Order Code RL33053
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities,
and Funding
Updated April 28, 2006
Keith Bea
Specialist, American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

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. The
forms of assistance authorized by the Stafford Act include temporary housing, grants
for personal uninsured needs of families and individuals, repair of public
infrastructure, emergency communications systems, and other forms of assistance.
Congress appropriates money for activities authorized by the Stafford Act to the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), 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.
Because the Stafford Act provides the President with permanent authority to
direct federal aid to stricken states, Congress need not enact new authorizing
legislation to meet immediate needs when disasters occur. However, the widespread
and costly damages from Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, and other disasters
continue to raise questions in the 109th Congress about the reach and effectiveness
of the Stafford Act. Approximately 50 bills were introduced by the end of calendar
year 2005 to amend the Stafford Act after Hurricane Katrina destroyed communities
in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and created the largest exodus of refugees
in this century throughout most of the other states. The legislation before the 109th
Congress includes bills that would increase eligibility for Stafford Act assistance
(H.R. 3714, H.R. 4002, H.R. 4012, H.R. 4237, H.R. 4517, H.R. 4266, S. 805, S.
1393), bills that would modify procedures, organizations and requirements (H.R.
3747, H.R. 3850, H.R. 4163, H.R. 4258, S. 1059, S. 1615, S. 1741), as well as
omnibus bills that would address a broad spectrum of needs identified after the
hurricanes (H.R. 3958, S. 1637, S. 1765).
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has
recommended that the Stafford Act be amended to rectify problems identified in its
examination of Hurricane Katrina. In addition to considering substantive changes to
the Stafford Act, Members of Congress might elect to evaluate related funding policy
and practices. In FY2005 Congress appropriated over $70 billion to the DRF in
response to the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005, and other disasters (P.L. 108-324, P.L.
109-90, P.L. 109-61, P.L. 109-62). Not all of these funds remain in the DRF,
however; approximately $29 billion was reallocated in the FY2006 Department of
Defense appropriations legislation (P.L. 109-148). During the first session of the
109th Congress, some Members raised questions about federal disaster funding
policy. Legislation has been introduced to alter federal disaster-related funding
policy (H.R. 845, H.R. 3855, H.R. 4076, S. 24).
This report will be updated as warranted by events.

---

Contents
Overview of the Stafford Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of Stafford Act Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Prior to a Disaster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
After a Catastrophe Occurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Types of Assistance and Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Major Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Emergency Declaration Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Funding Caps and Cost Shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Statutory Funding Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Cost Share Waivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Hazard Mitigation Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Multihazard Mitigation Council Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Disaster Relief Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Mission Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Issues for the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
“Super Catastrophes” and the Stafford Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Expanding Eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Controlling Federal Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Long-Term Recovery Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
List of Tables
Table 1. Stafford Act Cost-Share Adjustments After Major Disasters,
1997-2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 2. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Obligations, FY1989-FY2004 . . . . 21
Table 3. HMGP Obligations, by Type of Activity, 1990-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 4. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funding, FY2002-FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 5. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant (PDM) Obligations, by State and
Activity, FY2002-FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Table 6. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1974-FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Ann Angelheart, formerly an Analyst in American National Government,
Government and Finance Division, contributed to this report.

---

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 and emergency
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
Stafford Act 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, clear debris, and aid individuals and families with uninsured
needs, among other activities. In calendar year 2005 President Bush issued 47 major
disaster and 67 emergency declarations.4 The majority of the emergency declarations
(42, or 63%) were issued to states in which evacuees from Hurricane Katrina
relocated, at least temporarily.
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 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, Feb. 28, 2003.
3 U.S. President Jimmy Carter, “Federal Emergency Management,” E.O. 12148, July 20,
1979.
4 For a list of major disaster and emergency declarations, see U.S. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, “Federally Declared Disasters by Calendar Year,” at
[http://www.fema.gov/library/drcys.shtm], visited Dec. 29, 2005. The distinction between
a major disaster and emergency declaration is explained on pages 4 and 5 of this CRS report.

---

CRS-2
Overview of Stafford Act Declarations
Major disaster and emergency declarations are two of the five types of actions
that may be taken under authority of the Stafford Act.5 Four of these are explicitly
authorized; the fifth (pre-positioning of supplies and resources) has been inferred.6
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).7 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.8
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
grasslands threaten destruction that might warrant a major disaster declaration.9
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
5 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.
6 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.
7 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).
8 44 CFR 206.35(c).
9 Sec. 420 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5187.

---

CRS-3
cost thresholds established by FEMA through regulations has been reached.10 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.11
FEMA officials determine whether a fire management assistance declaration will be
issued.12
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.13
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.14 Federal aid
supplements, and does not replace, state and local resources. For all major 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.15
10 Regulations are found at 44 CFR 204.1 et seq.
11 44 CFR 204.51.
12 44 CFR 204.24.
13 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.
14 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
the capabilities of the state and the affected local governments and that federal assistance
is necessary.”
15 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)
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
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.16 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
Individual Assistance (IA) 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 IA or PA programs 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.17
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.18 Major disaster declarations may be issued after a natural
catastrophe “(including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, winddriven water,
tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm,
or drought)” or, “regardless of cause, [after a] fire, flood or explosion.”19
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
15 (...continued)
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.”
16 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 Dec. 29, 2005.
17 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.
18 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
officials. Only the President may issue a major disaster declaration.
19 42 U.S.C. 5122(2).

---

CRS-5
capita impact of the disaster within affected states;20 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.21 Factors
considered to determine whether federal IA 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.22
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.23 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
President may issue an emergency declaration without a gubernatorial request if
primary responsibility rests with the federal government.24 Also, specific thresholds
20 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.
21 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
Directorate: Issues and Options for the 109th Congress, by Keith Bea.
22 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.
23 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).
Only the President may issue an emergency declaration.
24 “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)
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
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
declaration.25
Types of Assistance and Eligibility
The Stafford Act designates 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. Certain nonprofit organizations (e.g., owners or operators of
educational or non-emergency health care facilities) may have to rely on Small
Business Administration loans, not Stafford Act grants, to restore services.
FEMA has established two major categories of programs — Individual
Assistance (IA) and Public Assistance (PA) — to implement the relief and recovery
assistance authorized by the statute. 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 IA 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 IA and PA aid.
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.
24 (...continued)
of this section.” 42 U.S.C. 5191(b).
25 44 CFR 206.37(2).

