FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster
Relief: Summary and Considerations for
Congress
William L. Painter, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
Jared T. Brown, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
January 23, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
wwwrsov
R42869
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Summary
In late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy impacted a wide swath of the East Coast of the United
States, resulting in more than 120 deaths and the major disaster declarations for 12 states plus the
District of Columbia. The Administration submitted a request to Congress on December 7, 2012,
for $60.4 billion in supplemental funding and legislative provisions to address both the immediate
losses and damages from Hurricane Sandy, as well as to mitigate the damage from future disasters
in the impacted region.
On January 15, 2012, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 152, the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013. This bill included $50.7 billion in disaster assistance. This was the
third piece of disaster legislation considered by the House in the 113th Congress. H.R. 41, which
passed the House and Senate on January 4, 2013, and was signed into law two days later as P.L.
113-1, provided $9.7 billion in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance
Program. On January 14, the House passed H.R. 219, legislation making changes to disaster
assistance programs. The rule for consideration of H.R. 152 combined the text of H.R. 219, “The
Sandy Recovery Improvement Act,” with H.R. 152 upon its engrossment, to send them to the
Senate as a single package.
In the 112th Congress, the Senate had passed a separate package of disaster assistance totaling
$60.4 billion, as well as several legislative provisions reforming federal disaster programs.
Appropriations legislation generally originates in the House of Representatives. However, the
Senate chose to act on the Administration’s request first by amending an existing piece of House-
passed appropriations legislation—H.R. 1. This passed the Senate December 28, 2012, by a vote
of 62-32. Section 609 of the bill included many of the legislative provisions similar to those that
would appear in H.R. 219. The House did not act on the legislation before the end of the 112th
Congress.
This report analyzes the Administration’s request, the House-passed legislation, and the Senate
position as reflected in Senate-amended H.R. 1 from the 112th Congress. (The newly constituted
Senate has not taken up legislation establishing its position on the supplemental request as of the
date of publication.) It includes information on legislative provisions as well as funding levels.
The report includes a list of CRS experts available to provide more in-depth analysis of the
implications of this evolving legislation.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Legislative History ........................................................................................................................... 1
112th Congress ........................................................................................................................... 1
113th Congress ........................................................................................................................... 2
Analysis of the Administration’s Supplemental Request and the Legislative Response ................. 2
Analysis of the Administration’s Request and Congressional Response ....................................... 11
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies ............................................................................................................................... 11
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies ................................................................ 13
Defense .................................................................................................................................... 15
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies ......................................................... 15
Financial Services and General Government .......................................................................... 17
Homeland Security .................................................................................................................. 19
Homeland Security Legislative Provisions ....................................................................... 20
Provisions Unique to Senate-Passed H.R. 1 ...................................................................... 22
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies .......................................................................... 23
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies .................................. 25
Department of Labor ......................................................................................................... 26
Department of Health and Human Services ...................................................................... 26
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies ............................................... 28
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies ............................. 29
General Legislative Provisions ................................................................................................ 33
Internal Control Plans........................................................................................................ 33
Planning for and Projecting Future Vulnerabilities and Risks .......................................... 35
Mitigation of Future Power Outages ................................................................................. 36
Embassy Security .............................................................................................................. 37
Considerations for Congress .......................................................................................................... 37
Disaster Relief and Emergency Funding Under the Budget Control Act ................................ 37
Offsetting Disaster Relief ........................................................................................................ 38
Including Legislative Provisions in Supplemental Appropriations ......................................... 39
Sharing the Cost of Disaster Assistance Projects .................................................................... 40
Comparing Past Disasters to Hurricane Sandy ........................................................................ 41
Understanding the Mitigation Funding in the Proposal ........................................................... 42
Strategic Planning for Disaster Recovery and/or Rebuilding .................................................. 44

Tables
Table 1. FY2013 Disaster Supplemental Request and Congressional Action ................................. 4
Table 2. Selected CRS Experts by Supplemental Request ............................................................. 46
Table A-1. Survey of FY2013 Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Request ......................................... 2

Congressional Research Service

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Appendixes
Appendix. Summary of the Administration’s Request .................................................................... 1

Contacts
Author Contact Information............................................................................................................. 6

Congressional Research Service

Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Introduction
On October 25, 2012, Tropical Storm Sandy strengthened to become Hurricane Sandy. The next
day, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) elevated its ongoing preparedness
efforts, sending Incident Management Assistance Teams to states from North Carolina to
Vermont, and public and private sector entities began to ramp up efforts to prepare for the storm,
including a wide range of federal entities from the Federal Aviation Administration to the
Department of Energy. On October 28 and 29, as the storm neared land, the President signed
emergency declarations for eight states, as well as the District of Columbia, making federal
resources available to help state and local governments as they prepared and as the storm began to
impact coastal communities.1 Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey the night of October
29, 2012, as a Category 1 Hurricane, with a field of hurricane-force winds 900 miles across.2
The storm was responsible for at least 125 deaths in the United States, and damage estimates are
still being made. In early November EQECAT, an economic forecasting firm, estimated economic
losses from Sandy as $30 billion to $50 billion.3 As of January 16, 2013, the President has
declared major disasters for 12 states as well as the District of Columbia under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act).4
Given the scale of the damage, the Administration submitted a request to Congress on December
7, 2012, for $60.41 billion in supplemental funding and legislative provisions to address both the
immediate losses and damages from Hurricane Sandy, as well as to mitigate the damage from
future disasters in the impacted region.5
Legislative History
112th Congress
On December 12, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee published a draft amendment to
H.R. 16 on its website that would provide $60.41 billion in supplemental appropriations. The
amendment also included a variety of authorizing provisions sought by the Administration as well

1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Hurricane Sandy: Timeline,” http://www.fema.gov/hurricane-sandy-
timeline.
2 Voiland, Adam, “Comparing the Winds of Sandy and Katrina,” November 9, 2012, http://www.nasa.gov/
mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2012/h2012_Sandy.html.
3 As downloaded from http://www.eqecat.com/news/in-the-news/2012/hurricane-sandy/, link verified January 23, 2013.
4 The Stafford Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. To date, the major disaster declarations are: New York (DR-
4085); New Jersey (DR-4086); Connecticut (DR-4087); Rhode Island (DR-4089); Delaware (DR-4090); Maryland
(DR-4091); Virginia (DR-4092); West Virginia (DR-4093); New Hampshire (DR-4095); the District of Columbia (DR-
4096); Massachusetts (DR-4097); Ohio (DR-4098); and Pennsylvania (DR-4099). More information on each
declaration is available at http://www.fema.gov/disasters.
5 Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
supplemental__december_7_2012_hurricane_sandy_funding_needs.pdf.pdf.
6 H.R. 1 was a continuing resolution for FY2011 passed by the House in the 112th Congress that was not previously
voted on in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
1

Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

as provisions originating in the Senate to modify disaster assistance processes and functions. On
December 17, 2012, this proposal was introduced as S.Amdt. 3338.7 On December 19, the
amendment was withdrawn and S.Amdt. 3395, with the same title and overall cost was offered in
its place. The Senate amended the amendment, passed it by voice vote and then passed the
underlying legislation (H.R. 1) on December 28, 2012, by a vote of 62-32. The House did not act
on the legislation before the end of the 112th Congress.
However, one facet of the Administration’s request did become law through the 112th Congress.
The Administration had sought a legislative provision to increase the bond limit for the Small
Business Administration’s Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund. A provision increasing the
bond limit to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certified it was
necessary, was included in P.L. 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013.8
113th Congress
On January 4, 2013, the House and Senate both passed H.R. 41, legislation providing an
additional $9.7 billion in borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
which had been a part of the Administration’s request. The President signed it into law as P.L.
113-1 on January 6, 2013.
H.R. 152, which included another portion of the Administration’s supplemental request, was
introduced on January 4, 2013, and an amendment was filed that same day that included further
portions. The House Appropriations Committee describes H.R. 152 as including $17 billion “to
meet immediate and critical needs,” and the amendment as including $33 billion “funding for
longer-term recovery efforts and infrastructure improvements that will help prevent damage
caused by future disasters.” On January 7, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to H.R. 152
which contained some minor textual changes, along with a restructured “long-term recovery”
amendment, was posted on the House Rules Committee website.
The House took up the legislation on January 15, 2013. The amendment with long-term recovery
funding passed with several amendments, and the amended bill passed the House by a vote of
241-180. The rule for consideration of the bill combined H.R. 219, a House-passed package of
legislative provisions reforming disaster assistance programs with the appropriations legislation
upon engrossment of H.R. 152, and sent them to the Senate as a single package.
Analysis of the Administration’s Supplemental
Request and the Legislative Response
Table 1 below outlines the Administration’s request for supplemental funding and mitigation
funding in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, and the congressional response to those requests. All
figures are in millions of dollars of budget authority.

