina Evacuation
^h^ttp32492005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32502005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
land32512005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32522005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

32532005Emergency Declaration:100none given

Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

CRS-26
PA Program Subdivision
CalendarPA:Cat A:Cat B:Cat Duration:
StateDR #^ayearDisaster TypeAll Cat^b IA^cDebrisEPMA & BCat A or B
sland32552005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
32562005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ersey32572005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
pshire32582005Emergency Declaration:100none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33053}32622005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^g/wHurricane Katrina Evacuation
^s^.or32632005Emergency Declaration:100none given
^le^akHurricane Katrina Evacuation
^://wiki^:^Feder^a^{l Regis}^t^er^oⁿ^lⁱⁿ^e^a^t^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^g^p^o^acces^s^.^g^o^v^/^f^r^/in^dex^.^h^t^m^l^{]; an}^{d FEMA}^arch^iv^{ed dis}^a^s^t^{er declaratio}ⁿ^s^{at “}^F^ederally^Decla^r^e^d^Dⁱ^s^a^s^t^e^r^s^by^C^a^len^d^{ar Year” at}
^h^ttp^:^/^/^www.^f^e^ma^.^g^o^v^/lib^r^a^r^y^/d^r^c^y^s^.sh^t^m^]^{. Sites v}ⁱ^sited¹⁰^/²⁷^/⁰⁵^-¹¹^/³^/⁰⁵^.
^h^{e DR}ⁿ^u^m^{ber is}^{a n}^u^m^{eric iden}^tif^{ier u}^s^ed^by^FEMA^to^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^{te each}^dis^a^s^t^{er ev}^en^{t, in}^con^s^ecu^tiv^{e order, by}^s^t^{ate. For in}^s^tan^{ce, Hu}^r^r^ican^{e Katr}ⁱⁿ^{a r}^e^su^ltedⁱⁿ^p^r^esid^en^tial^dⁱ^saster
^declaration^s^f^o^{r th}^{ree s}^t^ates^{; each}^s^t^{ate receiv}^e^{d a u}ⁿⁱ^qu^{e DR}ⁿ^u^m^ber.
^d^j^u^stm^eⁿ^t^{s u}ⁿ^d^er^th^{e P}^A^{: A}^{ll Cat. co}^lu^mⁿ^r^e^f^e^r^s^to^{a co}^st-^s^ha^r^e^a^r^r^a^nge^m^e^nt^fo^r^d^e^b^rⁱ^s^r^e^m^o^va^l⁽^C^a^t^.^A⁾^,^e^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^p^r^o^t^e^c^tⁱ^v^e^m^eas^u^r^es^(C^{at. B}⁾^{, an}^{d perm}^an^en^{t w}^o^rk^(C^{at. C}^-^G).
^H^o^w^e^v^e^{r, i}^f^{a 100%}^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^h^a^s^been^s^t^at^{ed f}^o^{r ei}^t^h^{er C}^a^t^.^A^{or C}^a^t^.^{B or bot}^h^(f^{or a s}^p^eci^fⁱ^{c t}ⁱ^m^{e f}^r^am^{e), t}^h^{e PA}^:^A^l^l^C^a^t^.^ad^j^u^stm^eⁿ^t^lev^e^{l w}^{ill ap}^p^l^y^f^o^r^th^o^s^{e co}^{sts co}^v^e^r^e^d
^uⁿ^d^{er t}^h^{e 100%}^adj^u^s^t^m^eⁿ^t^.
ⁿ^ad^j^u^stm^eⁿ^t^to⁹⁰^%^f^e^d^e^r^a^{l r}^e^im^b^u^r^s^em^en^{t w}^ith^{a 1}⁰^%^lo^cal-^s^{tate sh}^ar^{e w}^a^{s ap}^p^lied^oⁿ^ly^to^elig^ib^le^ex^p^eⁿ^s^es^uⁿ^d^er^th^e^Oth^e^{r Needs}^A^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce (ONA}^{) g}^r^an^ts^{to in}^divⁱ^du^{al dis}^a^s^t^er
^vⁱ^ctim^s^{or h}^o^u^s^eh^oldsⁱⁿⁱⁿ^s^u^{lar areas}^{. ONA}^g^r^an^ts^com^p^ris^e^on^{e categ}^ory^of^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce u}ⁿ^d^{er FEMA}^’^s^In^divⁱ^du^{al A}^s^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce (IA}⁾^prog^ram^an^{d addres}^s^h^a^rds^hⁱ^p^s^cau^s^e^{d by}
^dⁱ^saster^-^r^elated^ex^p^eⁿ^s^{es su}^ch^{as m}^e^dⁱ^cal^o^r^d^eⁿ^t^{al b}^{ills, an}^d^f^uⁿ^e^r^a^{l ex}^p^eⁿ^s^es.

Hazard Mitigation Assistance
Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grants
In the 1988 amendments to the Stafford Act, FEMA proposed and Congress
approved a new initiative.⁹¹ The provision, enacted as Section 404 of the Stafford
Act, commonly referred to as the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP),
authorizes the President to provide hazard mitigation funding to each state that
receives a major disaster declaration. Section 404 funds have been used to help
communities and property owners improve buildings to withstand earthquake
shaking, purchase hurricane shutters, and relocate buildings from flood-prone areas.
Up to 75% of the cost of approved measures may be provided, but total federal
assistance cannot exceed 7.5% of the total assistance provided under the major
disaster provisions (Title IV) of the Stafford Act.
Money for HMGP derives from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), not from line
item appropriations. The amount provided to each state is based upon the total
assistance provided within each state for each major disaster declaration. The
maximum contribution to be provided to each state in which a major disaster
declaration is issued ranges from (1) 15% of the total aid provided under the act, if
not more than $2 billion; (2) 10% if the aid totals more than $2 billion and less than
$10 billion; and (3) 7.5% if the aid totals more than $10 billion and less than $35.3
billion.⁹² According to FEMA data, roughly $2.5 billion was obligated from FY1989
through FY2004 under the Section 404 program, as shown in Table 2, below.
Table 2. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Obligations,
FY1989-FY2006
(current dollars)
Fiscal YearFederal ShareObligationsFiscal YearFederal ShareObligations
1990 841,053 1999 502,351,907
1991 14,777,850 2000 150,978,615
1992 24,245,906 2001 81,275,556
1993 12,528,275 2002 127,534,219
1994 111,508,787 2003 453,822,816
1995 97,775,338 2004 202,375,415
1996 140,448,180 2005 248,345,476
1997 577,766,630 2006 399,696,688
1998514,727,186Total (all years)3,660,999,897
^Source:^Dep^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Ho^m^e^lan^d^Secu^r^ity^{, Fed}^e^r^a^{l Em}^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^A^g^en^cy^{, Mitig}^atioⁿ
^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^{, Risk}^Red^u^ctioⁿ^B^r^an^ch^{, Gr}^an^{ts Data A}ⁿ^al^y^sⁱ^s^an^d^T^o^o^l^{s Sectio}ⁿ^,^Mitig^atioⁿ^Data
^Wareh^o^u^s^{e, qu}^ery^of^bes^t^av^ai^l^a^bl^{e dat}^a^{, Jan}^u^a^ry^{19, 2007 (t}^r^w⁾^.^D^a^t^a^obt^aiⁿ^e^{d by}^N^a^t^a^lⁱ^e^L^o^v^e^,
^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^Fi^na^nc^e^Dⁱ^vi^si^oⁿ^,^CRS.

⁹¹ P.L. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4698
⁹² 42 U.S.C. 5170c as amended by Sec. 684, P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1447.