---

CRS-7
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;26
! 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;27
! hazard mitigation grants to reduce risks and damages that might
occur in future disasters;28
! federal facilities repair and reconstruction;29
! repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged facilities 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;30
26 Sec. 402 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170a.
27 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).
28 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.
29 Sec. 405 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5171.
30 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
Agency, “Public Assistance Guide - FEMA Publication 322,” available at
[http://www.fema.gov/pdf/rrr/pa/pagprnt_071905.pdf], visited Sept. 5, 2005.

---

CRS-8
! debris removal through the use of federal resources or through
grants to state or local governments or owners of private nonprofit
facilities;31
! assistance to individuals and households 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;32
! 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 credits33
! 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;34
! food coupons and food distribution for low-income households
unable to purchase nutritious food;35
! food commodities for emergency mass feeding;36
! legal services for low-income individuals;37
! 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;38
31 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.
32 Sec. 408 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C 5174. [Sec. 409, food coupons and distribution,
was redesignated Sec. 412.]
33 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.
34 42 U.S.C. 5177a.
35 Sec. 412 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5179.
36 Sec. 413 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5180.
37 Sec. 415 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5182.
38 Sec. 416 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5183.

---

CRS-9
! community disaster loans to local governments that lose tax or other
revenues needed for governmental services;39
! emergency communications to establish temporary communications
during “or in anticipation of an emergency or major disaster,”;40 and,
! emergency public transportation to provide transportation to
essential places.41
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 (FCO). 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 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);
! grants to individuals and households for temporary housing and
uninsured personal needs (Section 408); and
! distribution of medicine, food, and consumables.42
39 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, by Nonna A. Noto and
Steven Maguire.
40 Sec. 418 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5185.
41 Sec. 419 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5186.
42 Section 502 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5192.

---

CRS-10
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.
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.”43 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.44
! 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
congressional committees with jurisdiction before providing more
than $20 million to repair, restore, or replace facilities.45
43 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.
44 42 U.S.C. 5170b(b).
45 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).

---

CRS-11
! Debris removal: The federal share must be at least 75% of the
eligible costs.46
! 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. Up to $5,000 (adjusted
annually) may be provided for housing repair or hazard mitigation
measures, and up to $10,000 (adjusted annually) may be provided
for the replacement of private residences.47 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).48
! 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.49
! 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.50
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
46 42 U.S.C. 5173(d).
47 Financial assistance to build permanent housing may be provided in insular areas outside
the continental United States “an in other remote locations” where temporary housing
alternatives are not available.
48 42 U.S.C. 5174. FEMA has established a limitation of $27,200 for IHP assistance, $5,400
for housing repair, and $10,900 for housing replacement, to an individual or household in
each emergency or major disaster declared after October 1, 2005. See 70 FR 58735.
49 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.
50 Sec. 503 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5193.

---

CRS-12
waive the 25% state-local requirement for assistance provided under the Individual
Assistance (IA) Program, except for insular areas.51
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 or
exceed” specified thresholds.52 (The costs incurred are based on Stafford Act
obligations for the disaster and may differ from those of the preliminary damage
assessment.53) Currently, the threshold for qualifying for a reduction of the state-
local match is if recovery costs based on FEMA obligations reach or exceed $110 per
capita, based on the state population before the disaster struck.54 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.
51 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.
52 44 CFR 206.47(b).
53 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.
54 See 70 FR 5201.

---

CRS-13
Table 1. Stafford Act Cost-Share Adjustments After Major Disasters, 1997-2006
(Adjustments in Percentages: Federal Share/State-Local Share)
PA Program Subdivision
Calendar
PA:
Cat A:
Cat B:
Cat
Duration:
State
DR # A
year
Disaster Type
All Cat B
Debris
EPM
A & B
Cat A or B
IAC
Arkansas
1162
1997 Severe Storms, Tornadoes
100

none given
South Dakota
1173
1997 Severe Storms, Flooding
100
none given
North Dakota
1174
1997 Severe Storms, Flooding
90/10
100
none given
Minnesota
1175
1997 Severe Storms, Flooding
90/10
100
23 days
Northern Mariana
1192
1997 Typhoon
90/10
90/10
90/10
Islands
Guam
1193
1997 Typhoon Paka
90/10
100
7 days
90/10
Northern Mariana
1194
1997 Typhoon
100
100
Islands
Marshall Islands
1210
1998 Severe drought
90/10
90/10
North Carolina
1240
1998 Hurricane Bonnie
100
72 hours
Louisiana
1246
1998 Hurricane Georges
100
72 hours
Puerto Rico
1247
1998 Hurricane Georges
90/10
90/10
North Carolina
1292
1999 Hurricanes Floyd and Irene
90/10
100
4 days
Arkansas
1354
2000 Severe Winter Storm
100
100 days
Oklahoma
1355
2001 Severe Winter Storm
100
193 days
Texas
1356
2001 Severe Winter Storm
100
182 days
Louisiana
1357
2001 Severe Winter Storm
100
60 days
New York
1391
2001 Terrorist Attack
100
100
Virginia
1392
2001 Terrorist Attack
0
100
Northern Mariana
1430
2002 Typhoon Chata’an
90/10
90/10
Islands

---

CRS-14
PA Program Subdivision
Calendar
PA:
Cat A:
Cat B:
Cat
Duration:
State
DR # A
year
Disaster Type
All Cat B
Debris
EPM
A & B
Cat A or B
IAC
Guam
1446
2002 Super Typhoon Pongsona
90/10
100
100
Northern Mariana
1447
2002 Super Typhoon Pongsona
90/10
90/10
90/10
Islands
American Samoa
1473
2003 Flooding, Landslides and
90/10
90/10
90/10
Mudslides
U.S. Virgin Islands
1503
2003 Flooding Rains
American Samoa
1506
2004 Tropical Cyclone Heta
90/10
90/10
90/10
Federated States of
1511
2004 Typhoon Sudal
90/10
90/10
Micronesia
Northern Mariana
1532
2004 Typhoon Tingting
90/10
90/10
Islands
Florida
1539
2004 Tropical Storm Bonnie and
90/10
100
72 hours
Hurricane Charlie
Northern Mariana
1541
2004 Super Typhoon Chaba
90/10
90/10
90/10
Islands
Florida
1545
2004 Hurricane Frances
90/10
100
72 hours
North Carolina
1546
2004 Tropical Storm Frances
100
72 hours
Louisiana
1548
2004 Hurricane Ivan
100
72 hours
Alabama
1549
2004 Hurricane Ivan
90/10
100
72 hours
Mississippi
1550
2004 Hurricane Ivan
100
72 hours
Florida
1551
2004 Hurricane Ivan
90/10
100
72 hours
Puerto Rico
1552
2004 Tropical Storm Jeanne
100
72 hours
North Carolina
1553
2004 Hurricane Ivan
100
72 hours
Georgia
1554
2004 Hurricane Ivan
100
72 hours