7 Slight changes were made from the draft on the Senate website including designating what had been chapters as titles,
and altering the section numbering.
8 For more information, see CRS Report R42037, SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program, by Robert Jay Dilger.
Congressional Research Service
2

Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

The Administration’s request is redistributed by appropriations subcommittee. There is no
distinction made in this table for mitigation funding. A breakdown of the Administration’s request
that illuminates the Administration’s separate request for mitigation funding is included in the
Appendix.
Headers in bold italics note the Appropriations subcommittee of jurisdiction, followed by the
department or independent agency in bold capitals. Two columns then specify where a given
appropriation is going, by bureau, if applicable, then account or program. The Administration’s
request is next, in millions of dollars of budget authority, followed by the amount in the House-
passed version of H.R. 152. Where accounts are funded through transfers, that number is shown
in the table and the donor account is reduced accordingly.
The next column indicates the appropriations that would have been provided if Senate-amended
H.R. 1 from the 112th Congress had been enacted. This is provided only for historical reference,
as the bill expired with the end of the 112th Congress, and the Senate has not voted on a broader
supplemental appropriations package in the 113th Congress.
After the table is a more detailed discussion of the contents of the request and the positions taken
by the House and Senate in response to it.
Congressional Research Service
3

Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Table 1. FY2013 Disaster Supplemental Request and Congressional Action
By appropriations subcommittee, amounts in millions of dollars of budget authority

House Action
Senate Action

President’s
House-passed
Senate-passed H.R. 1
Subcommittee / Bureau
Account/ Program
Request

H.R. 152
(112th Congress)

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency
Emergency Conservation Program
15
15
25.09

Emergency Forest Restoration

Farm Service Agency
Programa 23
23
58.855
Natural Resources Conservation
Emergency Watershed Protection

Service
Programb 180
180
125.055
Food and Nutrition Service
Commodity Assistance Program
6
6
15

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration
Operations, Research and Facilities
393
140
373
National Oceanographic and
Procurement, Acquisition, and

Atmospheric Administration
Construction 100
186
109
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
Office of the Inspector General
0.02
0
0.02

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Salaries and Expenses
4
10.02
4

Drug Enforcement Agency
Salaries and Expenses
1
1
1

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco

Firearms and Explosives
Salaries and Expenses
0.23
0.23
0.23
Federal Prison System
Buildings and Facilities
10
10
10

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
CRS-4

Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

House Action
Senate Action

President’s
House-passed
Senate-passed H.R. 1
Subcommittee / Bureau
Account/ Program
Request

H.R. 152
(112th Congress)

Departmental Administration
Construction, Major Projects
207
207
207

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Facilities and Equipment 30
30
30

Federal Highway Administration
Emergency Relief Program
308
2,022
921

Grants to the National Railroad

Federal Railroad Administration
Passenger Corporation
32
118
336
Federal Transit Administration
Public Transportation Emergency

Relief Program
11,700
10,894
10,777
Office of the Inspector General
(by transfer)
0
6
6

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Community Planning and

Development
Community Development Fund
17,000
15,990
16,990
Office of the Inspector General
(by transfer)
0
10
10

TOTAL $60,408.669
$50,507.684
$60,407.418

Source: CRS analysis of FY2013 Supplemental Appropriations Request, as transmitted in a letter from Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management, to the
Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, December 7, 2012; H.R. 1, 112th Congress; H.R. 152, 113th Congress; H.R. 152 and amendments
thereto as provided on http://rules.house.gov.
Notes:
a. The Administration requested funding for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to carry out program activities authorized under the Emergency Forest
Restoration Program. The Senate amendment does not refer to the CCC as the authorized funding mechanism, but rather appropriates funds directly to the
Emergency Forest Restoration Program.
b. This is described as funding for “Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations” in the Administration’s request.
c. P.L. 113-1 was signed into law on January 6, 2013, providing the $9,700 million in additional borrowing authority requested for the National Flood Insurance
Program.
CRS-9

Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

d. Transfer authority is provided to other Coast Guard accounts from Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction and Improvements.
e. The House derives these funds from unobligated balances, therefore they do not add to the bill’s budgetary score, according to CBO.
f.
H.R. 152 would appropriate $800 million to the PHSSEF account, but would then require the HHS Secretary to transfer specified portions of these funds as follows:
$500 million to the SSBG, $100 million to the Head Start program (within the Children and Families Services Programs account), and at least $5 million to the HHS
Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The remaining $195 million would remain available to the HHS Secretary for other activities.

CRS-10

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Analysis of the Administration’s Request and
Congressional Response
This section of the report is organized by alphabetically by subcommittee of jurisdiction. Except
where otherwise noted, all numbers are in budget authority rounded to the nearest million.
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies9
Both the President’s request and House-passed H.R. 152 include $224 million for programs under
the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee. The Senate bill, H.R. 1 as
amended, would also have provided $224 million for the same programs. Three of the four
programs that would receive funding under the President’s proposal and the House-passed bill are
for emergency land assistance and typically only receive funding through supplemental
appropriations bills, rather than annual appropriations bills. The fourth is a nutrition assistance
program. While the President’s request and House-passed H.R. 152 are similar, they are not
identical. The difference between the two is that the President’s proposal would provide $150
million for watershed protection mitigation efforts, while the House-passed bill adds this $150
million to watershed response and recovery. The Senate bill would have divided the $150 million
for mitigation between all four programs proposed under response and recovery.
The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program
(EFRP) are administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). ECP assists landowners in
restoring the productivity of agricultural land damaged by natural disaster. Participants are paid a
percentage of the cost to restore the land to a productive state. EFRP assists private forestland
owners with damage caused by a natural disaster on nonindustrial private forest land. Both the
President’s request and House-passed H.R. 152 provide $15 million for ECP and $23 million for
EFRP; the Senate bill would have provided approximately $25 million and $59 million,
respectively. Following Hurricane Sandy, USDA made $15.5 million in previously appropriated
ECP funds available to producers in counties that received a major disaster declaration pursuant
to the Stafford Act. According to press releases, producers in counties without a declaration were
still encouraged to sign up in the event that future funds were made available (further discussed
below). Similarly, USDA announced that no funding is available under EFRP; likewise,
producers were encouraged to apply if future funding becomes available.10
The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program and the EWP floodplain easement program
are administered by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS). The EWP program assists sponsors, landowners, and operators in
implementing emergency recovery measures for runoff reduction and erosion prevention to
relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by a natural disaster. The EWP floodplain

9 This section prepared by Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy (7-
8707) and Randy Aussenberg, Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy (7-8641).
10USDA, “Farmers and Ranchers Urged to Record Losses from Hurricane Sandy,” press release, October 31, 2012,
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/10/0337.xml&contentidonly=true.
Congressional Research Service
11

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

easement program is a mitigation program that pays for permanent easements on private land in
order to safeguard lives and property from future floods, drought, and the products of erosion.
The President’s proposal would provide $30 million for EWP recovery and response and $150
million for EWP floodplain easements for mitigation. House-passed H.R. 152 does not include
funding for EWP floodplain easements and instead adds $150 million to the general EWP
program. Similarly, Senate-passed H.R. 1 did not include funding for EWP floodplain easements,
but rather provided the equivalent of the President’s proposed $150 million to the other USDA
programs proposed for funding response and recovery efforts, including $125 million for general
EWP. Following Hurricane Sandy, USDA released $5.3 million in prior appropriated EWP funds
to 11 states to respond to imminent hazards to life and property.11 The EWP floodplain easement
program has not received funding since FY2009 and has no current funding available for
mitigation.12
The emergency agricultural land assistance programs are funded through supplemental
appropriations, rather than annual appropriations. As a result, funding for emergency agricultural
land assistance varies greatly from year to year. These programs traditionally do not require a
federal disaster designation from either the President or a state official. Recent changes in
appropriations and budget law, however, have altered how disaster funding for the programs may
be used. Funding appropriated in FY2012 was to be used for major disasters declared pursuant to
the Stafford Act. This same Stafford Act requirement is present in the House bill with the
additional requirement that funding may only be used for expenses related to the consequences of
Hurricane Sandy. The Senate bill also included the Stafford Act requirement but only to a portion
of the appropriation for all three land assistance programs. The Senate bill did not include the
House-passed bill’s requirement that funds only be used for Hurricane Sandy expenses.
Both the President’s request and H.R. 152 would provide $6 million for the Commodity
Assistance Program account—specifically for The Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP).13 The Senate bill would have provided $15 million for TEFAP. TEFAP funding
provides USDA commodity foods and administrative funding to food banks and other emergency
feeding organizations. In their request for $6 million, the Administration reasoned that “this
amount is equivalent to one month’s worth of TEFAP entitlement commodities in the affected
areas.” In annual appropriations, TEFAP funds are typically available for one fiscal year, but
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have allowed the funds to be available through the end of FY2014.
H.R. 152 did not include this extended availability of funding. In addition, H.R. 152 would and
the Senate bill would have granted USDA flexibilities to allocate foods and funds for
administrative expenses to the Sandy-affected areas beyond the parameters in the authorizing law.