Some information is available on the uses applicants made of HMGP funds. In
evaluating data on HMGP-funded activities, authors of one study established two
categories — process and project. Process activities, also referred to as “indirect
activities,” were defined as those which “lead to policies, practices and projects that
reduce risks.”⁹³ Project activities involved structural changes to buildings and land.
^!Process activities include measures to (1) assess hazards, risks and
vulnerabilities; (2) develop ideas for projects, establish priorities,
and set policies; (3) disseminate information to the public; and (4)
facilitate the administrative tasks necessary to undertake projects.
^!Project activities involve the use of funds and other resources to
actually reduce the impact of hazards or prevent their occurrence,
such as (1) elevating, acquiring and relocating structures in flood-
prone areas; (2) strengthening structures to withstand earth
movements or high winds; and (3) improving proper water drainage.
Table 3 provides summary information on the number of activities funded with
HMGP grants, divided by process and project categories.

⁹³ Adapted from: National Institute of Building Sciences, Multihazard Mitigation Council,
Parameters for an Independent Study to Assess the Future Benefits of Hazard Mitigation
Activities (Washington: 2002), p. 9.

Table 3. HMGP Obligations, by Type of Activity, 1990-2004
Process/CategoryNumber ofObligations
P roject P rojects (nominal)
ProcessCodes, standards, ordinances, and66$33,658,336
regulations
Mitigation plans and studies843$57,869,895
Other non-construction96$14,675,091
Professional education and public210$33,965,536
awareness
Subtotal 1,215 $140,168,858
ProjectAcquisition and relocation of real1,657$1,055,324,451
property
Elevation and floodproofing268$90,284,454
Equipment (generators,357$36,612,317
communications, etc.)
Infrastructure protective measures220$31,478,592
(roads and bridges)
Major, minor, and localized flood1,071$338,554,146
control
Other flood control (dams, levees,131$45,567,006
etc.)
Other major structural36$133,195,437
Retrofitting (seismic)443$715,511,772
Retrofitting (for wind, wildfires,755$209,137,638
and safe rooms)
Stabilization (shoreline and136$16,928,918
landslide)
Utility protective measures268$187,730,824
Vegetation management144$23,987,883
Water and sanitary sewer system247$55,181,410
protective measures
Wetland restoration/creation5$609,946
Subtotal 5,738 $2,940,104,794
OtherState Management Costs586$62,999,718
Miscellaneous 143 $353,672,147
Warning Systems446$56,106,787
Subtotal 1,175 $472,778,652
Total 8,128 $3,553,052,304
^Source:^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^M^a^na^ge^m^e^nt^Iⁿ^fo^r^m^a^tⁱ^o^{n Sy}^st^e^m⁽^N^E^M^I^S⁾^q^u^e^r^y^o^f^b^e^st^a^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^e^d^a^t^a^,
^Decem^{ber 22, 2004, pres}^en^{ted in}^Nation^a^{l In}^s^titu^{te of}^B^u^ildin^g^Scien^ces^{, Mu}^ltih^azard^Mitig^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^Co^uncⁱ^l^,^Pa^ra^{meters fo}^{r a}ⁿ^Iⁿ^d^e^p^eⁿ^d^eⁿ^t^S^t^u^d^y^to^Asses^s^t^h^{e Fu}^tu^{re Ben}^e^{fits o}^f^Ha^za^rd^Mitig^a^tioⁿ
^Activities^(Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^:^{2002), p. 9.}

Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants. During the Clinton Administration FEMA
initiated Project Impact to stimulate pre-disaster mitigation efforts.⁹⁴ Congress
appropriated funds, generally $25 million per year, in the mid-1990s, to support
Project Impact activities. The 105^th Congress considered, but did not approve,⁹⁵
legislation to authorize funding for pre-disaster mitigation grants. The issue carried
over to the 106^th Congress, which approved legislation to expand federal pre-disaster
mitigation assistance in order to reduce federal disaster relief costs, save lives, and
protect property through enactment of the DMA of 2000.⁹⁶
The pre-disaster mitigation (PDM) grant program established by the DMA is
intended to reduce losses and suffering “resulting from natural disasters” and provide
a source of funding to ensure “the continued functionality of critical services and⁹⁷
facilities after a natural disaster.” Assistance is authorized to help state and local
governments implement “pre-disaster hazard mitigation measures that are cost-
effective and are designed to reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction
of property, including damage to critical services and facilities under the jurisdiction⁹⁸
of the states or local governments.” Successful applicants must demonstrate the
ability to develop “effective public-private natural disaster hazard mitigation
partnerships. The legislation, according to FEMA, “emphasizes the importance of
strong state and local planning processes and comprehensive program management⁹⁹^th¹⁰⁰
at the state level.” The 109 Congress reauthorized PDM through FY2008.
Funding appropriated for PDM grants remains available until expended.¹⁰¹ In
FY2006 Congress appropriated $50 million for PDM grants.¹⁰² Table 4 summarizes
the funding history of the PDM program.

⁹⁴ For background on Project Impact see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Disaster^th^nd
Mitigation, Preparedness and Response, hearing, 105 Cong., 2 sess., January 28, 1998
(Washington, GPO, 1988).
⁹⁵ See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee
on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, Federal Emergency^th^nd
Management Agency Reforms, hearing, 105 Cong., 2 sess., July 23, 1998 (Washington:
GPO, 1999).
⁹⁶ Sec. 102, P.L. 106-290, 114 Stat. 1553-1557, 42 U.S.C. 5133.
⁹⁷ Sec. 101(b), P.L. 106-390, 42 U.S.C. 5133.
⁹⁸ 114 Stat. 1554.
⁹⁹ U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Hazard mitigation planning and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program,” Federal Register, vol. 67, no. 38, February 26, 2002, pp.8843-

54.

¹⁰⁰ P.L. 109-139.
¹⁰¹ See P.L. 108-334, the FY2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,

118 Stat. 1313.

¹⁰² U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency,FY2006 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program
Overview: [http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/pdm/fy_2006_pdm_overview.pdf],
visited January 28, 2008.

Table 4. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funding, FY2002-FY2005
(dollars in millions)
Fiscal YearAppropriationAmountAvailableSummary of Projects, MajorUses Made of Funds
FY200225.025.0Mitigation planning
Planning ($13.1), projects
FY2003^a150.094.5($77.9), disaster resistant
universities ($3.5)
FY2004150.00.0Grant competition not held
Streamlined competitive grant
FY2005^a100.0255.0program for project, planning,program support grants, and
technical assistance
FY200650.050.0Not available
Totals 475.0 424.5
^Source:^D^H^S^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^s^an^d^m^a^t^e^ri^al^provⁱ^d^ed^by^F^E^MA^s^t^af^f^t^o^t^h^{e au}^t^h^{or, Jan}^.^{10, 2005.}
^{a. Of}^th^{e $244 m}^illion^av^{ailable in}^FY2005,^$13^m^illion^w^a^s^deriv^e^d^f^r^om^{reallocated FY2003 m}^oⁿ^e^y^,
^{$147 m}^illⁱ^oⁿ^f^r^om^{FY2004 appropriation}^s^{, an}^d^{$97 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{FY2005 f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^.^{$30 m}^illion^w^a^s
^proj^ect^{ed t}^o^{be aw}^{arded i}ⁿ^F^Y^{2005 w}^h^en^en^vⁱ^ron^m^en^t^a^l^an^d^hⁱ^s^t^ori^c^pres^erv^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^com^p^lⁱ^aⁿ^{ce rev}ⁱ^ew^s¹⁰³
^w^o^u^l^{d be com}^p^l^e^t^e^d.
Data provided by FEMA indicate that PDM funds have been roughly evenly
split between process and project requests. Table 5 presents data on the PDM funds
obligated, by state, in FY2002 and FY2003. Note that tribal nations in the states
receive funds directly from FEMA, not through the state in which they are located.
To facilitate examination of the information, the obligations made to tribal nations
are grouped within the respective state information.

¹⁰³ U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2005 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants
at [http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pdm/fy05_pdm_grant_recipients.shtm], visited
January 28, 2008, and information provided by FEMA staff to author.