---

CRS-15
PA Program Subdivision
Calendar
PA:
Cat A:
Cat B:
Cat
Duration:
State
DR # A
year
Disaster Type
All Cat B
Debris
EPM
A & B
Cat A or B
IAC
West Virginia
1558
2004 Severe Storms, Flooding and
100
72 hours
Landslides
Florida
1561
2004 Hurricane Jeanne
90/10
100
72 hours
American Samoa
1582
2005 Tropical Cyclone Olaf
90/10
90/10
90/10
Alabama
1593
2005 Hurricane Dennis
100
72 hours
Mississippi
1594
2005 Hurricane Dennis
100
72 hours
Florida
1595
2005 Hurricane Dennis
100
72 hours
North Dakota
1597
2005 Severe Storms, Flooding
100
72 hours
Florida
1602
2005 Hurricane Katrina
100
72 hours
Louisiana
1603
2005 Hurricane Katrina
90/10
100
90 days
Mississippi
1604
2005 Hurricane Katrina
90/10
100
90 days
Alabama
1605
2005 Hurricane Katrina
100
60 days
Texas
1606
2005 Hurricane Rita
100
34 days
Louisiana
1607
2005 Hurricane Rita
100
34 days
Florida
1609
2005 Hurricane Wilma
100
72 hours
Texas
3171
2003 Emergency Declaration: Loss
100
none given
of Space Shuttle Columbia
Louisiana
3172
2003 Emergency Declaration: Loss
100
none given
of Space Shuttle Columbia
Arkansas
3215
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Texas
3216
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Tennessee
3217
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

---

CRS-16
PA Program Subdivision
Calendar
PA:
Cat A:
Cat B:
Cat
Duration:
State
DR # A
year
Disaster Type
All Cat B
Debris
EPM
A & B
Cat A or B
IAC
Georgia
3218
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Oklahoma
3219
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Florida
3220
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
West Virginia
3221
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
North Carolina
3222
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Utah
3223
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Colorado
3224
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Michigan
3225
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
District of Columbia
3226
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Washington
3227
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Oregon
3228
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
New Mexico
3229
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

---

CRS-17
PA Program Subdivision
Calendar
PA:
Cat A:
Cat B:
Cat
Duration:
State
DR # A
year
Disaster Type
All Cat B
Debris
EPM
A & B
Cat A or B
IAC
Illinois
3230
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Kentucky
3231
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Missouri
3232
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
South Carolina
3233
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
South Dakota
3234
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Pennsylvania
3235
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Kansas
3236
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Alabama
3237
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Indiana
3238
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Iowa
3239
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Virginia
3240
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Arizona
3241
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

---

CRS-18
PA Program Subdivision
Calendar
PA:
Cat A:
Cat B:
Cat
Duration:
State
DR # A
year
Disaster Type
All Cat B
Debris
EPM
A & B
Cat A or B
IAC
Minnesota
3242
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Nevada
3243
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Idaho
3244
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Nebraska
3245
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Connecticut
3246
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
North Dakota
3247
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
California
3248
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Wisconsin
3249
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Ohio
3250
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Maryland
3251
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Massachusetts
3252
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Montana
3253
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation

---

CRS-19
PA Program Subdivision
Calendar
PA:
Cat A:
Cat B:
Cat
Duration:
State
DR # A
year
Disaster Type
All Cat B
Debris
EPM
A & B
Cat A or B
IAC
Rhode Island
3255
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Maine
3256
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
New Jersey
3257
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
New Hampshire
3258
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
New York
3262
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Delaware
3263
2005 Emergency Declaration:
100
none given
Hurricane Katrina Evacuation
Sources: Federal Register online at [http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/index.html]; and FEMA archived disaster declarations at “Federally Declared Disasters by Calendar Year” at
[http://www.fema.gov/library/drcys.shtm]. Sites visited 10/27/05-11/3/05.
A The DR number is a numeric identifier used by FEMA to designate each disaster event, in consecutive order, by state. For instance, Hurricane Katrina resulted in presidential disaster
declarations for three states; each state received a unique DR number.
BAdjustments under the PA: All Cat. column refers to a cost-share arrangement for debris removal (Cat. A), emergency protective measures (Cat. B), and permanent work (Cat. C-G).
However, if a 100% adjustment has been stated for either Cat. A or Cat. B or both (for a specific time frame), the PA: All Cat. adjustment level will apply for those costs covered
under the 100% adjustment.
C An adjustment to 90% federal reimbursement with a 10% local-state share was applied only to eligible expenses under the Other Needs Assistance (ONA) grants to individual disaster
victims or households in insular areas. ONA grants comprise one category of assistance under FEMA’s Individual Assistance (IA) program and address hardships caused by
disaster-related expenses such as medical or dental bills, and funeral expenses.

---

CRS-20
Hazard Mitigation Assistance
Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grants. In the 1988 amendments to the
Stafford Act, FEMA proposed and Congress approved hazard mitigation funding
authority.55 The provision, enacted as Section 404 of the Stafford Act, generally
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.
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. Total
federal assistance cannot exceed 7.5% of the total assistance provided under the
major disaster provisions (Title IV) of the Stafford Act.56 This base has fluctuated
since the program’s inception. The 1988 provision that established HMGP limited
federal contributions to 10% of the public infrastructure grants awarded under the
Stafford Act.57 Congress approved significant amendments to Section 404 after the
Midwest floods of 1993 by: (1) increasing the amount of federal assistance to be
provided by requiring that the amount of grants total 15% of all major disaster
assistance provided, (2) increasing the share of federal contribution to 75% of the
cost of eligible measures (from 50%), and (3) authorizing the director of FEMA to
acquire property and relocate occupants in flood areas.58 Further amendments were
adopted in the 2000 act which increased the ceiling on Section 404 grants for states
that meet certain planning requirements, and authorized states to apply to administer
their HMGP funds.59 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.
55 P.L. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4698
56 42 U.S.C. 5170c as amended by Sec. 417, P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 525. H.R. 4442, pending
before the 109th Congress, would reestablish the cap to 15%. Legislation to raise the cap
was approved by the House during the 108th Congress (H.R. 3181) but was not taken up by
the Senate.
57 Public infrastructure grants may be provided to state and local governments and to certain
non-profit organizations for the repair, replacement, or reconstruction of facilities damaged
by major disasters. See 42 U.S.C. 5172.
58 Sec. 2, P.L. 103-181, 107 Stat. 2054.
59 The President is authorized to provide grants equal to 20% of the total disaster assistance
provided as long as certain requirements are met by the state, including the establishment
of eligibility criteria for property acquisition, cost effectiveness measures, specification of
priorities, and assessment processes. See 114 Stat. 1558.