11USDA, “USDA Delivers Funding for Hurricane Sandy Recovery Projects in 11 States,” press release, November 8,
2012, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/11/0342.xml&contentidonly=true.
12 Additional information on ECP, EFRP, EWP, and EWP floodplain easements—collectively referred to as emergency
agricultural land assistance programs—may be found in CRS report, CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for
Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
13 Aside from TEFAP, many of the food assistance benefits provided and being provided by USDA’s Food and
Nutrition Service programs (such as the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP)) require no
additional appropriations because the benefits are entitlements.
Congressional Research Service
12

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies14
The Administration’s request includes $513.3 million for the accounts that are traditionally
funded by the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill. H.R.
152 would provide $363.3 million for the CJS accounts while Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have
provided $513.3 million for these accounts. As outlined in Table 1, the Administration’s request
for the CJS agencies includes $493.0 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), $15.3 million for the Department of Justice (DOJ), $4.0 million for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and $1.0 million for the Legal Services
Corporation (LSC). H.R. 152 would provide $167.0 million less for NOAA, $6.0 million more
for DOJ, and $11 million more for NASA than the Administration’s request. Senate-passed H.R. 1
would have provided $11.0 million less for NOAA and $11.0 million more for NASA than the
Administration’s request.
Some of the specific differences between the Administration’s request, H.R. 152 and Senate-
passed H.R. 1 are as follows.
• The Administration requests $4.0 million for NASA’s Construction and
Environmental Compliance and Protection account, but H.R. 152 would provide
$15.0 million for this account. Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have also provided
$15.0 million for this account.
• H.R. 152 includes language that would limit the LSC in using the appropriations
it would receive under the bill only to providing the mobile resources,
technology, and disaster coordinators necessary to provide storm-related services
to the LSC client population and only in the areas significantly affected by
Hurricane Sandy. Senate-passed H.R. 1 contained similar language.
• The Administration requests a total of $393.0 million for NOAA’s Operations,
Research, and Facilities (ORF) account. The Administration’s request allocates
most funding to mitigation projects that would enhance resiliency of coastal
communities and ecosystems. The House bill allocates more funding to repairs,
replacement, and enhancement of equipment and facilities. The Senate bill, like
the current House bill, would have allocated more funding to repairs,
replacement, and enhancement of equipment and facilities.
• Specifically, the Administration requests $360.0 million under the ORF
account to assess risks associated with storms and flooding, provide technical
assistance to improve preparedness and resiliency in coastal communities,
improve forecast and modeling capabilities to support mitigation efforts, and
stabilize and restore ecosystems. The Administration requests $13.0 million
under the ORF account to repair or replace damaged weather observation,
weather radio, and ocean observing assets and facilities belonging to the
National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and National
Weather Service. The Administration also requests $20.0 million to evaluate
impacts on natural resources, support mapping and charting missions, and
conduct marine debris assessments.

14 Prepared by Nathan James, Analyst in Crime Policy (7-0264).
Congressional Research Service
13

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

• House-passed H.R. 152 would provide $140.0 million for the ORF account,
of which $50.0 million is for mapping, charting, geodesy services and marine
debris surveys for coastal states impacted by Hurricane Sandy, $7.0 million is
to repair and replace ocean observing and coastal monitoring assets damaged
by Hurricane Sandy, $3.0 million is for providing technical assistance to
support state assessments of coastal impacts of Hurricane Sandy, $25.0
million is for improving weather forecasting and hurricane intensity
forecasting capabilities, $50.0 million is for laboratories and cooperative
institutes research activities associated with sustained observations weather
research programs, and ocean and coastal research, and $5.0 million is for
necessary expenses related to fishery disasters declared in 2012 that were the
direct result of Hurricane Sandy.15
• Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $373.0 million for the ORF
account, of which $6.2 million was for repairing or replacing ocean
observing and coastal monitoring assets damaged by Hurricane Sandy; $10.0
million was for repairing and improving weather forecasting capabilities;
$150.0 million was for evaluating, stabilizing, and restoring costal
ecosystems damaged by the storm; $56.8 million was for mapping, charting,
damage assessment, and marine debris coordination and remediation; and
$150.0 million was for necessary expenses related to fishery disasters
declared in 2012.16
• The Administration’s request for NOAA includes $100.0 million under the
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account to support state and
local acquisition of land to restore and build coastal resiliency in areas where
rebuilding physical infrastructure is not feasible or desirable, and on activities
that can increase the protective capacity of natural ecosystems. House-passed
H.R. 152 would provide $186.0 million for the PAC account, of which $9.0
million is to repair NOAA facilities damaged in the storm, $44.5 million is for
repairs and upgrades to NOAA hurricane reconnaissance aircraft, $8.5 million is
for improvements to weather forecasting equipment and supercomputer
infrastructure, $13.0 million is to accelerate the National Weather Service ground
readiness project, and $111.0 million is for a weather satellite data mitigation gap
reserve fund. Senate-passed H.R. 1 as amended would have provided $109.0
million for the PAC account, of which $47.0 million was for the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program to support state and local restoration in
areas affected by Hurricane Sandy, $9.0 million was for repairing NOAA
facilities damaged by the storm, $44.5 million was for repairs and upgrades to
NOAA hurricane reconnaissance aircraft, and $8.5 million was for improvements
to weather forecasting equipment and supercomputer infrastructure.

15 The amendment to H.R. 152 offered by Congressman Frelinghuysen (H.Amdt. 5) would have provided a total of
$290.0 million for the ORF account, which included $150.0 million for Regional Ocean Partnership grants to coastal
states impacted by Hurricane Sandy. However, the House adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Flores
(H.Amdt. 6), which struck the $150.0 in funding for Regional Ocean Partnership grants and reduced funding for the
ORF account to $140.0 million.
16 In addition to the fisheries failure that was declared for New Jersey and New York fisheries, during 2012 disasters
were also declared for Alaska Chinook salmon, New England groundfish, Mississippi fisheries, and American Samoa
bottomfish.
Congressional Research Service
14

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

• House-passed H.R. 152 would require NOAA to submit a spending plan to both
the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations within 45 days of the bill
being signed into law. Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have placed the same
requirement on NOAA.
Defense
The Administration is seeking $90 million for the Department of Defense in accounts managed by
the Defense Appropriations subcommittees in its request for FY2013 supplemental appropriations
for repair and replacement of damaged equipment and facilities.
Both House-passed H.R. 152 and Senate-passed H.R. 1 would provide $88 million for the
Department of Defense, following the same structure. The only difference between the bills and
the request was a slightly more than $1 million reduction in both bills in the $41 million request
for Navy Operations and Maintenance funding.
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies17
The President’s request, House-passed H.R. 152, and Senate-passed H.R. 1 in the 112th Congress
all included $5.35 billion in supplemental funds for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
Civil Works program, which receives annual appropriations through the Energy & Water
Development Appropriations bill. Major differences between the House and Senate-passed bills
and the President’s request are summarized below.18
While the three proposals share the same total level of Corps funding, they differ in distribution
of funds across Corps accounts, eligible uses, and availability of funds.19 The House and Senate
bills designate the Corps funding as an “emergency requirement” with the exception of the Corps
Construction Account funding.20 Thus, while the bills’ funding for the Corps Construction
Account would count against discretionary budget caps, their funding for other Corps accounts
would not count against the caps.
For the Investigations account, the President requested $30 million, while the House and Senate
proposed $50 million. The House bill sets aside $29.5 million of these funds for ongoing storm
damage reduction studies in Hurricane Sandy-impacted areas of the Corps North Atlantic
Division (which spans the Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia). The Senate bill would have
made $34.5 million available for a similar study, and expanded the study area to include Gulf
Coast areas in the Mississippi Valley Division impacted by Hurricane Isaac (principally
Mississippi and Louisiana). The House bill provides the Corps an additional $20 million to

17 Prepared by Charles Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy (7-7786), and Nicole Carter, Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy (7-0854).
18 The Administration’s request for the Corps included account-level funding requests and descriptions; it did not
include bill language, which complicates comparisons with some of the House and Senate provisions.
19 Supplemental appropriations for the Corps were proposed for five accounts: the Investigations account for new and
ongoing Corps studies; the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) account for flood fighting, preparedness
and response, and repair of eligible damaged nonfederal flood and hurricane protection projects; the Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) account for operational Corps projects; the Construction account for construction of new projects
or major upgradess; and the General Expenses account for administrative and oversight.
20 For more information, see below section, “Disaster Relief and Emergency Funding Under the Budget Control Act.”
Congressional Research Service
15