Table 5. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant (PDM) Obligations, by
State and Activity, FY2002-FY2003
(dollars)
Obligated Funds by Activity
GranteeTotal
ProcessProject
Alaska $560,643$0$560,643
Alabama 1,471,026 5,663,527 7,134,553
Arka nsas 1,300,643 4,199,260 5,499,903
American Samoa526,9960526,996
Arizona (AZ)1,189,3353,000,0004,189,335
AZ - Gila River Indian Community 70,979070,979
AZ - Hualapai Tribe 70,113070,113
California (CA )7,564,8712,054,9689,619,838
CA - Coyote Valley Tribe 17,517017,517
CA - Hopland Band of Pomo Indians 32,600032,600
CA - La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 102,4410102,441
CA - Mooretown Rancheria 193,1420193,142
CA - Pechanga Band of Luiseno48,938048,938
Mission Indians
CA - Smith River Rancheria 42,990042,990
Colorado 710,1260710,126
Connecticut 578,9370578,937
District of Columbia 511,9080511,908
Delaware 517,3630517,363
Florida 1,576,8467,365,3968,942,242
Georgia 3,386,0282,441,8605,827,888
Guam 248,3750248,375
Hawaii 527,0350527,035
Iowa 729,3800729,380
Idaho (ID)567,5740567,574
ID - Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 30,000030,000
Illinois 957,6371,796,8622,754,499
Kansas (KS) - Kickapoo Tribe 67,650067,650
KS - Sac and Fox Nation 50,000050,000
Kentucky 865,9630865,963
Louisiana 803,84318,113821,956
Massachusetts 1,150,476595,4381,745,914
Maryland 698,6690698,669
Maine 528,5350528,535
Michigan (MI)733,4790733,479

Obligated Funds by Activity
GranteeTotal
ProcessProject
MI - Lac Vieux Desert Tribe 18,813018,813
Minnesota (MN)614,7360614,736
MN - Upper Sioux Tribe 35,493035,493
Missouri 816,064295,2001,111,264
Mississippi Power283,752120,292404,044
Mississippi 641,4340641,434
Montana 519,71717,550537,267
North Carolina 1,116,9682,874,2183,991,186
North Dakota (ND)613,5670613,567
ND - unspecified100,0000100,000
Nebraska 458,3750458,375
New Hampshire923,6090923,609
New Jersey 725,5461,162,9231,888,469
New Mexico570,6560570,656
Nevada 526,0010526,001
New York1,172,09601,172,096
Ohio 1,124,8302,578,8453,703,675
Oklahoma (OK)662,5040662,504
OK - Citizen Potawatomi Nation 59,606059,606
Oregon (OR)1,084,5814,207,7215,292,302
OR - Confederated Tribes of the111,1730111,173
Umatilla Indian Reservation
Pennsylvania 788,8953,000,0003,788,895
Puerto Rico2,935,96602,935,966
Rhode Island523,1740523,174
South Carolina696,44943,197739,645
South Dakota (SD)516,0520516,052
SD - Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe 166,5000166,500
Tennessee 1,210,985165,0231,376,007
Texas 1,653,1748,719,21910,372,394
Utah 601,2032,994,0383,595,241
Virginia 846,8750846,875
U.S. Virgin Islands 500,9440500,944
Vermont 512,7770512,777
Washington (WA)1,237,807571,9621,809,769
WA - Lummi Tribe 52,156052,156
WA - Sauk Suiattle Indian Tribe 25,000025,000
WA - Skokomish Indian Tribe 141,0560141,056

Obligated Funds by Activity
GranteeTotal
ProcessProject
Wisconsin (WI) 1,032,247689,8291,722,076
WI - Forest County Potawatomi 68,117068,117
WI - Menominee Tribe 30,000030,000
WI - Sokaogon Chippewa Tribe 40,573040,573
WI - St. Croix Chippewa of Wisconsin 71,295071,295
West Virginia292,7782,743,1543,035,932
Wyoming (WY) 534,1391,593,5152,127,654
WY - Wind River Indian Reservation -132,4860132,486
Northern Arapahoe Tribe and Eastern
Shoshone Tribe
Totals 55,222,227 58,912,110 114,134,335
Multihazard Mitigation Council Report
Pursuant to a 1999 directive from the Senate Appropriations Committee, FEMA
funded “an independent study to assess the future savings from the various types of
mitigation activities.”¹⁰⁴ Published in 2005, the study concluded as follows:
On average, a dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation (actions to reduce
disaster losses) provides the nation about $4 in future benefits. In addition,
FEMA grants to mitigate the effects of floods, hurricanes, tornados, and
earthquakes between 1993 and 2003 are expected to save more than 220 lives¹⁰⁵
and prevent almost 4,700 injuries over approximately 50 years.
Disaster Relief Fund
Congress appropriates money to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to ensure that
the federal assistance described earlier in this report is available to help individuals
and communities stricken by severe disasters. Funds appropriated to the DRF remain
available until expended. Such accounts are referred to as “no-year” accounts.¹⁰⁶
Appropriations to the DRF generally evoke little controversy. Supplemental
appropriations legislation is generally required each fiscal year to meet the urgent
needs of particularly catastrophic disasters. Questions have been raised in the past
concerning the increased cost of federal disaster assistance authorized by the Stafford

¹⁰⁴ U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2000,^th^st

106 Cong., 1 sess., S.Rept. 106-161 (Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1999), p. 103.

¹⁰⁵ Multihazard Mitigation Council, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves, Vol. 1 (Washington,
National Institute of Building Sciences, 2005), p. iii. Study is available at
[http://www.nibs.org/MMC/MitigationSavingsReport/Part1_final.pdf]], visited January 28,

2008.

¹⁰⁶ For background on this and other types of federal budget accounts, see CRS Report 98-

410, Basic Federal Budgeting Terminology, by Bill Heniff Jr.

Act as the categories of aid and eligibility for federal disaster assistance have
expanded. For example, over the past five decades, Congress has expanded the basic
authority first enacted in 1950 to include housing, grants for the repair of
infrastructure, aid to individuals, loans to communities for lost revenue, and other
needs.
Congress has previously explored the issue of rising federal disaster assistance
costs and reliance upon supplemental appropriations.¹⁰⁷ As shown in Table 6 below,
DRF obligations have increased considerably since 1990 in comparison to those
recorded in previous decades.
Table 6. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1989-FY2007
(millions of dollars, 2006 constant dollars)
Total AppropriationsOutlays
F Y Request^a O r i g i nal Suppl e m e nt al Nom i nal Const ant Nom i nal Const a nt
1989 200 100 1,108^b 1,208 1,769 140 206
1990 270 98 1,150^c 1,248 1,763 1,333 1,882
1991 270 0 0 0 0 552 751
1992 184^d 185 3,993 4,321 5,738 902 1,198
1993 292 292 1,735^f 2,292 2,976 2,276 2,955
1994 1,154^g 292 5,117^h 4,935 6,273 3,743 4,758
1995 320 318 2,275ⁱ 3,595 4,475 2,116 2,634
1996 320 222 3,171ⁱ 3,497 4,271 2,233 2,727
1997 320 1,320^j 3,300^j 4,620 5,546 2,551 3,062
1998 2,708^k 320 1,600^l 1,920 2,277 1,998 2,370
1999 2,566^m 308ⁿ 1,806^o 2,344 2,744 3,746 4,385

20002,7802,780^p02,7803,1902,6283,015^{q, r}

2001 2,909 1,594 5,890 6,603 3,217 3,606^t

2002 1,369^s 664 12,160 13,376 3,947 4,341
2003 1,843 800 1,426^u 2,226^u 2,401 8,541 9,213
20041,9561,8002,213^v4,013^v 4,227 3,0443,207

2005 2,151 2,042 43,091^v 45,133^w 46,270 11,847^x 12,145^x

2006 2,140 1,770 6,000^w 7,770 7,770 13,919^y 13,919^y

2007 1,941 1,500 NA NA NA 12,610^y 12,339^y

Total 25,693 13,628 77,985 90,112 99,446 81,343 88,715
^Sources^:^U^.^S.^P^r^e^sⁱ^d^eⁿ^t^,^a^nnua^l^b^u^d^g^e^t^d^o^c^um^eⁿ^t^s^;^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^o^{ns l}^e^gi^sl^a^tⁱ^o^n;^U^.^S.^FE^M^A^b^u^d^g^e^t
^j^u^stif^icatioⁿ^s^{. No}^mⁱⁿ^a^{l am}^o^uⁿ^t^{s ar}^{e th}^{e actu}^a^l^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^s^;^coⁿ^s^tan^t^d^o^llar^am^o^uⁿ^t^{s b}^a^sed^oⁿ^CRS

¹⁰⁷ U.S. Congress, Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief, Federal
Disaster Assistance, S.Doc. 104-4, 104^th Cong., 1^st sess., (Washington: GPO, 1995). The
House convened a task force that issued an unpublished report. Following completion of
the task force efforts, some Members introduced a concurrent resolution (H.Con.Res. 39,^th

104 Congress) seeking a “fundamental overhaul of federal disaster policies.” See also U.S.

Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Task Force on Budget Process, Budgetary^th^nd
Treatment of Emergencies, hearing, 105 Cong., 2 sess., June 23, 1998 (Washington:
GPO, 1998).