---

CRS-21
Table 2. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Obligations, FY1989-
FY2004
(current dollars in thousands)
Amount of obligations
Fiscal year
By year of disaster
By year funds were obligated
declaration
1989
$40,747
NA*
1990
76,752
106,621
1991
17,182
16,843
1992
52,973
61,812
1993
187,295
20,670
1994
883,277
8,977
1995
162,103
59,994
1996
276,591
144,359
1997
221,633
440,417
1998
427,971
531,596
1999
215,445
539,474
2000
76,064
283,844
2001
773,842
241,974
2002
92,761
223,513
2003
69,337
606,229
2004
2,303
289,954
Total
3,576,278
3,576,278
Annual average
$223,517
$238,419
Source: U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance & Mitigation
Administration, personal communication with the author, Jan. 10, 2005.
* Due to a change in financial systems in 1996, data on obligations per fiscal year are not available
for 1989.
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

---

CRS-22
reduce risks.”60 (Others might classify activities such as these as “non-structural.”)
Project activities involved structural changes to buildings and land.
! Process activities include measures to: (1) assess hazards, threats,
risks and vulnerabilities, (2) plan efforts to develop ideas for
projects, establish priorities, and set policies, (3) educate
policymakers and disseminate information to the public, and (4)
facilitate the design and 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,
including but not limited to: (1) elevating and acquiring and
relocating structures (including infrastructure) in flood-prone areas,
(2) retrofitting or strengthening structures and infrastructure to
withstand earth movements or high winds, and (3) improving land
conditions to ensure proper drainage of water.
Table 3 provides summary information on the number of activities funded with
HMGP grants, divided by process and project categories.
Table 3. HMGP Obligations, by Type of Activity, 1990-2004
Process/
Number of
Obligations
Category
Project
Projects
(nominal $)
Process
Codes, standards, ordinances, and
66
$33,658,336
regulations
Mitigation plans and studies
843
$57,869,895
Other non-construction
96
$14,675,091
Professional education and public
210
$33,965,536
awareness
Subtotal
1,215
$140,168,858
Project
Acquisition and relocation of real
1,657
$1,055,324,451
property
Elevation and floodproofing
268
$90,284,454
Equipment (generators,
357
$36,612,317
communications, etc.)
Infrastructure protective measures
220
$31,478,592
(roads and bridges)
Major, minor, and localized flood
1,071
$338,554,146
control
60 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.

---

CRS-23
Process/
Number of
Obligations
Category
Project
Projects
(nominal $)
Other flood control (dams, levees,
131
$45,567,006
etc.)
Other major structural
36
$133,195,437
Retrofitting (seismic)
443
$715,511,772
Retrofitting (for wind, wildfires,
755
$209,137,638
and safe rooms)
Stabilization (shoreline and
136
$16,928,918
landslide)
Utility protective measures
268
$187,730,824
Vegetation management
144
$23,987,883
Water and sanitary sewer system
247
$55,181,410
protective measures
Wetland restoration/creation
5
$609,946
Subtotal
5,738
$2,940,104,794
Other
State Management Costs
586
$62,999,718
Miscellaneous
143
$353,672,147
Warning Systems
446
$56,106,787
Subtotal
1,175
$472,778,652
Total
8,128
$3,553,052,304
Source: National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS) query of best available data,
December 22, 2004, presented in 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.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants. During the Clinton Administration FEMA
initiated Project Impact to stimulate pre-disaster mitigation efforts.61 Congress
appropriated funds, generally $25 million per year, in the mid-1990s, to support
Project Impact activities. The 105th Congress considered, but did not approve,
legislation to authorize funding for pre-disaster mitigation grants.62 The issue carried
over to the 106th Congress, which approved legislation to expand federal pre-disaster
61 For background on Project Impact see U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Disaster
Mitigation, Preparedness and Response, hearing, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 28, 1998
(Washington, GPO, 1988).
62 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee
on Clean Air, Wetlands, Private Property and Nuclear Safety, Federal Emergency
Management Agency Reforms, hearing, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., July 23, 1998 (Washington:
GPO, 1999).

---

CRS-24
mitigation assistance in order to reduce federal disaster relief costs, save lives, and
protect property through enactment of the DMA of 2000.63
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 and
facilities after a natural disaster.”64 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 jurisdiction
of the states or local governments.”65 Successful applicants must demonstrate the
ability to develop “effective public-private natural disaster hazard mitigation
partherships. The legislation, according to FEMA, “emphasizes the importance of
strong state and local planning processes and comprehensive program management
at the state level.”66 The 109th Congress reauthorized PDM through FY2008.67
President Bush submitted a request to Congress for FY2007 that would increase
PDM funding by $100 million over the FY2006 funding level. Should Congress
approve the request, PDM funding would total $149.9 million.
Funding appropriated for PDM grants remains available until expended.68 For
FY2005 a maximum of $3 million was provided for each mitigation project, with a
25% cost-share match required from grantees.69 Table 4 summarizes the funding
history of the PDM program.
63 Sec. 102, P.L. 106-290, 114 Stat. 1553-1557, 42 U.S.C. 5133.
64 Sec. 101(b), P.L. 106-390, 42 U.S.C. 5133.
65 114 Stat. 1554.
66 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Hazard mitigation planning and Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program,” Federal Register, vol. 67, no. 38, Feb. 26, 2002, pp.8843-54.
67 P.L. 109-139.
68 See P.L. 108-334, the FY2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 118
Stat. 1313.
69 FY2005 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Overview, available at [http://www.fema.gov/
pdf/fima/fy_2005_pdm_overview_10_29_04.pdf], visited Dec. 28, 2004.