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

conduct a comprehensive coastal flood risk study of the Hurricane Sandy-impacted areas of the
Corps North Atlantic Division. The Senate bill would have provided $15 million for an
interagency planning process with federal and nonfederal officials that would have developed
plans to address coastal flooding risks and include innovative approaches to long-term stability.
For the Construction Account, the Administration requested $3.83 billion, including $9 million
for repair of existing Corps construction projects and $3.82 billion in “mitigation” funding for
projects to reduce damages from future storms.21 The Administration proposes allowing the Corps
to transfer the funds to other agencies, states, or local governments to implement elements of
plans resulting from the studies funded in the Investigation account. The House and Senate bills
agreed with the Administration’s request for $9 million for repair of existing projects, but
included $3.46 billion for all other construction needs, approximately $360 million less than the
Administration’s request. The two bills differ in their direction regarding the use of the funding.
The House bill designates the overall funding allocation for rehabilitation, repair, and
construction of Corps projects, while the Senate bill would have provided the funding for these
same efforts as they relate to the “consequences of natural disasters.” The Senate bill would have
allowed for the transfer of up to $499 million in funds to other Corps accounts “to address
damages from previous natural disasters, following normal policies and cost sharing.”22 The
House bill includes no such provision.
Both bills designate $2.90 billion of the $3.83 billion for specific construction purposes. The
House bill sets the funding aside for projects that reduce future flood risk and support long-term
sustainability in coastal areas of the North Atlantic Division affected by Sandy, while the Senate
bill’s funding also would have been available for projects in Gulf Coast areas of the Mississippi
Valley Division affected by Hurricane Isaac. Any project “under study” by the Corps in the North
Atlantic Division for reducing flooding and storm damage in areas affected by Sandy that the
Secretary determines is “technically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally
feasible,” would be eligible for the funding, provided House and Senate appropriations
committees approve such a recommendation. Eligibility for the construction funding in the Senate
bill would have been based on the study demonstrating “that the project will cost-effectively
reduce those risks and is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible.” The Senate bill
would have allowed for similar projects, but would have added coastal areas of the Mississippi
Valley Division affected by Hurricane Isaac, with no requirement for congressional approval.
The three proposals also differ in their approach to construction cost sharing. The construction
costs of Corps projects for flood control and coastal storm damage reduction generally are shared
65% federal, 35% nonfederal (33 U.S.C. 2213), with the nonfederal entity receiving credit toward
its share for the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas
(known collectively as LEERDs).23 The Senate bill proposed to alter this practice, and instead
require that nonfederal sponsors provide 10% of project costs, plus the LEERD costs.24 The

21 The Administration used the term “mitigation” for Corps construction projects. Most Corps projects reduce flood risk
by reducing the vulnerability to the flood hazard (i.e., structures that reduce the probability of an area flooding), not by
reducing the consequence if a flood event occurs (i.e., limits the value of the damaged property). Typically it is the
latter type of activity that has been referenced to as “mitigation” among federal programs and floodplain mangers.
22 The Senate bill did not define “previous natural disasters” or further spell out the terms for use of this funding.
23 Nonfederal cost shares, as specified in statute, are 35% for Corps flood and coastal storm damage reduction projects
and 50% for beach renourishment components projects that have been authorized since 2003. Notably, in those cases
nonfederal LEERD costs are counted toward the nonfederal share.
24 The Administration Request also proposed a 90/10 cost share, but did not provide directions on the treatment of
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

House bill proposes a waiver that construction activities be undertaken at 100% federal expense,
but only for ongoing construction activities funded by the bill, not for other construction
projects.25 Both bills would allow nonfederal costs be repaid over a 30-year period. Both bills also
would waive a requirement for congressional approval for projects that exceed 120% of their
authorization of appropriations under §902 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of
1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280).
Other differences between the three proposals include differences in the Corps Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) and the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) accounts. The
House and Senate both proposed $821 million for the O&M account, which includes expenses for
dredging of navigation channels and project repair. The President had requested $899 million.
The House bill would limit availability to expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane
Sandy, while the Senate bill O&M funding would have been available nationally.
Both bills provide $1.01 billion for the FCCE account, $409 million more than the Administration
requested.26 While the House bill limits these funds to expenses related to Hurricane Sandy, the
FCCE amounts in the Senate bill would have been for “flood, hurricane, or other natural
disasters,” with $430 million of that amount specified to restore projects impacted by Hurricane
Sandy to their “design profiles.” Therefore, under the Senate bill, remaining FCCE funds would
have been available to support Corps emergency expenditures nationwide, including emergency
operations preparations for future events. The House bill also sets aside $430 million to restore
projects impacted by Hurricane Sandy to their “design profiles,” but makes these funds
contingent on completion of one of the studies funded under the Investigations Account. Both
bills also waive FCCE project cost limits under §902 of WRDA 1986, similar to the proposed
provisions for the Construction Account.
Finally, both bills would provide $10 million for the Corps and Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Civil Works) expenses for oversight of emergency response and recovery activities. The
Assistant Secretary would use these funds to report monthly to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on allocations and obligations of the provided funds, beginning 60
days after enactment. The Administration’s request included no such funding or reporting
requirement.
Financial Services and General Government27
One consequence of Hurricane Sandy is that properties under the control of the General Services
Administration (GSA) may have been damaged or deemed uninhabitable until repairs are made.

(...continued)
LEERD costs.
25 While not specified in the bill, all other construction projects that are not “ongoing” potentially would be subject to
the typical cost sharing requirements referenced above. This would exclude from the cost-share waiver later beach
renourishment activities for coastal storm damage reduction projects that is carried out with funds other than those
provided in the supplemental legislation.
26 Many repairs to existing coastal storm damage reduction projects are eligible for 100% funding under the Corps
FCCE account for repair to their pre-storm conditions. Improvements that go beyond repair would not be eligible for
FCCE funding, and would have to be funded by the Construction account.
27 SBA component prepared by Bruce Lindsay, Analyst in American National Government, 7-3752, and Robert Dilger,
Senior Specialist in American National Government, 7-3110.
Congressional Research Service
17

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

The President requested $7 million to be deposited in the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) at GSA
for the repair and alteration of GSA properties damaged by Sandy. House-passed H.R. 152 and
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would both provide GSA $7 million for repair and alteration of damaged
properties.
The provisions for the Small Business Administration (SBA) in House-passed H.R. 152 provide
$804 million in budget authority. Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $805 million in
budget authority, along with legislative language sought by the Administration. Although House-
passed H.R. 152 contains similar provisions to Senate-passed H.R. 1, there are some slight
differences between the two bills and the Administration’s request. These differences are
discussed below and include:
• House-passed H.R. 152 provides $20 million for salaries and expenses as well as a
provision for grants for cooperative agreements with organizations (such as Small
Business Development Centers and Women’s Business Centers) to provide technical
assistance related to disaster recovery, response, and long-term resiliency to small
businesses that are recovering from Hurricane Sandy. However, House-passed H.R. 152
does not specify—as Senate-passed H.R. 1 did—how the funds are to be disbursed
between salaries and expenses and grants for cooperative agreements.28
• With respect to grants for cooperative agreements and technical assistance, House-passed
H.R. 152 retains the provision to waive matching requirements that was proposed in
Senate-passed H.R. 1. The designated recipients of the cooperative agreements and grants
differ between the two bills. H.R. 1 explicitly directs the grants and cooperative
agreements for only current recipients of grants and cooperative agreements. H.R. 152,
on the other hand, directs the grants and cooperative agreements for small businesses that
are recovering from Hurricane Sandy. Both H.R. 152 and H.R. 1 contain provisions to
expedite the delivery of assistance. H.R. 1 would expedite the delivery of assistance by
using a process that relies, to the maximum extent practicable, upon previously submitted
documentation. H.R. 152 does not mention the use of previously submitted documents as
a method for expediting assistance.
• House-passed H.R. 152 provides $5 million—the same amount proposed in Senate-
passed H.R. 1—to the SBA’s Office of Inspector General.
• House-passed H.R. 152 provides $520 million for the Disaster Loan Program Account for
the cost of direct loans to small businesses. It also provides $260 million for
administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program, of which $250 million is for
direct administrative expenses of loan making and servicing (including salaries), and $10
million is for indirect administrative expenses (such as information technology security,
staffing, and financial management expenses). Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have
provided $500 million for the Disaster Loan Program Account as well as $260 million for
direct and indirect administrative expenses of loan making.