^calcu^latioⁿ^sⁱⁿ^tu^rⁿ^b^a^sed^oⁿ^GDP⁽^c^h^aⁱⁿ^ed⁾^p^r^{ice in}^d^e^xⁱⁿ^{U.S. P}^r^esid^en^t⁽^B^u^s^h⁾^,^Hⁱ^s^t^orⁱ^c^al^T^abl^es^,
^Budget^of^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^t^e^{d St}^at^es^G^o^ver^nm^ent^,^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar²⁰⁰⁵^(Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^{, 2004), pp. 184-}^{185. T}^a^bl^e
^{prepared by}^Keith^B^{ea, Specia}^lⁱ^s^tⁱⁿ^A^m^e^rⁱ^c^aⁿ^N^a^tⁱ^o^na^l^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^,^G^o^ve^rⁿ^m^e^nt^aⁿ^d^Fi^na^nc^e
^Divⁱ^sioⁿ^.
^{a. Data in}^th^{e r}^e^q^u^{est co}^lu^mⁿ^g^eⁿ^e^r^a^lly^r^e^p^r^esen^t^t^h^e^fⁱ^r^s^{t b}^u^d^g^{et r}^e^q^u^{est su}^b^m^itted^b^y^th^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^each^y^{ear an}^{d do n}^o^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^e^am^en^ded^or^s^u^pplem^en^tal^requ^es^ts^.^Notesⁱⁿ^th^is
^co^lu^mⁿ^p^r^o^v^id^{e ad}^d^itioⁿ^a^{l d}^e^tail.
^{b. S}^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^f^uⁿ^d^s^w^e^{re i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed i}ⁿ^P.L^.^101-^{100 (101 S}^t^at^{. 640), con}^tⁱ^nui^ng^a^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s
^l^e^gⁱ^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^en^act^{ed af}^t^e^{r H}^u^rri^can^e^H^u^g^o^s^t^ru^ckⁱⁿ^S^e^pt^.^{1989. A}^ccordiⁿ^g^t^o^F^E^MA^{, t}^hⁱ^s^am^ouⁿ^t
^w^a^{s “}^r^ef^er^r^e^d^to^a^s^a^s^u^p^p^l^em^en^{tal b}^u^{t w}^a^{s an}ⁱⁿ^cr^{ease in}^th^{e o}^r^igⁱⁿ^{al ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatioⁿ^d^u^rⁱⁿ^g^a
^c^o^ntⁱ^nui^{ng r}^e^so^l^u^tⁱ^o^n.^”
^c.^P^.^L^.^101-^{130 (103 Stat. 775), en}^acted^af^ter^th^e^L^o^m^a^P^r^{ieta earth}^qu^ak^{e, appropriated $1.1 billion}
ⁱⁿ^s^u^pplem^en^tal^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r FY1990. In}^addition^,^{$50 m}^illion^w^a^s^appropriatedⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^101-³⁰²
^{(104 S}^t^at^{. 214), di}^{re em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^e^gⁱ^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^.^Ta^ble¹^doesⁿ^o^t
^r^e^f^l^{ect a $}²^.⁵^m^illioⁿ^tr^an^sf^er^f^r^o^m^th^{e P}^r^esid^en^t’^{s u}ⁿ^aⁿ^ticip^atedⁿ^eed^{s f}^uⁿ^d^.
^{d. FY1992 requ}^es^{t does}ⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e t}^h^e^b^u^d^g^{et am}^en^dm^en^{t of}^{$90 m}^illion^s^u^bm^{itted by}^th^e
^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^st^r^a^tⁱ^o^n.
^{e. A}^ppropriation^s^f^o^{r FY1992 in}^clu^d^{ed a $943}^m^illion^dire^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^u^pplem^en^{tal in}^P^.^L^.^102-²²⁹
⁽¹⁰⁵^{Stat. 1701), en}^{acted in}^f^a^{ll 1991 af}^{ter Hu}^rrican^{e B}^{ob; $300 m}^illion^af^{ter th}^{e L}^o^s^Aⁿ^g^e^les
^riots^an^d^f^l^oodin^gⁱⁿ^C^h^icag^{o (s}^prin^g^{1992) in}^P^.^L^.^102-^{302 (106 Stat}^{. 248); an}^d^{$2.893 b}^illion
ⁱⁿ^P.L^.^102-^{368 (106}^S^t^at^.^{1117) af}^t^e^{r H}^u^rri^can^es^Aⁿ^drew^an^{d In}ⁱ^kⁱ^,^T^y^ph^oon^O^m^{ar, an}^{d ot}^h^e^r
^dⁱ^sa^ste^r^s.
^f^.^T^o^tal^f^o^r^FY1993ⁱⁿ^clu^d^es^th^e^$2^billion^s^u^pplem^en^{tal approv}^{ed af}^{ter th}^{e Midw}^es^{t f}^l^oodsⁱⁿ¹⁹⁹³
^(P.L^{. 103-}^75;^{107 S}^t^at^{. 739).}
^g^.^T^h^{e orig}ⁱⁿ^{al FY1994 bu}^dg^{et requ}^es^{t w}^a^s^{$292 m}^illion^.^On^J^u^ly^{29, 1993, a s}^u^pplem^en^{tal requ}^es^t
^of^{$862 m}^illion^w^a^s^s^eⁿ^t^by^P^r^es^iden^{t C}^lin^ton^{to C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^,^larg^ely^f^o^{r f}^l^ood-^{related cos}^t^s^.
^h^.^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1994 e}ⁿ^a^c^t^{ed af}^t^e^{r t}^h^{e N}^o^rt^h^rⁱ^d^g^e^eart^h^qu^ak^{e s}^t^ru^ck^L^o^s
^Aⁿ^g^e^l^e^s^(P.L^{. 103-}^211;^{108 S}^t^at^{. 13).}
^{I. A}^ddition^a^{l s}^u^pplem^en^tal^{appropriation}^approv^ed^f^o^r^North^r^idg^e^earth^qu^ak^{e cos}^t^s^(P^.L^{. 104-}^{19; 109}
^{Stat. 230) f}^o^r^FY1995,^w^ith^th^{e s}^a^m^e^am^ouⁿ^t^{($3.275 billion}⁾^res^e^rv^{ed f}^o^{r a con}^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d
^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1996 (P.L}^{. 104-}^19;^{109 S}^t^at^.^{231). How}^e^v^e^{r, $1 billion}^of^th^{e con}^tin^g^eⁿ^c^y^f^uⁿ^d^w^a^s
^res^cⁱⁿ^dedⁱⁿ^F^Y^{1996 om}ⁿⁱ^bu^s^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, P.L}^.^104-^{134 (110 S}^t^at^{. 1321-}^{358). In}^t^h^e^s^a^m^e
^legⁱ^slatioⁿ^,^an^o^t^h^e^{r $}⁷^m^illioⁿ^w^a^{s also}^ap^p^r^o^p^r^iated^to^o^t^h^e^{r FEMA}^acco^uⁿ^t^{s f}^o^{r co}^sts
^asso^ciated^w^ith^th^{e b}^o^m^bⁱⁿ^g^o^f^th^{e A}^l^f^r^ed^P^.^Mu^r^r^ah^f^e^d^e^r^a^{l b}^u^ildⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^Ok^lah^o^m^a^City⁽^P^.L^.
^104-^134;^{109 S}^t^at^{. 254).}
^j^.^T^h^{e FY1998 bu}^dg^{et appen}^d^ix^{(p. 1047) n}^o^{ted a tran}^s^f^er^of^{$104 m}^illion^f^r^om^th^{e dis}^a^s^t^er^relief^f^uⁿ^d
ⁱⁿ^FY1996.^In^th^{e FY1997 appropriation}^s^{act (P}^.L^{. 104-}^{204; 110}^St^{at. 1321-}^358),^{$1 billion}
^th^{at h}^a^{d been}^res^cⁱⁿ^{ded in}^{FY1996 (P}^.L^{. 104-}¹³⁴⁾^w^a^s^res^t^{ored, an}^{d $320}^m^illionⁱⁿⁿ^e^w^f^uⁿ^d^s
^w^e^{re appropriated. Su}^pplem^en^{tal appropriation}^s^of^{$3.3 b}^illion^w^e^{re approv}^edⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^105-¹⁸
^{(111 S}^t^at^.^{200) af}^t^e^{r f}^l^oodiⁿ^gⁱⁿ^t^h^{e D}^a^k^o^t^a^s^an^{d Mi}ⁿⁿ^e^s^o^t^a^{, an}^{d af}^t^e^{r s}^t^orm^sⁱⁿ^ot^h^e^{r s}^t^at^e^s
^w^e^r^e^d^eclar^ed^m^a^j^o^r^dⁱ^saster^s.^T^h^e^legⁱ^slatioⁿ^sp^ecifⁱ^ed^,^h^o^w^e^v^e^r^,^th^{at o}^f^th^{e to}^{tal, $}²^.³^b^illioⁿ
^w^a^s^{to be av}^{ailable in}^{FY1998 on}^ly^w^h^en^FEMA^s^u^bm^itted^a^cos^t^con^t^rol^{report to C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^.
^T^hⁱ^s^requⁱ^r^em^en^t^w^a^s^m^e^t^,^an^{d t}^h^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^w^a^s^m^a^{de av}^ai^l^a^bl^{e i}ⁿ^F^Y^1998.
^k^.^T^h^{e FY1998 requ}^es^{t con}^s^is^{ted of}^{a $320 m}^illion^bas^e^am^ouⁿ^t^plu^s^$2.388^billioⁿ^“^t^{o addres}^s^actu^a^l
^an^{d proj}^ect^{ed requ}ⁱ^r^em^en^t^s^f^r^om^{1997 an}^{d pri}^o^r^y^ear^decl^aratⁱ^oⁿ^s^{.” (}^Budget^Appendi^{x FY}¹⁹⁹⁸^,
^{p. 1047). Does}ⁿ^o^{t in}^clu^d^{e $50 m}^illion^requ^es^{ted f}^o^{r th}^{e DR}^{F f}^o^{r m}^itig^ation^activ^ities^.
^l^.^S^u^ppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^l^e^gⁱ^s^l^atⁱ^oⁿ^(P.L.¹⁰⁵^-^174;^{112 S}^t^at^{. 77) f}^o^{r F}^Y^{1998, approv}^{ed f}^o^r
^f^l^oodiⁿ^g^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^El^Nⁱ^ñ^o^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r di}^s^a^s^t^ers^.