---

CRS-25
Table 4. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funding, FY2002-FY2005
(dollars in millions)
Amount
Summary of projects, major
Fiscal Year
Appropriation
available
uses made of funds
FY2002
25
$25.0
Mitigation planning
Planning ($13.1), projects
FY2003 A
150
94.5
($77.9), disaster resistant
universities ($3.5)
FY2004
150
0.0
Grant competition not held
Streamlined competitive grant
program for project, planning,
FY2005 A
100
255.0
program support grants, and
technical assistance
Source: DHS appropriations acts and material provided by FEMA staff to the author, Jan. 10, 2005.
A Of the $244 million available in FY2005, $13 million was derived from reallocated FY2003 money,
$147 million from FY2004 appropriations, and $97 million in FY2005 funding. $30 million was
projected to be awarded in FY2005 when environmental and historic preservation compliance reviews
would be completed.70
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.
70 “PDM Fiscal Year 2005 Funding Availability,” at [http://www.fema.gov/fima/pdm.shtm],
visited Dec. 6, 2004, and information provided by FEMA staff to author.

---

CRS-26
Table 5. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant (PDM) Obligations, by
State and Activity, FY2002-FY2003
(dollars)
Obligated Funds by Activity
Grantee
Total
Process
Project
Alaska $560,643
$0
$560,643
Alabama
1,471,026
5,663,527
7,134,553
Arkansas
1,300,643
4,199,260
5,499,903
American Samoa
526,996
0
526,996
Arizona (AZ)
1,189,335
3,000,000
4,189,335
AZ - Gila River Indian Community
70,979
0
70,979
AZ - Hualapai Tribe
70,113
0
70,113
California (CA )
7,564,871
2,054,968
9,619,838
CA - Coyote Valley Tribe
17,517
0
17,517
CA - Hopland Band of Pomo Indians
32,600
0
32,600
CA - La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
102,441
0
102,441
CA - Mooretown Rancheria
193,142
0
193,142
CA - Pechanga Band of Luiseno
48,938
0
48,938
Mission Indians
CA - Smith River Rancheria
42,990
0
42,990
Colorado 710,126
0
710,126
Connecticut 578,937
0
578,937
District of Columbia
511,908
0
511,908
Delaware 517,363
0
517,363
Florida 1,576,846
7,365,396
8,942,242
Georgia 3,386,028
2,441,860
5,827,888
Guam 248,375
0
248,375
Hawaii 527,035
0
527,035
Iowa 729,380
0
729,380
Idaho (ID)
567,574
0
567,574
ID - Shoshone-Bannock Tribes
30,000
0
30,000
Illinois 957,637
1,796,862
2,754,499
Kansas (KS) - Kickapoo Tribe
67,650
0
67,650
KS - Sac and Fox Nation
50,000
0
50,000
Kentucky 865,963
0
865,963
Louisiana 803,843
18,113
821,956
Massachusetts 1,150,476
595,438
1,745,914
Maryland 698,669
0
698,669
Maine 528,535
0
528,535

---

CRS-27
Obligated Funds by Activity
Grantee
Total
Process
Project
Michigan (MI)
733,479
0
733,479
MI - Lac Vieux Desert Tribe
18,813
0
18,813
Minnesota (MN)
614,736
0
614,736
MN - Upper Sioux Tribe
35,493
0
35,493
Missouri 816,064
295,200
1,111,264
Mississippi Power
283,752
120,292
404,044
Mississippi 641,434
0
641,434
Montana 519,717
17,550
537,267
North Carolina
1,116,968
2,874,218
3,991,186
North Dakota (ND)
613,567
0
613,567
ND - unspecified
100,000
0
100,000
Nebraska 458,375
0
458,375
New Hampshire
923,609
0
923,609
New Jersey
725,546
1,162,923
1,888,469
New Mexico
570,656
0
570,656
Nevada 526,001
0
526,001
New York
1,172,096
0
1,172,096
Ohio 1,124,830
2,578,845
3,703,675
Oklahoma (OK)
662,504
0
662,504
OK - Citizen Potawatomi Nation
59,606
0
59,606
Oregon (OR)
1,084,581
4,207,721
5,292,302
OR - Confederated Tribes of the
111,173
0
111,173
Umatilla Indian Reservation
Pennsylvania 788,895
3,000,000
3,788,895
Puerto Rico
2,935,966
0
2,935,966
Rhode Island
523,174
0
523,174
South Carolina
696,449
43,197
739,645
South Dakota (SD)
516,052
0
516,052
SD - Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe
166,500
0
166,500
Tennessee 1,210,985
165,023
1,376,007
Texas 1,653,174
8,719,219
10,372,394
Utah 601,203
2,994,038
3,595,241
Virginia 846,875
0
846,875
U.S. Virgin Islands
500,944
0
500,944
Vermont 512,777
0
512,777
Washington (WA)
1,237,807
571,962
1,809,769
WA - Lummi Tribe
52,156
0
52,156

---

CRS-28
Obligated Funds by Activity
Grantee
Total
Process
Project
WA - Sauk Suiattle Indian Tribe
25,000
0
25,000
WA - Skokomish Indian Tribe
141,056
0
141,056
Wisconsin (WI)
1,032,247
689,829
1,722,076
WI - Forest County Potawatomi
68,117
0
68,117
WI - Menominee Tribe
30,000
0
30,000
WI - Sokaogon Chippewa Tribe
40,573
0
40,573
WI - St. Croix Chippewa of Wisconsin
71,295
0
71,295
West Virginia
292,778
2,743,154
3,035,932
Wyoming (WY)
534,139
1,593,515
2,127,654
WY - Wind River Indian Reservation -
132,486
0
132,486
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.”71 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 lives
and prevent almost 4,700 injuries over approximately 50 years.72
Disaster Relief Fund
Congress appropriates money to the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) to ensure that
the foregoing federal assistance 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.73 Appropriations to
the DRF generally evoke little controversy. Supplemental appropriations legislation
is generally required each fiscal year to meet the urgent needs of particularly
71 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Departments of Veterans Affairs
and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2000,
106th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 106-161 (Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1999), p. 103.
72 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 Apr. 28,
2006.
73 For background on this and other types of federal budget accounts, see CRS Report 98-
410, Basic Federal Budgeting Terminology, by Bill Heniff Jr.

---

CRS-29
catastrophic disasters. Questions have been raised in the past concerning the
increased cost of federal disaster assistance authorized by the Stafford 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.74 As shown in Table 6 below,
DRF obligations have increased considerably since 1990 in comparison to those
recorded in previous decades.
74 U.S. Congress, Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief, Federal
Disaster Assistance, S.Doc. 104-4, 104th Cong., 1st 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,
104th 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
Treatment of Emergencies, hearing, 105th Cong., 2nd sess., June 23, 1998 (Washington:
GPO, 1998).