28 Senate-passed H.R. 1 provided $40 million for salaries and expenses of which, $20 million was for grants or
cooperative agreements for public-private partnerships to provide economic development assistance to industries and/or
regions affected by Hurricane Sandy.
Congressional Research Service
18

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

The Administration requests for response, recovery, and mitigation funding in the wake of
Hurricane Sandy included a provision for surety bond guarantees. This provision was not
included in H.R. 152 because a similar provision was included in P.L. 112-239, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 also would have amended the Small Business Act to prohibit the SBA from
requiring small business owners to use their primary residence as collateral for disaster loans of
up to $200,000 relating to damage to or destruction of the small business, or for economic injury
to the small business if the SBA determines that the small business owner has other assets with a
value equal to or greater than the amount of the loan that could be used as collateral for the loan.
The President’s request does not address this issue, and this provision is not included in House-
passed H.R. 152.
Homeland Security
The Administration requests $12,085 million for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as
well as $9,700 million in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Fund.
In the opening days of the 113th Congress, both the House and Senate passed P.L. 113-1, a
separate piece of legislation providing the additional borrowing authority.
House-passed H.R. 152 includes $12,072 million for DHS, with several slight changes in its
structure from the Administration’s request. As compared to the President’s request, House-
passed H.R. 152 includes almost $11,488 million for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF),29
approximately $12 million less than the request. In addition, House-passed H.R. 152 includes a
transfer of $3 million from the DRF to the Office of the Inspector General for DHS. Both House-
passed H.R. 152 and Senate-passed H.R. 1 designate $5,379 million of the appropriation for the
DRF as “disaster relief” under the Budget Control Act, as requested by the Administration. The
remainder of the funding for the DRF (and in this section) is designated as an emergency
requirement, and therefore none of the funding in this section counts against the discretionary
budget caps.
House-passed H.R. 152 includes $0.7 million less for replacement of Customs and Border
Protection equipment (down from the $2.4 million request). It includes a larger appropriation and
transfer authority for the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction and Improvements function to
meet costs in the Operating Expenses function, rather than providing the $67 million requested by
the President as a separate appropriation.
The Administration requests $300 million in subsidy loan authority for the Disaster Assistance
Direct Loan Program account, which funds the Community Disaster Loan (CDL) program. The
CDL program provides loan assistance to local governments in declared disaster areas to help
them overcome a loss in revenues. In H.R. 152, the House appropriates $300 million to the
account to subsidize no more than $400 million in direct loan obligations. The House also directs
that $4 million of the amount can be used for administration of the program.

29 The DRF provides funding for the majority of disaster assistance programs authorized under the Stafford Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq), including Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Assistance. For more,
see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and
Funding, by Francis X. McCarthy.
Congressional Research Service
19

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

In Section 401 of House-passed H.R. 152, the House also repurposes funds provided to the
account for CDLs following Hurricane Katrina in the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (P.L.
109-88). According to FEMA, there is approximately $146.3 million in unobligated funds for
subsidy loan authority left in the account from this appropriation.30 It is unclear how much this
additional subsidy amount would authorize in direct loan obligations. As the eligibility of local
governments following Hurricane Katrina has since expired, the unobligated funds of P.L. 109-88
will remain unused until rescinded or repurposed.
In Senate-passed H.R. 1, the Senate included the same $300 million appropriation to the CDL
program as the House, but did not include language to repurpose unobligated funds.31
Otherwise, Senate-passed H.R. 1 had identical funding levels for these accounts, plus the $9,700
million in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Fund (which was
separately enacted in P.L. 113-1). The Senate also included a number of general provisions in
Senate-passed H.R. 1 that would have amended programs funded through the DRF. The House
passed many of these provisions in H.R. 219, which passed the House on January 14, 2013, and
was appended to House-passed H.R. 152 at engrossment as directed by the rule governing floor
consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill.
Homeland Security Legislative Provisions
Senate-passed H.R. 1 included a number of legislative provisions in its section on homeland
security, some of which had been requested by the Administration. One of these—$9,700 million
in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program—was enacted
separately. Another—Section 609, or the Disaster Recovery Act of 2012—the House has
responded to by passing separately the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, and sending it to the
Senate engrossed with H.R. 152.32 Several others have not been taken up by the House.
NFIP Borrowing Authority33
In an attempt to protect the financial integrity of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
and ensure that the FEMA has the financial resources to cover its existing commitments following
the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, both the President’s request and Senate-passed H.R. 1
as amended would have provided for an increase of an additional $9.7 billion in borrowing
authority for the NFIP, which is now capped at $20.725 billion.
On January 4, both the House and Senate passed H.R. 41, a separate piece of legislation providing
this $9.7 billion in additional borrowing authority. This legislation was signed by the President on
January 6, 2013 as P.L. 113-1, and no further borrowing authority for the NFIP is included in
H.R. 152.

30 E-mail correspondence with FEMA staff, January 11, 2013.
31 For more on the Community Disaster Loan program (Sec. 417 of the Stafford Act), see CRS Report R42527,
FEMA’s Community Disaster Loan Program: History, Analysis, and Issues for Congress, by Jared T. Brown.
32 H.R. 219.
33 Prepared by Rawle O. King, Specialist in Financial Economics and Risk Assessment, 7-5975.
Congressional Research Service
20

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

As background, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Congress passed and the President
signed into law legislation to increase the NFIP’s borrowing authority to allow the agency to
continue to pay flood insurance claims: first to $3.5 billion on September 20, 2005;34 to $18.5
billion on November 21, 2005;35 and finally to $20.725 billion on March 23, 2006.36 The NFIP is
currently about $18 billion in debt largely as a result of the claims from Hurricane Katrina.37
By law, the NFIP does not operate under the traditional definition of insurance solvency—that is,
it has not been capitalized, rates are set at levels that make the program self-supporting for the
historic average loss year, losses and operating expenses are paid out of policyholder premiums,
and the program does not generate sufficient premium income to cover flood insurance claims
and expenses and build a reserve fund for future catastrophic loss years.38 Consequently, while
the program typically generates a surplus in less-than-average-loss years, when faced with
insufficient funds to pay claims and expenses in catastrophic loss years, such as occurred in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, Midwest floods of 2008, Hurricane
Irene and Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, and Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the NFIP must resort to its
statutory authority to borrow from the Treasury to pay approved claims.39
Disaster Recovery Act of 2012 and the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of
201340
The final general provision in Senate-passed H.R. 1’s homeland security title, Section 609, was
entitled the “Disaster Recovery Act of 2012” and included a number of legislative provisions that
are beyond the scope of this report to discuss at length. The Disaster Recovery Act of 2012
included a number of provisions that are similar to H.R. 219, the “Sandy Recovery Improvement
Act of 2013.” These provisions are not necessarily identical, but in general, the provisions of
these bills speak to a number of Stafford Act programs, including:

34 P.L. 109-65; 110 Stat. 1998.
35 P.L. 109-106; 119 Stat. 2288.
36 P.L. 109-208; 120 Stat. 317.
37 Under current law, FEMA must repay any borrowed funds (with interest) as it collects premiums. However, FEMA
is unlikely to repay the funds borrowed to pay 2005 hurricane-related claims within the next 10 years. Even if FEMA
increased flood insurance rates up to the maximum amount allowed by law (20% per year), the program would still not
have sufficient funds to cover future obligations for policyholder claims, operating expenses, and interest on debt
stemming from recent catastrophic flood events. Some experts have suggested that Congress consider forgiving some
or all of NFIP’s Treasury borrowing. Supporters of debt forgiveness point to billions of dollars in flood losses that
would otherwise have been paid by the Treasury and thus taxpayers. According to FEMA, the NFIP saves taxpayers
over $1.7 billion annually in flood losses that, in the absence of the program, would be paid by taxpayers. Debt
forgiveness could, however, be judged an explicit subsidy from general taxpayer funds, with federal budgetary
consequences.
38 The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-141) includes provisions to: (1) phase out long-
running premium subsidies for vacation homes, businesses, and repetitive loss properties (those that have made
repeated claims on the program); (2) direct FEMA to include catastrophic loss years when assessing flood risk in order
to set annual premium rates; and (3) establish a reserve fund to offset claims during catastrophic loss years.
39 For more on the NFIP, see CRS Report R42850, The National Flood Insurance Program: Status and Remaining
Issues for Congress, by Rawle O. King.
40 For information and support on the Disaster Recovery Act of 2012 in H.R. 1 as amended or on the draft Sandy
Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, please contact any of the following analysts: Francis X. McCarthy,
fmcarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533; Jared T. Brown, jbrown@crs.loc.gov, 7-4918; and Edward C. Liu, eliu@crs.loc.gov, 7-
9166.
Congressional Research Service
21