^m^.^T^h^{e FY1999 requ}^es^{t con}^s^is^ted^of^$307.8^m^illion^f^o^{r th}^{e DR}^{F an}^{d an}^addition^a^{l $2.258 billion}ⁱⁿ
^con^tin^g^e^nc^y^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{to be av}^{ailable w}^h^en^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^{ted as}^an^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^requ^irem^en^{t u}ⁿ^d^{er th}^e
^Bal^aⁿ^{ced Bu}^dg^et^A^c^t^of^{1985, as}^am^en^ded.
ⁿ^.^T^h^{e FY1999 om}ⁿⁱ^bu^s^{appropriation}^s^act^(P^.L^.^105-^{277; 112 Stat. 2681-}⁵⁷⁹⁾ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{ed $906 m}^illion
^f^o^r^c^o^s^t^s^a^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^d^wⁱ^t^h^H^u^r^rⁱ^c^aⁿ^e^G^e^o^r^g^e^s^,^f^l^oodiⁿ^g^a^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^t^e^d^wⁱ^t^h^E^l^Nⁱ^ñ^o^,^aⁿ^d^o^t^h^e^r
^dⁱ^sa^ste^r^s.
^{o. Em}^e^r^ge^nc^y^suppl^em^en^t^a^l^appropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{1999 (P.L}^{. 106-}^31;^{113 S}^t^at^{. 73) i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed $900}
^m^illion^fo^r^torn^{ado dam}^a^g^e^s^as^w^e^{ll as}^{$230 m}^illioⁿ^f^o^{r u}ⁿ^m^{et n}^eeds^,^s^u^bj^{ect to allocation}
^di^rectⁱ^oⁿ^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e con}^f^eren^{ce report}^(H^.R^ept^.^106-^143).
^{p. F}^Y^{2000 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^(P.L^.^106-^74,¹¹³^S^t^at^{. 1085) i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^{ed di}^s^a^s^t^{er rel}ⁱ^e^f^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^as^f^o^l^l^o^w^s^:
^{$300 m}^illionⁱⁿ^reg^u^l^{ar appropriation}^s^an^{d $2.480}^billion^desⁱ^gⁿ^a^ted^as^em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^s^p^en^din^g^f^o^r
^co^{sts asso}^ciated^w^ith^Hu^r^r^ican^{e Flo}^y^d^an^d^o^t^h^e^r^dⁱ^saste^r^{s. I}ⁿ^ad^d^itioⁿ^,^th^{e Co}ⁿ^s^o^lid^ated
^A^ppropri^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^(P.L^{. 106-}^113;¹¹³^S^t^at^.^{1501) au}^t^h^ori^{zed t}^h^{e D}ⁱ^rect^{or of}^F^E^MA^t^o^u^s^{e u}^p
^{to $215 m}^illionⁱⁿ^dis^a^s^t^{er relief}^f^uⁿ^d^s^appropr^{iated in}^P^.^L^.^106-^{74 (113 Stat. 1047) f}^o^{r th}^e
^pu^rch^a^s^e^of^resⁱ^den^ces^f^l^{ooded by}^Hu^rrican^{e Floy}^{d, u}ⁿ^d^{er s}^p^ecifⁱ^{ed con}^d^ition^s^.
^{q. Su}^pplem^en^{tal appropriation}^s^legⁱ^s^l^ation^(P^.L^.^106-^246;^{114 Stat. 568) au}^th^{orized th}^{at $50 m}^illion
^f^r^om^th^{e DR}^{F w}^a^s^{to be u}^s^{ed f}^o^{r bu}^y^o^u^t^an^{d relocation}^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce f}^o^{r v}ⁱ^ctim^s^of^Hu^rrican^e
^Floy^{d. T}^h^{e act als}^o^{appropriated $500 m}^illionⁱⁿ^{a s}^e^{parate accou}ⁿ^t^(P^.L^.^106-^246;¹¹⁴^Stat.
^{590) f}^o^{r cl}^ai^m^com^p^en^s^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^an^{d adm}ⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ratⁱ^v^{e cos}^t^s^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^t^h^{e C}^e^rro^G^r^an^de^fⁱ^re^t^h^at
^des^t^roy^e^{d m}^u^ch^of^L^o^s^A^l^am^os^{, N}^e^w^Mexⁱ^co.
^{r. P}^.^L^.^107-^{38 (115 Stat. 220) appropr}^{iated $40 billion}ⁱⁿ^res^pon^s^e^{to th}^{e terroris}^t^attack^s^of^Sept.^11,
^{2001. Pu}^rs^u^aⁿ^t^t^o^t^h^{e s}^t^at^u^t^{e, t}^h^es^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2001 w}^e^{re al}^l^o^cat^{ed by}^t^h^{e O}^f^fⁱ^{ce of}
^Man^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^B^u^d^g^et^f^r^o^m^th^e^Em^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^Resp^oⁿ^se^Fuⁿ^d⁽^E^RF)^.^Of^th^{e to}^{tal ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iatedⁱⁿ
^P^.^L^.^107-^{38 af}^{ter th}^{e Sept. 11 attack}^s^,^{$4.357 billion}^w^a^s^{allocated f}^o^{r FY2001 th}^ro^{ugh P}^.^L.
^107-^{117 (}^{115 S}^t^at^.^{2338). T}^h^{e total av}^{ailable f}^o^{r oblig}^ation^f^o^{r FY2001 ($5.9 billion}⁾^tak^eⁿ
^fr^o^m^F^E^M^A^Justⁱ^fⁱ^c^atⁱ^{on of}^Es^tⁱ^m^at^es^{, FY}²⁰⁰³^{, p}^.^DR-²^{. A}^sp^ecifⁱ^{c am}^o^uⁿ^t^{is n}^o^{t listed}^f^o^r
^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{as th}^{e Co}ⁿ^g^r^{ess g}^r^an^ted^f^l^ex^ib^ility^to^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^af^ter^th^{e ter}^r^o^r^ist
^attack^s^an^{d did n}^o^{t appropriate a s}^p^ecifⁱ^{c am}^ouⁿ^t^{to th}^{e DR}^F.
^s^.^R^e^qu^es^t^f^o^{r F}^Y^{2002 di}^{d n}^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r t}^h^{e D}ⁱ^s^a^s^t^{er R}^e^lⁱ^e^f^C^oⁿ^tⁱⁿ^g^eⁿ^c^y^F^uⁿ^d^.
^{t. C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^{appropriated a total of}^{$7.008 billio}ⁿ^f^o^r^FY2002ⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^107-^{117 (115 Stat. 2238) an}^d
^P^.^L^.^107-²⁰⁶⁽¹¹⁶^{Stat. 894) to m}^{eet addition}^a^{l n}^eeds^as^s^o^{ciated w}^ith^th^{e terroris}^t^attack^s^.^T^o^tal
^f^uⁿ^d^s^av^{ailable ($12.16 billion}⁾ⁱⁿ^clu^d^{e a tran}^s^f^{er f}^r^om^T^S^A^,^{$1 billion}^releas^ed^fr^om^th^e
^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^Co^ntⁱ^nge^nc^y^Fund^,^aⁿ^d^o^t^he^r^so^ur^c^e^s^.^Se^e^D^H^S^,^E^m^e^r^ge^nc^y^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^dⁿ^e^{ss a}ⁿ^d
^R^e^s^pon^s^e^Directorate,^Jus^{tification of Es}^timates^{, FY2004}^{, p. DR}^-²^{. A}^s^p^ecifⁱ^{c am}^ouⁿ^t^isⁿ^o^t
^listed^f^o^r^su^p^p^l^em^en^{tal f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^as^th^e^Coⁿ^g^r^ess^g^r^an^ted^f^l^ex^ib^ility^to^th^{e A}^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^af^ter
^th^{e ter}^r^o^r^{ist attack}^{s an}^d^dⁱ^dⁿ^o^{t ap}^p^r^o^p^r^{iate a sp}^ecifⁱ^{c am}^o^uⁿ^t^to^th^{e DRF.}
^u^.^In^clu^d^es^{$983.6 m}^illionⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-⁶⁹^{(117 Stat. 885) an}^{d $441.7}^m^illionⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^108-^{83 (117 Stat.}
^{1037) t}^o^m^eetⁿ^eeds^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h^t^o^rn^adoes^,^wⁱⁿ^t^er^s^t^orm^s^,^t^h^e^recov^e^ry^of^w^r^eck^ag^{e of}^t^h^e
^Sp^{ace Sh}^u^ttle^Co^lu^mb^ia^an^d^oth^e^r^dis^a^s^t^ers^.^A^l^s^o^{, f}^uⁿ^d^s^{appropriated in}^th^es^{e m}^eas^u^r^es^an^{d in}
^t^h^{e F}^Y^{2004 appropri}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^act^f^o^{r D}^H^S^(P.L^{. 108-}^90;^{117 S}^t^at^{. 1137) h}^a^v^e^been^u^s^{ed f}^o^{r cos}^t^s
^as^s^o^{ciated w}^ith^Hu^rrican^{e Is}^abel.^T^o^tal^of^{$2.199 billion}^av^{ailable tak}^eⁿ^f^r^om^{DHS, Em}^erg^eⁿ^c^y
^P^r^eparedn^e^s^s^an^{d R}^e^s^pon^s^e^Directorate,^Jus^{tification of Es}^timates^{, FY2005}^{, p. F}^E^MA^-^18.
^v^.^P.L^.^108-^{106 (117 S}^t^at^{. 1209), w}^hⁱ^c^h^pri^m^ari^l^y^a^d^d^r^e^sse^{d recon}^s^t^r^u^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^cos^t^sⁱⁿ^{Iraq an}^d
^A^f^g^h^aⁿⁱ^s^t^an^,^als^o^con^t^ain^e^{d an}^{appropriation}^of^{$500 m}^illion^f^o^{r n}^eeds^arisⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^dis^a^s^t^ers
ⁱⁿ^f^a^l^l^{2003, i}ⁿ^cl^u^dⁱⁿ^g^H^u^rri^can^{e Is}^abel^an^{d t}^h^{e C}^a^lⁱ^f^ornⁱ^{a f}ⁱ^res^{(117 S}^t^at^{. 1220).}^S^ectⁱ^oⁿ⁴⁰⁰²
^o^f^th^{e act d}^e^sigⁿ^a^{tes th}^{e f}^uⁿ^d^s^aⁿ^e^m^er^g^eⁿ^c^y^r^e^q^u^ir^em^en^{t p}^u^r^s^u^aⁿ^t^to^th^{e b}^u^d^g^{et r}^e^so^lu^tioⁿ
^adopt^e^d^b^y^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^s⁽^H^.^C^oⁿ^.^R^e^s^.⁹⁵⁾^,^b^u^t^t^h^e^C^oⁿ^s^o^lⁱ^d^a^t^e^d^A^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^f^o^r^F^Y²⁰⁰⁴
^(Section^102(a),^Divⁱ^sⁱ^on^{H, P}^.^L^.^108-^199;^{118 Stat. 454) res}^cⁱⁿ^de^{d $225 m}^illioⁿ^of^th^e^$500
^m^illion^{appropriated in}^P^.^L^.^108-^{106 (117 Stat. 1220)}^.^T^o^tal^of^{$2.043 b}^illion^tak^eⁿ^f^r^om^:
^DHS,^Em^erg^eⁿ^c^y^P^r^eparedn^e^s^s^an^{d R}^e^s^pon^s^e^Directorate,^Jus^{tification of Es}^timates^{, FY2005}^,
^{p. F}^E^MA^-^{18. P.L}^.^108-³⁰³⁽^{118 S}^t^at^{. 1124), en}^act^{ed af}^t^e^{r H}^u^rri^can^es^C^h^arl^e^y^an^{d F}^r^an^ces
^str^u^ck^Flo^r^id^{a, ap}^p^r^o^p^r^iated^$²^b^illioⁿ^to^th^{e DRF an}^d^g^a^v^e^dⁱ^scr^e^tioⁿ^to^DHS^to^tr^an^sf^er^$³⁰