---

CRS-30
Table 6. Disaster Relief Fund, FY1974-FY2006
(millions of dollars, 2005 constant dollars)
Total Appropriations
Outlays
FY
aRequest
Supplem
Original
Nominal Constant Nominal
Constant
ental
1974
$100
$200
$233
$433
$1,412
$250
$ 816
1975
100
150
50
200
591
206
609
1976
187
187
0
187
517
362
999
1977
100
100
200
300
770
294
754
1978
150
115
300
415
997
461
1,108
1979
200
200
194
394
876
277
616
1980
194
194
870
1,064
2,175
574
1,173
1981
375
358
0
358
668
401
746
1982
400
302
0
302
526
115
201
1983
325
130
0
130
217
202
337
1984
0
0
0
0
0
243
391
1985
100
100
0
100
156
192
299
1986
194
100
250
350
533
335
511
1987
100
120
b0
120
178
219
325
1988
125
120
0
c120
173
187
269
1989
200
100
d1,108
1,208
1,674
140
194
1990
270
98
e1,150
1,248
1,668
1,333
1,781
1991
270
0
0
0
0
552
711
1992
f184
185
4,136
g4,321
5,429
902
1,134
1993
292
292
2,000
h2,292
2,816
2,276
2,796
1994
i1,154
226
j4,709
4,935
5,935
3,743
4,502
1995
320
320
k3,275
3,595
4,235
2,116
2,492
1996
320
222
k3,275
k3,497
4,042
2,233
2,581
1997
320
l1,320
l3,300
4,620
5,248
2,551
2,898
1998
m2,708
320
n1,600
1,920
2,155
1,998
2,242
1999
o2,566
p1,214
q1,130
2,344
2,597
3,746
4,149
2000
2,780
r2,780
0
2,780
3,019
2,628
2,853
s, t
2001
2,909
300
t5,890
6,249
3,217
3,413
2002
u1,369
664
v7,008
v12,160
12,677
3,947
4,114
2003
1,843
800
w1,426
w2,199
2,255
8,541
8,761
2004
1,956
1,800
x2,275
x2,042
2,068
3,044
3,082
2005
2,151
2,042
x43,091
y44,266
44,266
3,363
Z11,846
2006
2,140
1,770
NA
NA
NA
NA
Z13,919
2007
1,941
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Z12,610
Total
$26,402
$18,130
$83,579 $105,822
$118,179
$85,661
$95,237
Sources: U.S. President, annual budget documents; appropriations legislation; U.S. FEMA budget
justifications. Nominal amounts are the actual appropriations; constant dollar amounts based on CRS
calculations in turn based on GDP (chained) price index in U.S. President (Bush), Historical Tables,

---

CRS-31
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, 2004), pp. 184-185. Table
prepared by Keith Bea, Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance
Division.
a.Data in the request column generally represent the first budget request submitted by the
Administration each year and do not include amended or supplemental requests. Notes in this
column provide additional detail.
b.In Feb. 1987, a total of $57.475 million was rescinded and transferred from the DRF to the
Emergency Food and Shelter Program account (P.L. 100-6; 101 Stat. 92). That amount was
returned to the fund the same year in supplemental appropriations legislation enacted in July
1987 (P.L. 100-71; 101 Stat. 412).
c.P.L. 100-202 (101 Stat. 329), the Continuing Appropriations Act for FY1988, appropriated $120
million for disaster relief. According to FEMA, the original appropriation for that fiscal year
was $125 million, but $5 million was transferred to the Department of Labor for “low income
agriculture workers.”
d.Supplemental funds were included in P.L. 101-100 (101 Stat. 640), continuing appropriations
legislation enacted after Hurricane Hugo struck in Sept. 1989. According to FEMA, this amount
was “referred to as a supplemental but was an increase in the original appropriation during a
continuing resolution.”
e.P.L. 101-130 (103 Stat. 775), enacted after the Loma Prieta earthquake, appropriated $1.1 billion in
supplemental funding for FY1990. In addition, $50 million was appropriated in P.L. 101-302
(104 Stat. 214), dire emergency supplemental appropriations legislation. Table 1 does not
reflect a $2.5 million transfer from the President’s unanticipated needs fund.
f.FY1992 request does not include the budget amendment of $90 million submitted by the
Administration.
g.Appropriations for FY1992 included a $943 million dire emergency supplemental in P.L. 102-229
(105 Stat. 1701), enacted in fall 1991 after Hurricane Bob; $300 million after the Los Angeles
riots and flooding in Chicago (spring 1992) in P.L. 102-302 (106 Stat. 248); and $2.893 billion
in P.L. 102-368 (106 Stat. 1117) after Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki, Typhoon Omar, and other
disasters.
h.Total for FY1993 includes the $2 billion supplemental approved after the Midwest floods in 1993
(P.L. 103-75; 107 Stat. 739).
i.The original FY1994 budget request was $292 million. On July 29, 1993, a supplemental request of
$862 million was sent by President Clinton to Congress.
j.Supplemental appropriations for FY1994 enacted after the Northridge earthquake struck Los Angeles
(P.L. 103-211; 108 Stat. 13).
k.Additional supplemental appropriation approved for Northridge earthquake costs (P.L. 104-19; 109
Stat. 230) for FY1995, with the same amount ($3.275 billion) reserved for a contingency fund
for FY1996 (P.L. 104-19; 109 Stat. 231). However, $1 billion of the contingency fund was
rescinded in FY1996 omnibus appropriations, P.L. 104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-358). In the same
legislation, another $7 million was also appropriated to other FEMA accounts for costs
associated with the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City (P.L.
104-134; 109 Stat. 254).
l.The FY1998 budget appendix (p. 1047) noted a transfer of $104 million from the disaster relief fund
in FY1996. In the FY1997 appropriations act (P.L. 104-204; 110 Stat. 1321-358), $1 billion
that had been rescinded in FY1996 (P.L. 104-134) was restored, and $320 million in new funds
were appropriated. Supplemental appropriations of $3.3 billion were approved in P.L. 105-18
(111 Stat. 200) after flooding in the Dakotas and Minnesota, and after storms in other states
were declared major disasters. The legislation specified, however, that of the total, $2.3 billion
was to be available in FY1998 only when FEMA submitted a cost control report to Congress.
This requirement was met, and the funding was made available in FY1998.
m.The FY1998 request consisted of a $320 million base amount plus $2.388 billion “to address actual
and projected requirements from 1997 and prior year declarations.” (Budget Appendix FY1998,
p. 1047). Does not include $50 million requested for the DRF for mitigation activities.
n.Supplemental appropriations legislation (P.L. 105-174; 112 Stat. 77) for FY1998, approved for
flooding associated with El Niño and other disasters.
o.The FY1999 request consisted of $307.8 million for the DRF and an additional $2.258 billion in
contingency funding to be available when designated as an emergency requirement under the
Balanced Budget Act of 1985, as amended.