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

• the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program41—Section 1104 of House-passed H.R. 152, and
Section 609(b) of Senate-passed H.R. 1;
• the Public Assistance program42—Sections 1102, 1106, 1107, and 1108(b) of House-
passed H.R. 152, and Section 609(c), (d), (e), and (f) of Senate-passed H.R. 1;
• the Individual Assistance program43—Sections 1103, 1108(a), and 1109 of House-passed
H.R. 152, and Sections 609(h), (i), and (j); and
• the Community Disaster Loan program44—Section 609(l).
Section 1105 of House-passed H.R. 152 and Section 609(g) of Senate-passed H.R. 1 would direct
the Administrator of FEMA to establish procedures under which an applicant may request the use
of alternative dispute resolution.
Section 1110 of House-passed H.R. 152 and Section 609(k) of Senate-passed H.R. 1 would allow
the President to declare major disasters upon the request of a chief executive of affected Indian
tribal government, instead of only at the request of a governor of a state.
Section 609(l) and (m) of the Senate bill did not have corresponding sections in the House
legislation, and the House bill’s Section 1111 does not correspond to a section in the Senate
legislation.
The terms of the Disaster Recovery Act of 2012 (as included in Senate-passed H.R. 1) would
have applied to any disaster declared on or after the date of the bill’s enactment. It also would
have applied to previously declared disasters for which the period for processing requests for
assistance has not ended, as of the date of enactment. The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of
2013 (as included in the engrossed H.R. 152) includes no generally applicable statement on when
its provisions would apply, although some provisions contain effective dates that are provision-
specific.
Provisions Unique to Senate-Passed H.R. 1
Senate-passed H.R. 1 included a number of provisions not requested by the Administration that
were not included in House-passed H.R. 152. Some of these mirrored proposed legislation in the
112th Congress. These included:
• Section 602—Would have allowed the Administrator of FEMA, in consultation
with state, tribal, and local governments, to give greater weight to the effects of a
disaster on special populations in making determinations on Individual
Assistance;45

41 Section 404 of the Stafford Act.
42 Sections 403(a)(3)(A), 406, 407, and 502(a)(5) of the Stafford Act. Respectively these sections of the Stafford Act
refer to essential assistance debris removal; repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged facilities; non-essential
debris removal; and debris removal (via an emergency declaration).
43 Section 408 of the Stafford Act.
44 Section 417 of the Stafford Act.
45 For details on this program, see CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
22

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

• Section 603—Would have broadened eligibility of certain costs for
reimbursement under the Public Assistance program;
• Section 604—Would have accelerated FEMA’s cost-share adjustment process for
Section 406 and 407 (generally Public Assistance and Debris Removal) of the
Stafford Act for Hurricane Sandy;
• Section 605—Would have established a pilot program for the relocation of state
facilities from disaster-prone areas;
• Section 606—Would have authorized construction of permanent flood-risk
reduction levees on land purchased with Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) funds in West North Central States.46
• Section 607—Would have directed the FEMA Administrator to re-evaluate
Community Disaster Loans (CDLs) issued to local governments in Louisiana and
Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina;
• Section 608—Would have allowed Louisiana communities to request DHS
Inspector General audits of post-Gustav debris removal projects.
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies47
Both the President’s request and the Senate-passed bill from the 112th Congress include $1.45
billion for accounts within agencies typically funded by the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies Appropriations bill. The House-passed bill from the 113th Congress contains slightly
less—$1.44 billion for these accounts. The House-passed total includes $829.2 million for
specified accounts of agencies within the Department of the Interior (DOI), $0.2 million more
than the President’s request of $829.0 million and $200.2 million more than the $629.0 million in
the Senate-passed bill. The House-passed total also contains $607.7 million for certain accounts
within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), $10.0 million less than the $617.7 million
requested and $210.0 million less than the $817.7 million in the Senate-passed bill. Finally, the
House-passed total, like the President’s request and Senate-passed bill, contains $6.4 million for
“related agencies,” namely the Forest Service ($4.4 million) and the Smithsonian Institution ($2.0
million).
At the account level, the President’s request contains funding for 10 accounts within six
agencies/offices, while the House- and Senate-passed bills include funding for 11 accounts within
seven agencies/offices, as reflected in Table 1. The request, House-passed bill, and Senate-passed
bill propose the same level of funding for seven accounts. The differences are as follows. The
President seeks $1.09 billion for three accounts, including $78 million for Construction within the
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The remaining $1.01 billion is for “mitigation projects” through
the Resource Management account within the FWS ($400.0 million) and the State and Tribal
Assistance Grants (STAG) account within EPA ($610.0 million). Together with mitigation
funding requested for agencies funded through other appropriations subcommittees, such funding
would be used for projects that would reduce the risk or damage from future disasters, according

(...continued)
X. McCarthy.
46 Defined by the Census Bureau as Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
47 Prepared by Carol Hardy-Vincent, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 7-8651.
Congressional Research Service
23

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

to the President. The Senate-passed bill also included $1.09 billion, but for four accounts as
follows: FWS Construction ($78.0 million); Historic Preservation Fund, within the National Park
Service ($50.0 million); Departmental Operations, within the Office of the Secretary of DOI
($150.0 million); and EPA STAG ($810.0 million). The House-passed bill seeks slightly less—
$1.08 billion—for the same four accounts: FWS Construction ($68.2 million); NPS Historic
Preservation Fund ($50.0 million); Departmental Operations ($360.0 million); and EPA STAG
($600.0 million). The Administration did not request funding for the Historic Preservation Fund
or Departmental Operations, while neither the House-passed bill nor the Senate-passed bill
include funding for FWS Resource Management.
The President specified a need for legislative language for one account for which funds were
requested. Specifically, of the Administration’s $610.0 million request for EPA STAG funding for
states affected by Hurricane Sandy, $600.0 million is for capitalization grants for the State
Revolving Fund (SRF) programs under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The Administration states that legislative language would be needed to target this assistance, but
no specific language accompanies the request. The remaining $10.0 million of the STAG request
is for wetlands restoration and other ecosystem enhancements. The House’s $600.0 million and
the Senate’s $810.0 million for EPA’s STAG account would be allocated entirely to SRF
capitalization grants.
Of the 11 accounts which would receive funding in the House- and Senate-passed bills, eight do
not contain any specific terms and conditions. The three accounts with terms and conditions are in
the NPS; DOI, Office of the Secretary; and EPA. First, both the House- and Senate-passed bills
similarly condition appropriations for the NPS Historic Preservation Fund, which provides funds
for restoring historic districts, sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and
culture. The bills would limit funding to expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane
Sandy, including costs to administer the program and costs to states to ensure compliance with
Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the
effects of projects they carry out, approve, or fund on historic properties. The bills also state that
grants could be provided only in areas that have a major disaster declaration under the Stafford
Act, and that grant recipients would not be required to provide a match for federal funding, which
typically is required.
Second, the House- and Senate-passed bills contain differing provisions for the DOI Office of the
Secretary, Departmental Operations, regarding the purposes for which the funds are to be used.
The Senate-passed provision was broader. Under both bills, for instance, DOI bureaus and offices
are to use funds for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, but under
the Senate-passed bill they also could be used for other activities related to storms and natural
disasters. Under both bills, funds also are to be used for increasing the capacity of coastal habitat
and infrastructure to withstand storms, and for restoring and rebuilding parks, refuges, and other
public assets. However, the House-passed bill specifies that these entities are to be
national/federal. The Senate-passed bill further provided for other uses of the funds, namely
protecting natural and cultural values, and assisting state, tribal, and local governments. Other
House- and Senate-passed bill language is similar. In particular, both bills authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to transfer the funds to any account in the Department, and require the Secretary to
submit to the Appropriations Committees a detailed spending plan for the funds within 60 days of
enactment.
Third, for the EPA STAG account, several terms and conditions are identified, among the
following. The House-passed bill includes a requirement that the states must use not less than
Congressional Research Service
24