^m^illion^to^th^{e Sm}^{all B}^u^sⁱⁿ^e^s^s^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^s^t^ration^f^o^{r dis}^a^s^t^{er loan}^s^.^P^.^L^.^108-^{324 , Div}ⁱ^sⁱ^on^B^of
^th^{e Military}^C^oⁿ^s^tru^c^tion^A^p^p^r^o^p^r^iation^s^A^c^t^f^o^{r FY2005, appropriated an}^addition^a^{l $6.5}
^billion^{to th}^{e DR}^{F (118 Stat. 1247). C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^a^{ppropriated $10 b}^illionⁱⁿ^P^.^L^.^109-^{61 (119 Stat.}
^{1988), approv}^{ed by}^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱⁿ^{a s}^p^eci^al^s^e^s^sⁱ^on^of^t^h^{e l}^eaders^hⁱ^p^an^{d s}ⁱ^gⁿ^e^{d by}^t^h^{e Pres}ⁱ^d^en^t
^on^S^e^pt^em^{ber 2,}^2005,^as^anⁱ^m^m^e^di^at^{e res}^pon^s^e^t^o^t^h^{e n}^eeds^cau^s^e^{d by}^H^u^rri^can^{e K}^a^t^rⁱⁿ^{a. A}
^s^econ^d^s^u^pplem^en^{tal f}^o^{r cos}^t^s^as^s^o^{ciated w}^ith^Hu^rrican^{e Katrin}^{a ($50 billion}^,^P^.^L^.^109-^{62; 119}
^S^t^at^{. 1990) w}^a^s^approv^{ed by}^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^an^{d s}ⁱ^gⁿ^e^{d by}^Presⁱ^d^en^t^Bu^s^h^on^S^e^pt^em^be^r^{8, 2005.}
^H^o^w^e^v^e^r,^$29^bi^l^lⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^t^h^e^f^uⁿ^d^s^a^p^p^r^o^p^rⁱ^a^t^e^d^t^o^t^h^e^D^R^F^w^e^r^e^r^e^a^l^l^o^c^a^t^e^d^t^o^o^t^h^e^r^a^g^eⁿ^c^y
^acco^uⁿ^t^{s to}^ex^p^e^d^ite^th^e^rep^a^ir^an^d^recoⁿ^s^tru^c^tioⁿ^o^f^f^e^d^e^{ral f}^{acilities, an}^d^f^o^{r o}^t^h^e^{r p}^u^rp^o^s^es
^(P.L^{. 109-}^148).
^w^.^Aⁿ^addition^a^{l $6 billion}^w^a^s^{appropriated to th}^{e DR}^{F in}^P^.^L^.^109-^{234, larg}^ely^{to addre}^s^s^ne^eds
^af^ter^Hu^r^r^ican^{es Katr}ⁱⁿ^{a, Rita, an}^d^W^ilm^a.
^x^.^A^s^pres^en^t^e^{d i}ⁿ^D^H^S^F^Y^{2007 con}^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^j^u^s^tⁱ^fⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^docu^m^en^t^f^o^{r t}^h^{e D}^R^F^,^pag^e^F^E^MA^-³^.
^y^.^Es^tim^ates^.
Mission Assignments
The DRF is the source of funding for “mission assignments” made by FEMA
to other federal agencies. By this mechanism the federal government is able to
provide assistance after a disaster by tasking any federal agency to undertake an
activity necessary to save lives, protect property, or provide other assistance
authorized by the Stafford Act. Mission assignments eliminate the need for Congress
to appropriate specific amounts of money to many federal agencies. Instead, this
instrument enables FEMA to task and reimburse other federal agencies.
For example, FEMA’s Operation Blue Roof, the program that funds the
installation of blue tarps to temporarily repair damaged residential roofs, is mission
assigned to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The Corps of Engineers
obtains and distributes the tarps, hires the contractors, and ensures that all applicable
federal regulations are followed. Other activities that may fall under FEMA mission
assignments to other federal agencies may include search and rescue, disease
prevention and control, and health and medical support.
Two of the three major channels for FEMA mission assignments do not have
a state-local cost-share requirement (Technical Assistance and Federal Operations
Support). Direct Federal Assistance, however, which the state must request of
FEMA, has a state-local cost share component that may be waived if circumstances
warrant.