---

CRS-32
p.The FY1999 omnibus appropriations act (P.L. 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-579) included $906 million
for costs associated with Hurricane Georges, flooding associated with El Niño, and other
disasters.
q.Emergency supplemental appropriations for FY1999 (P.L. 106-31; 113 Stat. 73) included $900
million for tornado damages as well as $230 million for unmet needs, subject to allocation
directions in the conference report (H.Rept. 106-143).
r.FY2000 appropriations act (P.L. 106-74, 113 Stat. 1085) included disaster relief funding as follows:
$300 million in regular appropriations and $2.480 billion designated as emergency spending for
costs associated with Hurricane Floyd and other disasters. In addition, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-113; 113 Stat. 1501) authorized the Director of FEMA to use up
to $215 million in disaster relief funds appropriated in P.L. 106-74 (113 Stat. 1047) for the
purchase of residences flooded by Hurricane Floyd, under specified conditions.
s.Supplemental appropriations legislation (P.L. 106-246; 114 Stat. 568) authorized that $50 million
from the DRF was to be used for buyout and relocation assistance for victims of Hurricane
Floyd. The act also appropriated $500 million in a separate account (P.L. 106-246; 114 Stat.
590) for claim compensation and administrative costs associated with the Cerro Grande fire that
destroyed much of Los Alamos, New Mexico.
t.P.L. 107-38 (115 Stat. 220) appropriated $40 billion in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11,
2001. Pursuant to the statute, these funds for FY2001 were allocated by the Office of
Management Budget from the Emergency Response Fund (ERF). Of the total appropriated in
P.L. 107-38 after the Sept. 11 attacks, $4.357 billion was allocated for FY2001 through P.L.
107-117 (115 Stat. 2338). The total available for obligation for FY2001 ($5.9 billion) taken
from FEMA Justification of Estimates, FY2003, p. DR-2.
u.Request for FY2002 did not include funding for the Disaster Relief Contingency Fund.
v.Congress appropriated a total of $7.008 billion for FY2002 in P.L. 107-117 (115 Stat. 2238) and P.L.
107-206 (116 Stat. 894) to meet additional needs associated with the terrorist attacks. Total
funds available ($12.16 billion) include a transfer from TSA, $1 billion released from the
Emergency Contingency Fund, and other sources. See DHS, Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate, Justification of Estimates, FY2004, p. DR-2.
w.Includes $983.6 million in P.L. 108-69 (117 Stat. 885) and $441.7 million in P.L. 108-83 (117 Stat.
1037) to meet needs associated with tornadoes, winter storms, the recovery of wreckage of the
Space Shuttle Columbia and other disasters. Also, funds appropriated in these measures and in
the FY2004 appropriations act for DHS (P.L. 108-90; 117 Stat. 1137) have been used for costs
associated with Hurricane Isabel. Total of $2.199 billion available taken from DHS, Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate, Justification of Estimates, FY2005, p. FEMA-18.
x.P.L. 108-106 (117 Stat. 1209), which primarily addressed reconstruction costs in Iraq and
Afghanistan, also contained an appropriation of $500 million for needs arising from disasters
in fall 2003, including Hurricane Isabel and the California fires (117 Stat. 1220). Section 4002
of the act designates the funds an emergency requirement pursuant to the budget resolution
adopted by Congress (H.Con.Res. 95), but the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004
(Section 102(a), Division H, P.L. 108-199; 118 Stat. 454) rescinded $225 million of the $500
million appropriated in P.L. 108-106 (117 Stat. 1220). Total of $2.043 billion taken from:
DHS, Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, Justification of Estimates, FY2005,
p. FEMA-18. P.L. 108-303 (118 Stat. 1124), enacted after Hurricanes Charley and Frances
struck Florida, appropriated $2 billion to the DRF and gave discretion to DHS to transfer $30
million to the Small Business Administration for disaster loans. P.L. 108-324 , Division B of
the Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2005, appropriated an additional $6.5
billion to the DRF (118 Stat. 1247). Congress appropriated $10 billion in P.L. 109-61 (119 Stat.
1988), approved by Congress in a special session of the leadership and signed by the President
on September 2, 2005, as an immediate response to the needs caused by Hurricane Katrina. A
second supplemental for costs associated with Hurricane Katrina ($50 billion, P.L. 109-62; 119
Stat. 1990) was approved by Congress and signed by President Bush on September 8, 2005.
However, $29 billion of the funds appropriated to the DRF were reallocated to other agency
accounts to expedite the repair and reconstruction of federal facilities, and for other purposes
(P.L. 109-148).
y. As presented in DHS FY2007 congressional justification document for the DRF, page FEMA-3.
Z. Estimates.

---

CRS-33
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 which installs blue
tarps as a temporary repair to 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. Pursuant to the requirement
in P.L. 109-62, weekly reports of mission assignments made by FEMA after the
hurricanes of 2004 are provided to the Appropriations Committee and are made
available on the Internet.75
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 109th Congress
“Super Catastrophes” and the Stafford Act. The widespread and
devastating results of Hurricane Katrina are indicators, to some, of the need to revisit
the Stafford Act, particularly with regard to the response and recovery from “super
catastrophes” that overwhelm normal federal (and non-federal) disaster response
efforts. 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);76
75 U.S. House Appropriations Committee, “Hurricane Katrina Links, Weekly Report on the
Allocation and Obligation of Appropriated Funds,” at [http://appropriations.house.gov/
_files/HurricaneKatrinaLink.htm], visited Dec. 29, 2005.
76 Background on these and other elements of the system are described in CRS Report
RL32803, The National Prepardness System: Issues in the 109th Congress, by Keith Bea.
See also the discussion of capability requirements and evaluation tools in CRS Report
(continued...)