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

20% but not more than 30% of the SRF capitalization grant funds to provide additional
subsidization to SRF loan recipients in the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest
loans, or grants, or any combination of these. The Senate-passed bill included a requirement that
the states must use not less than 50% of the capitalization grant funds for this purpose.
Additionally, the Senate-passed bill would have waived the normal requirement that states
provide a 20% match for the SRF capitalization funds, which is not waived in the House-passed
bill. Both the House- and Senate-passed bills also would require the SRF funds to be used only
for purposes that currently are not eligible under the SRF programs: to reduce flood damage risk
and vulnerability, to enhance resiliency to rapid hydrologic change or natural disaster at a
treatment works, or other necessary tasks to further such purposes. Further, the Senate-passed bill
would have allowed states to use clean water SRF funds for purchase of land and easements
necessary for siting of treatment works projects, which is currently not an eligible activity under
the Clean Water Act program. This provision was not included in the House-passed bill. Finally,
under the House-passed bill, SRF funds would be allocated entirely to states in EPA Region 2 for
wastewater and drinking water treatment works and facilities impacted by Hurricane Sandy,
rather than allocated according to the existing state-by-state allotment formula under the clean
water SRF program or according to needs surveys under the drinking water SRF program. The
Senate-passed bill would have allocated SRF funds only to states that have received a major
disaster declaration for Hurricane Sandy under the Stafford Act. The President’s request does not
include a similarly explicit statement, but does indicate that funds for SRF grants would be
allocated to “affected states.”
Finally, provisions of the House-passed bill would prohibit the use of funds for two different
purposes. First, the bill bars the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from
using funds in the bill to acquire land. Second, the bill prohibits FWS Construction funds from
being used to repair seawalls or buildings on islands in the Stewart B. McKinney National
Wildlife Refuge.
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies
Both the President’s request and House-passed H.R. 152 call for supplemental funding to be
provided to several programs typically funded by the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS),
Education, and Related Agencies’ appropriations bill (see Table 1). The majority of these funds
($800 million) would go to HHS to support health, mental health, and social services needs in
affected states, including costs related to the construction and renovation of damaged health,
mental health, biomedical research, child care, and Head Start facilities. However, the mechanism
for providing these funds differs between the request and House-passed H.R. 152, with the
President calling for these funds to be appropriated directly to three separate accounts, while
House-passed H.R. 152 would appropriate the entire $800 million to one account and require that
some of these funds be transferred elsewhere. In addition to funding for HHS, both the
President’s request and House-passed H.R. 152 would provide funds (of differing amounts) to the
Department of Labor to support dislocated workers. The President’s request also calls for funds to
cover administrative costs at the Social Security Administration (SSA) due to storm damage,
which H.R. 152 derives from certain unobligated balances at the SSA. In some cases, the
President’s request calls for special legislative provisions to expand or target the eligible uses of
proposed supplemental funds. House-passed H.R. 152 generally incorporates text for these
provisions, with some adjustments, and includes several additional legislative provisions that are
Congressional Research Service
25

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

not specified in the Administration’s proposal. The Senate-passed H.R. 1, as amended, from the
112th Congress aligned more closely with the President’s request than with H.R. 152.
Department of Labor48
Both the President’s request and the House-passed bill include funds for the Training and
Employment Services account within the Employment and Training Administration of the
Department of Labor. The President’s request and the House-passed bill are similar but not
identical. The House-passed bill includes $25 million for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
Dislocated Worker (DW) National Reserve, while the President requests $50 million for the WIA
DW National Reserve to support National Emergency Grants (NEG). The House-passed bill does
not specify that funds for the DW National Reserve are to be used solely for NEG. Funds from the
NEG are used to support employment and training activities, such as job search assistance and job
training, for workers dislocated from employment by major economic dislocations, including
natural disasters.49 In addition, the House-passed bill provides that the Secretary of Labor may
transfer up to $3.5 million of the appropriated funds to any other DOL account for other
reconstruction and recovery needs related to Hurricane Sandy. The President’s request does not
contain this transfer provision. Senate-passed H.R. 1 differed slightly, in that it contained $50
million for the DW National Reserve, but did not specify that the funds were to be used solely for
NEGs, which are funded out of the National Reserve, and the Senate bill also provided that the
Secretary of Labor may transfer up to $3.5 million of the appropriated funds to any other DOL
account for other reconstruction and recovery needs related to Hurricane Sandy.
Department of Health and Human Services50
The President’s request and House-passed H.R. 152 both call for $800 million in supplemental
disaster funding for HHS programs, for ultimate distribution as follows: $500 million for the
Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), $100 million for the Head Start program, and $200 million
for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) for other HHS programs.
However, the request and House-passed H.R. 152 would use two different approaches for
appropriating these funds. The request calls for the $800 million to be spread across the three
separate HHS appropriations accounts. By contrast, House-passed H.R. 152 would appropriate
the full $800 million directly to one account (for the PHSSEF) and would then require the HHS
Secretary to transfer portions of these funds to the other programs and activities in amounts
largely consistent with the request: $500 million to the SSBG, $100 million to the Head Start
program, at least $5 million to the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the remaining
$195 million to the HHS Secretary for other activities. In addition, House-passed H.R. 152 would
make the $800 million available for two fiscal years. Both the request and House-passed H.R. 152
also include special provisions targeting and/or expanding the eligible uses of funds. Separately,
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would also have appropriated $800 million to HHS, spread across three
programs. This bill was generally consistent with the President’s request, with a few differences.

48 Prepared by David Bradley, Specialist in Labor Economics, 7-7352.
49 For more information, see CRS Report R41135, The Workforce Investment Act and the One-Stop Delivery System, by
David H. Bradley.
50 Prepared by Karen Lynch, Specialist in Social Policy, 7-6899 and Sarah A. Lister, Specialist in Public Health and
Epidemiology, 7-7320.
Congressional Research Service
26

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

As noted, the President’s request, House-passed H.R. 152, and Senate-passed H.R. 1 each use the
PHSSEF to fund all or part of HHS’s response efforts. The PHSSEF is an account managed by
the HHS Secretary and used by appropriations committees to fund certain emergency
management activities, and to provide one-time funds through emergency supplementals. It is not
authorized in law except through annual appropriations, and has no accompanying regulations or
guidance. PHSSEF funds are intended for transfer to HHS institutes, agencies, and offices to
carry out activities specified in appropriations laws. The President’s request would provide $200
million to the PHSSEF for transfer to support a number of health-related activities throughout
HHS, including (1) National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees for losses to their NIH-funded
biomedical research programs; (2) substance abuse and mental health programs; (3)
environmental and public health support; and (4) other activities the Secretary deems necessary
for response and recovery from storm-related damage. House-passed H.R. 152 would provide
$800 million (the entire HHS amount) to the PHSSEF, for transfer as noted elsewhere in this
section, including at least $5 million to the HHS OIG, and $195 million to accounts within HHS
as determined by the Secretary. The latter amount could be used, in unspecified amounts, for
repair and rebuilding of non-federal biomedical research facilities (presumably NIH grantees).
None of the PHSSEF funds could be used for costs that are reimbursable by FEMA or covered by
insurance. Except for the $5 million transfer to the HHS OIG, Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have
allowed the $200 million provided to the PHSSEF to be used in a manner similar to that proposed
in H.R. 152.
The President’s request and House-passed H.R. 152 both include $500 million for the SSBG at
the HHS Administration for Children and Families. The SSBG is a flexible source of funding
used by states to support a wide variety of social services, ranging from child care to special
services for the disabled.51 The President’s request calls for the $500 million to be directly
appropriated to the SSBG, while House-passed H.R. 152 calls for these funds to be transferred to
the SSBG from an $800 million appropriation to the PHSSEF. Both House-passed H.R. 152 and
the President’s request include special language targeting supplemental SSBG funds to states
directly affected by Hurricane Sandy (i.e., waiving the statutory allocation formula) and allowing
states to use these funds for the provision of health services (including mental health services),
and costs of renovating, repairing, or rebuilding health care facilities, child care facilities, and
other social services facilities. In addition, House-passed H.R. 152 includes several other
provisions applicable to the SSBG. For instance, the bill would give states up to three years to
expend these funds, one year longer than the SSBG’s standard two-year expenditure period. In
addition, as with other funds in the PHSSEF appropriation, House-passed H.R. 152 would allow
SSBG funds to be used for obligations incurred prior to the bill’s enactment (provided these costs
align with purposes specified in the bill) and would prohibit these funds from being used for costs
that are reimbursable by FEMA or covered by insurance. The Senate-passed H.R. 1 included
similar (though not always identical) provisions, along with several others not included in House-
passed H.R. 152. For instance, unlike House-passed H.R. 152, the Senate-passed H.R. 1 included
language allowing states to use up to 10% of their allotments to supplement any other funds
available for the costs of compensating employees of health care providers for lost wages as a
result of Hurricane Sandy and for supporting the viability of health care providers whose facilities
were substantially damaged. Senate-passed H.R. 1 also included language requiring states to
follow certain federal regulations on establishing a Notice of Federal Interest in real property,
where applicable.