Issues for the 110^th Congress
“Super Catastrophes” and the Stafford Act
At the conclusion of the 109^th Congress, Members enacted significant changes
to the Stafford Act in response to some of the failures and concerns evident after
Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.¹⁰⁸ Congress might elect to consider the
implementation of the new requirements, how federal (and non-federal) disaster
response efforts can be expected to change, and whether further legislative changes
are required. To a certain degree, it may be argued, the challenge rests in considering
administrative issues, not federal statutory modifications. Such issues include
matters such as the following:
^!the challenges reported in the implementation of elements (or failure
to implement elements) of the national preparedness system, notably
the National Response Plan and the National Incident Management
System (NIMS);¹⁰⁹
^!the capabilities and resources that underlie the operations of non-
federal emergency management entities that are expected to work
cooperatively with federal agencies, especially state emergency
management policy,¹¹⁰ charitable organizations,¹¹¹ and the National
Guard;¹¹² and,
^!the revised organization and mission of FEMA and DHS.¹¹³
In addition to considering the recent statutory changes, Members of Congress
might evaluate the need for new statutory authority that provides for expedited
federal assistance and response should state government operations and essential
services be interrupted or significantly disabled by a disaster. For example,

¹⁰⁸ For a summary of the legislative changes see CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency
Management Policy Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions,
coordinated by Keith Bea.
¹⁰⁹ Shortly after Hurricane Katrina, federal administrators convened a working group to
reconsider the NRP and its elements.
¹¹⁰ See CRS Report RL32287, Emergency Management and Homeland Security Statutory
Authorities in the States, District of Columbia, and Insular Areas: A Summary, by Keith
Bea, L. Cheryl Runyon, and Kae M. Warnock.
¹¹¹ See CRS Report RS21058, Combating Charitable Fraud: An Overview of State and
Federal Law, by Angie A. Welborn, and Alison Muhlfeld.
¹¹² See CRS Report RL33095, Hurricane Katrina: DOD Disaster Response, by Steve
Bowman, Lawrence Kapp, and Amy Belasco.
¹¹³ See CRS Report RL33064, Organization and Mission of the Emergency Preparedness
and Response Directorate: Issues and Options for the 109th Congress, by Keith Bea.
Legislation that would modify current organizational arrangements include bills to
reestablish FEMA as an independent agency (H.R. 3656, H.R. 3659, H.R. 3685).

legislation enacted after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita address issues that require
special legislative action, beyond the standard waiver authority in the Stafford Act.¹¹⁴
Such legislation includes the following:
^!P.L. 109-68 provides additional funds for the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF) program and waives certain program
requirements for states affected by Katrina;¹¹⁵
^!P.L. 109-72 authorizes the Secretary of Labor to fund disaster relief
employment grants projects outside the Hurricane Katrina disaster
area in order to assist individuals who relocated to other states;¹¹⁶
^!P.L. 109-73 authorizes temporary tax relief to directly and indirectly
assist individuals in recovering from Hurricane Katrina;¹¹⁷
^!P.L. 109-86 authorizes the Secretary of Education to waive certain
requirements for the campus-based financial aid programs;¹¹⁸
^!P.L. 109-82 authorizes the provision of vocational rehabilitation
services to persons with disabilities affected by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita;¹¹⁹ and,
^!P.L. 109-91 creates a special Unemployment Trust Fund transfer
from the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA) for FY2006 to the
three states (Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana) most severely
affected by Hurricane Katrina.¹²⁰

¹¹⁴ Section 301 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5141, authorizes federal agency heads to
waive administrative conditions for federal assistance programs. For examples of waivers
granted by federal agency heads after Hurricane Katrina see CRS Report RS22253,
Regulatory Waivers and Extensions Pursuant to Hurricane Katrina, by Curtis W. Copeland.
¹¹⁵ For more information see CRS Report RS22246, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF): Its Role in Response to the Effects of Hurricane Katrina, by Gene Falk.
¹¹⁶ For more information see CRS Report RL33084, Unemployment and Employment
Programs Available to Workers from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi Affected by
Hurricane Katrina, by Julie M. Whittaker and Ann Lordeman.
¹¹⁷ For more information see CRS Report RS22269, Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of

2005, by Erika Lunder.