---

CRS-34
! 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,77 charitable organizations,78 and the National
Guard;79 and,
! the organization and mission of FEMA, DHS, and other federal
agencies with emergency management responsibilities.80
In addition to considering administrative modifications, Members of Congress
might evaluate changes to the Stafford Act, or through enactment of new legislation,
new 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, legislation enacted after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
address issues that require special legislative action, beyond the standard waiver
authority in the Stafford Act.81 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;82
! 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;83
76 (...continued)
RL32520, Emergency Management Preparedness Standards: Overview and Options for
Congress, by Keith Bea.
77 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.
78 See CRS Report RS21058, Combating Charitable Fraud: An Overview of State and
Federal Law, by Angie A. Welborn and Alison Muhlfeld.
79 See CRS Report RL33095, Hurricane Katrina: DOD Disaster Response, by Steve
Bowman, Lawrence Kapp, and Amy Belasco.
80 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).
81 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.
82 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.
83 For more information see CRS Report RL33084, Unemployment and Employment
Programs Available to Workers from Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi Affected by
(continued...)

---

CRS-35
! P.L. 109-73 authorizes temporary tax relief to directly and indirectly
assist individuals in recovering from Hurricane Katrina;84
! P.L. 109-86 authorizes the Secretary of Education to waive certain
requirements for the campus-based financial aid programs;85
! P.L. 109-82 authorizes the provision of vocational rehabilitation
services to persons with disabilities affected by Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita;86 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.87
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
83 (...continued)
Hurricane Katrina, by Julie M. Whittaker and Ann Lordeman.
84 For more information see CRS Report RS22269, Katrina Emergency Tax Relief Act of
2005, by Erika Lunder.
85 For more information see CRS Report RL33089, Education and Training Issues Related
to Major Disasters, coordinated by Charmaine Mercer.
86 For more information see CRS Report RL33249, Rehabilitation Act of 1973: 109th
Congress Legislation, FY2006 Budget Request, and FY2006 Appropriations, by Scott David
Szymendera.
87 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.

---

CRS-36
Center, however, is appropriate to an examination of this issue insofar as the Stafford
Act is concerned.
1998 New England 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.88 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.”89 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 be used.90

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.”91 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
88 For background on the storm ,see Sen. Olympia Snowe, “The Ice Storm of 1998,” remarks
in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 144, Feb. 11, 1998, S609-S612.
89 112 Stat. 2681-579. The full text of the provision that appropriated funds after the ice
storms follows in the appendix to this memorandum.
90 Steve Campbell, “Ice Storm Aid Pittance Seen as `Betrayal’,” Press Herald online, Nov.
22, 1998, at [http://www.portland.com/sunews/story2.htm], visited Nov. 23, 1998; Charles
Davant, “Congress Hastens Maine Ice Storm Relief,” Bangor Daily News, May 12, 1999,
visited online, site archived.
91 116 Stat. 890.

---

CRS-37
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 Trade
Center attacks.92
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.93 The Texas Medical Center (TMC), a health care complex
that includes 13 hospitals as well as medical and nursing schools, suffered
considerable damage.94 The TMC, however, was not 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 FEMA
Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation grants as if it were an eligible
applicant.95
Controlling Federal Expenditures. The increase in federal expenditures
for disaster assistance since 1990 has been the subject of some debate. A report
issued by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) for FEMA concluded that the
increase in federal disaster costs since 1989 “is due to a greater number and
magnitude of disasters, expansion of the law and eligibility for assistance, and
interpretation of the law and regulations.”96 Some contend that other factors, notably
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
92 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
H.R. 4775, H.Rept. 107-593, 107th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 180.
93 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 Dec. 29, 2005.
94 Summary information is available at Ellen Parson, “1,000-Year Flood Paralyzes Texas
Medical Center,” Sept. 1, 2002, at [http://www.ecmwe b.com/mag
/electric_year_flood_paralyzes/index.html], visited Dec. 29, 2005.
95 P.L. 108-7, 117 Stat. 514.
96 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, at [http://www.fema.gov/library/
pp2man.shtm], visited Nov. 19, 2004.

---

CRS-38
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.”97
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 party
affiliation affected White House major disaster declaration decisions.”98 In light of
concerns about funding decisions after the2004-2005 hurricanes, and the rising
deficit, Members of the 109th Congress may elect to consider means of controlling
costs or establishing alternative funding mechanisms.
Long-Term Recovery Policy. The Stafford Act authorizes disaster recovery
assistance for stricken states through the full range of events that precede and result
from catastrophes. The Stafford Act does not explicitly authorize the President to
provide long-term recovery assistance to communities.99 However, the federal
government has occupied the field to some extent. The Secretary of Commerce is
authorized to undertake disaster economic recovery activities.100 The National
Response Plan, the document that sets forth agency responsibilities when major
disaster declarations are issued, includes a “Long-Term Community Recovery and
Mitigation Annex.” This annex “provides a framework for federal government
support to state, regional local, and tribal governments, nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), and the private sector designed to enable community recovery
from the long-term consequences” of catastrophes.101
Complications associated with the recovery of communities in the Gulf Coast
states after Hurricane Katrina have raised congressional interest in this policy field.
Through an executive order President Bush directed the Secretary of DHS to
97 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 Sept. 16, 2005.
98 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.
99 Title V of P.L. 93-288, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 160-163), authorized the
President to provide economic recovery assistance “after the period of emergency aid and
replacement of essential facilities and services.” Congress never funded this authority, and
it was repealed in 1998 amendments (see Sec. 102(c) of P.L. 105-393, 112 Stat. 3617).
100 42 U.S.C. 3149(c)(2).
101 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, National Response Plan (Washington: 2004),
pp. ESF#14-1 through 14-6. The National Response Plan may be downloaded from the
DHS website at [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml],
visited Sept. 16, 2005.

---

CRS-39
establish a new position in the department to coordinate the rebuilding efforts in the
Gulf Coast states, termed the “Coordinator of Federal Support for the Recovery and
Rebuilding of the Gulf Coast Region.”102 Congress may be called upon to evaluate
the efficacy of this approach and the role of Congress in the rebuilding process.
Congress might also consider whether the existing statutory authority of the Secretary
of Commerce is adequate, and whether the Secretary of DHS may undertake long-
term recovery activities as set out in the National Response Plan.
102 For background see CRS Report RS22334, Federal Hurricane Recovery Coordinator:
Appointment and Oversight Issues, by Henry B. Hogue.

---