¹¹⁸ For more information see CRS Report RL33089, Education and Training Issues Related
to Major Disasters, coordinated by Charmaine Mercer.
¹¹⁹ For more information see CRS Report RL33249, Rehabilitation Act of 1973: 109^th
Congress Legislation, FY2006 Budget Request, and FY2006 Appropriations, by Scott
Szymendera.
¹²⁰ For more information see CRS Report RL33084, Unemployment and Employment
Programs Available to Workers from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi Affected by
Hurricane Katrina, by Julie M. Whittaker and Ann Lordeman.

Expanding Eligibility
Certain private nonprofit organizations that provide essential government
services receive Stafford Act assistance. Private for-profit organizations and property
owners are not eligible for grants authorized by the statute — such entities generally
rely on insurance or loans. The devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina to all
components of many communities has revived interest in the issue of expanding
eligibility for Stafford Act assistance to certain for-profit entities.
Some might contend that such an expansion would result in considerably high
federal disaster relief expenditures as private, for-profit entities turn to federal grants
in lieu of insurance or loans. Others contend that some of the facilities, notably
educational and health care institutions, provide services comparable to those
available through public or non-profit organizations.
There is precedent for the provision of such assistance. On at least two
occasions, Congress appropriated funds to assist private corporations deemed to be
particularly stricken after disasters — when ice storms severely affected utility
companies in New England and when utility companies lost infrastructure in the
terrorist attacks of 2001 in New York City. Such appropriations, however, were
made outside of Stafford Act authority. A third instance involving the Texas Medical
Center, however, is appropriate to an examination of this issue insofar as the Stafford
Act is concerned.
Private Utilities after the 1998 Ice Storms. In the early winter months of
1998, an ice storm resulted in the destruction of electricity distribution infrastructure
as heavily laden trees collapsed on miles of poles and wires.¹²¹ Private utilities
owned and maintained the infrastructure. To address concerns that the private
utilities would have to pass on the costs of repairs to customers, Congress included
funding in the omnibus appropriations act for FY1999 (P.L. 105-277) for the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program administered by the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The act directed that funds
would be provided “for disaster relief, long-term recovery, and mitigation in
communities affected by Presidentially-declared natural disasters designated during
fiscal years 1998 and 1999.”¹²² According to news reports, disagreement arose
between the Secretary of HUD and Members of Congress over the use of the
appropriated funds because the statute did not specify how the funds would be¹²³
used.

¹²¹ For background on the storm ,see Sen. Olympia Snowe, “The Ice Storm of 1998,”
remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 144, February 11, 1998, S609-S612.
¹²² 112 Stat. 2681-579. The full text of the provision that appropriated funds after the ice
storms follows in the appendix to this memorandum.
¹²³ Steve Campbell, “Ice Storm Aid Pittance Seen as `Betrayal’,” Press Herald online,
November 22, 1998, at [http://www.portland.com/sunews/story2.htm], visited November
23, 1998; Charles Davant, “Congress Hastens Maine Ice Storm Relief,” Bangor Daily
News, May 12, 1999, visited online, site archived.

Private Utilities after the 2001 Terrorist Attacks. The destruction of
much of the infrastructure around and under the World Trade Center on September
11, 2001, resulted in the appropriation of billions of dollars in federal assistance to
New York City. The communications networks owned by private for-profit
corporations were not eligible for assistance under the Stafford Act. Congress
appropriated $783 million for a range of rebuilding efforts in Lower Manhattan, for
economic revitalization and reconstruction in order to facilitate redevelopment,
“including the restoration of utility infrastructure.”¹²⁴ The conference report
accompanying the legislation provided the following statements regarding this
appropriation:
The conference agreement includes an emergency appropriation of $783,000,000
for assistance to properties and businesses, including restoration of damaged
infrastructure, and for economic revitalization activities in the areas of New York
City affected by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, instead of
$750,000,000 as proposed by the House and Senate.
The conferees recognize the tremendous human losses suffered by those
businesses located in the World Trade Center, particularly those firms which
suffered the greatest loss of life in the attacks. Because of the conferees’ strong
desire to support the redevelopment of the areas of New York City affected by
the attacks and to encourage those businesses most devastated by the attacks to
remain in New York City, the conferees have provided a $33,000,000 increase
over the request. The conferees expect that these additional funds will be made
available to assist those firms located in New York City at the time of the
terrorist attacks which suffered a disproportionate loss of its workforce and who
intend to re-establish their operations in New York City.
The conferees concur with the language included in the House report
encouraging the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to consider the
needs of utility companies and other institutions affected by the World Trade¹²⁵
Center attacks.
Private Health System after 2001 Tropical Storm Allison. In early
June, 2001, President Bush issued a major disaster declaration for the state of Texas
due to flooding associated with Tropical Storm Allison.¹²⁶ The Texas Medical Center
(TMC), a health care complex that includes 13 hospitals as well as medical and
nursing schools, suffered considerable damage.¹²⁷ The TMC, however, was not

¹²⁴ 116 Stat. 890.
¹²⁵ U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2002, Making Supplemental Appropriations for
Further Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States for the Fiscal
Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes, conference report to accompany^th^nd
H.R. 4775, H.Rept. 107-593, 107 Cong., 2 sess. (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 180.
¹²⁶ Information is available at U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Texas Severe
Storms & Flooding: Declared June 9, 2001,” at [http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=

115], visited January 28, 2008.

¹²⁷ Summary information is available at Ellen Parson, “1,000-Year Flood Paralyzes Texas
Medical Center,” September 1, 2002, at [http://www.ecmweb.com/mag/electric_year_flood_
(continued...)

eligible for Stafford Act assistance because of its for-profit status. Through a
provision included in an omnibus appropriations statute, TMC was declared eligible
for Stafford Act assistance, as follows:
That notwithstanding any other provision of law, for disaster declaration FEMA-

1379-DR and hereafter, the Texas Medical Center is to be considered for FEMA¹²⁸

Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation grants as if it were an eligible applicant.
Controlling Federal Expenditures
The increase in federal expenditures for disaster assistance since 1990 has been
the subject of some debate. Some contend that political considerations contribute to
the costs of disaster relief as well. One 2002 study by economists Thomas A.
Garrett and Russell S. Sobel purports: “States politically important to the president
have a higher rate of disaster declaration by the president, and disaster expenditures
are higher in states having congressional representation on FEMA oversight
committees. Election year impacts are also found.” Another study, which builds
upon the 2002 paper, examined presidential disasters declarations from 1981 through
2004 and found that “...the greater the electoral prize and the more competitive the
statewide presidential contest, the more likely it is that a state will receive a
presidential disaster declaration even after controlling for actual need.”¹²⁹
Another perspective on the issue was presented in a 1989 study completed by
Government Accountability Office (GAO) that also considered the effects of politics
on disaster declarations. After examining presidential declaration data from the
perspective of the party affiliation of governors and members of state congressional
delegations, the authors concluded that there “were no indications that party¹³⁰
affiliation affected White House major disaster declaration decisions.” In light of
concerns about funding decisions after the2004-2005 hurricanes, and the rising^th
deficit, Members of the 109 Congress may elect to consider means of controlling
costs or establishing alternative funding mechanisms.

¹²⁷ (...continued)
paralyzes/index.html], visited January 28, 2008.
¹²⁸ P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 514.
¹²⁹ Andrew Reeves, “Political Disaster? Presidential Disaster Declarations and Electoral
Politics,” Abstract, unpublished paper, August 29, 2005, available online at
[http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~reeves/papers/fema.pdf ], visited January 28, 2008.
¹³⁰ U.S. General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Timeliness and Other Issues Involving
the Major Disaster Declaration Process, GAO/RCED-89-138, May 25, 1989, pp. 1, 4.