51 For more information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding , by Karen E.
Lynch.
Congressional Research Service
27

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

The President’s request and House-passed H.R. 152 both include $100 million for the Head Start
program, funded within the Children and Families Services Programs account at the HHS
Administration for Children and Families. The Head Start program provides comprehensive early
childhood development services to low-income children.52 The President’s request calls for the
$100 million to be directly appropriated to Head Start, while House-passed H.R. 152 calls for
these funds to be transferred to Head Start out of the $800 million appropriation to the PHSSEF.
The President’s request specifies that funds are to be made available to affected Head Start
agencies for costs of renovating, repairing, or rebuilding damaged facilities, as well as for certain
services for affected children and families, including costs of transporting children enrolled in
now-closed centers to other Head Start programs. House-passed H.R. 152 does not include any
language about damaged Head Start facilities or affected children. However, the overall PHSSEF
appropriations language makes it clear that these funds are for disaster response and recovery in
affected state. To this end, House-passed H.R. 152 includes language explicitly waiving the
statutory Head Start allocation formula and clarifying that funds awarded from this supplemental
appropriation would not be considered part of a Head Start program’s “base grant” in subsequent
fiscal years. As with other funds in the PHSSEF appropriation, House-passed H.R. 152 would
allow Head Start funds to be used for obligations incurred prior to the bill’s enactment (provided
these costs align with purposes specified in the bill) and would prohibit these funds from being
used for costs that are reimbursable by FEMA or covered by insurance. Senate-passed H.R. 1
included similar (though not always identical) provisions, along with several others not included
in H.R. 152. For instance, unlike H.R. 152, Senate-passed H.R. 1 included language specifying
that these funds could be used for costs of renovating, repairing, or rebuilding damaged facilities;
costs of supportive and mental health services for affected children and families; and costs of
technical assistance for affected Head Start centers. Senate-passed H.R. 1 also included a
provision (not in House-passed H.R. 152) that would have waived the program’s non-federal
matching rules for these funds. According to a press release on the draft Senate bill from the 112th
Congress, these funds were expected to support approximately 265 Head Start centers damaged
by the hurricane.53
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
The Administration is seeking $259 million for military construction activities and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in its request for FY2013 supplemental appropriations for
repair and replacement of damaged equipment and facilities. The request seeks $24 million for
Army National Guard military construction efforts to repair damaged facilities and utilities at Sea
Girt National Guard Training Center, and $236 million for the VA. The largest single project is a
$207 million request through the Major Construction account for renovation and repair of the
Manhattan VA Medical Center, which experienced severe flooding. This project would ordinarily
require congressional authorization to be funded.
House-passed H.R. 152 included $260 million for these accounts, the only difference from the
request being an additional $1 million for the VA’s National Cemetery Administration to repair
storm damage. Senate-passed H.R. 1 proposed $259 million for these accounts. Both House and
Senate bills included language that would have allowed the Army National Guard Military

52 For more information, see CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Issues, by Karen E. Lynch.
53 Senate Appropriations Committee, “Summary: Fiscal Year 2013 Disaster Assistance Supplemental,” press release,
December 12, 2012, http://www.appropriations.senate.gov, p. 7.
Congressional Research Service
28

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Construction funding and the VA Major Construction funding to be expended on otherwise
unauthorized projects.54
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies55
Both the President’s request and H.R. 152 as passed by the House include over $29 billion for
accounts within agencies typically funded by the Transportation, HUD and Related Agencies bill,
as did Senate-passed H.R. 1. While the total funding requested and proposed is the same, the
allocation of funds and accompanying guidance on the use of funds differ.
Department of Transportation56
The President’s request includes $12.07 billion for accounts within the Department of
Transportation (DOT), as did Senate-passed H.R. 1. The House-passed H.R. 152 includes $13.07
billion for DOT accounts, $1 billion more than requested. In each case the vast majority of
funding was for public transit. While the request and the Senate-passed bill were similar in total
funding, they differed in funding allocation, and the House-passed bill differs from both, as
shown in Table 1. Briefly, the House-passed bill would provide (a) more funding for Amtrak than
the President requested but less than Senate-passed H.R. 1 provided, and (b) more funding for
highway repair than either the President requested or the Senate-passed H.R. 1 provided.
For transit assistance, the President requested a total of $11.7 billion, divided between repair and
mitigation funding. Both types of funding would go into the recently created Public
Transportation Emergency Relief Program (previously, some public transit emergency relief
funding could have been provided under the Stafford Act). The President requested $6.2 billion
for repairs and $5.5 billion for mitigation; the repair funding request specified that the funding
would be provided as a 90% federal match; that funding could also be transferred for use for
highway and bridge repairs at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation; that funding
should not supplant private insurance coverage, and that $3 million would go to the Department
of Transportation Inspector General for oversight.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $10.78 billion, up to $5.38 billion of which could be
transferred by the Secretary of Transportation to be used to mitigate damage to highway and
transit facilities from future disasters (which, by inference, assures that at least $5.4 billion is
available for repairs). The President’s request would allow the repair money to also be used for
highway infrastructure, with no language concerning mitigation funding, while the Senate bill
reversed that, making the mitigation funding available for transfer to highway projects, with no
corresponding language for the repair funding. Also, as with the Amtrak section, Senate-passed
H.R. 1 did not include language addressing the issue of not supplanting private insurance.

54 H.R. 1, EAS, p. 83, and H.R. 152, EH, p. 21.
55 Note that while Title 8 of H.R. 152 also includes appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing
and Urban Development, Section 1094 provides that Title 10 Chapter 9 shall apply in place of Title 8.
56 Prepared by D. Randy Peterman, Analyst in Transportation Policy, 7-3267.
Congressional Research Service
29

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

House-passed H.R. 152 provides $10.9 billion for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief
Program, $2 billion to be made available immediately and the remainder after the Federal Transit
Administration publishes interim regulations for the program. Of the total, the Secretary of
Transportation may transfer up to $5.383 billion to fund transportation projects to reduce the risk
of damage from future disasters in the areas impacted by Hurricane Sandy. This bill also is silent
about the issue of not supplanting private insurance money.
For repairs to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) equipment, the President requested $30
million; the House-passed H.R. 152 provides this, as did Senate-passed H.R. 1. This funding
would be drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
The President requested $308 million for highway repairs, and called for a portion of the funding
requested for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program to be available for highway
repairs in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation.
House-passed H.R. 152 provides $2.022 billion, over six times the amount requested, and also
allows a portion of the funding provided for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program
to be available for highway (and other types of transportation) disaster mitigation projects.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $921 million for highway repair, and also allowed for
funds to be made available for mitigation projects.
The President requested $32 million for Amtrak, while Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have
provided $336 million. Amtrak has estimated that its property damage and business interruption
losses will be around $60 million; it has insurance to cover this, with a $10 million deductible,
though it may be some time before the insurance claim can be settled. Amtrak has also identified
$276 million in mitigation and capacity-expanding activities for rail tunnels into New York City
that it would like to undertake. The President’s request includes language providing that federal
funding should not be used to supplant insurance coverage for Amtrak’s damages. Senate-passed
H.R. 1 would have provided Amtrak the entire sum ($60 million for repairs and $276 million for
mitigation and improvements), with no language addressing the insurance issue. House-passed
H.R. 152 provides $32 million for repairs and $86 million for recovery and resiliency projects in
the affected area, a total of $118 million, which is more than requested by the President but
considerably less than would have been provided by Senate-passed H.R. 1.
Some transit agencies have proposed that, instead of using emergency relief funding to simply
restore infrastructure to its pre-disaster condition by replacing equipment that may be antiquated,
they take this opportunity (and funding) to install equipment that makes their systems more
functional (such as, for example, increasing capacity) as well as more resilient in coping with
future emergencies. The new Federal Transit Administration Emergency Relief Program may
provide grantees this flexibility, as both Congress and recent administrations have provided
similar flexibility for the Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Program. Such an
approach may raise questions about how the costs of repairs that include system improvements
should be allocated between the federal Emergency Relief programs and state and local
governments.57

57 For additional background on this issue, see CRS Report R42804, Emergency Relief Program: Federal-Aid Highway
Assistance for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges, by Robert S. Kirk.
Congressional Research Service
30

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Housing and Urban Development58
Both the President’s request and Senate-passed H.R. 1 included $17 billion for HUD, all of which
was provided to the Community Development Fund (CDF), the account that funds the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. House-passed H.R. 152 included $16
billion for HUD, all for the CDF.
While both H.R. 152 as amended and the Administration’s request would set aside CDBG funds
for the activities of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), the House bill recommends
transferring $10 million for OIG activities while the Administration’s request is $4 million. A
provision in Senate-passed H.R. 1 also proposed transferring $10 million to fund OIG activities.
The House-passed bill does not include a proposed Administration request that would set aside $2
billion of the total CDBG disaster aid request for mitigation activities. The Senate-passed
proposal also included a proposed set-aside of $2 billion for mitigation activities. Both the House-
passed bill and the Administration’s request would set aside $10 million for salaries and expenses
to be used to fund technical assistance and cover the costs incurred by HUD’s Office of
Community Planning and Development (OCPD) in administering CDBG disaster funds. The
Senate-passed bill also recommended transferring $10 million to the OCPD for such activities.
House-passed H.R. 152 would allow HUD to distribute CDBG disaster funds appropriated under
the act to the most impacted and distressed areas affected by Hurricane Sandy and other eligible
disaster events occurring during calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. A similar provision
included in Senate-passed H.R. 1 recommended setting aside a specific amount—$500 million—
in CDBG disaster funds to address the unmet needs resulting from other (non-Hurricane Sandy)
major disasters declared via the Stafford Act that occurred during 2011 or 2012, or for small,
economically distressed areas with a disaster declared in 2011 or 2012.
House-passed H.R. 152 includes several terms and conditions that vary from the rules governing
the regular CDBG program, but are consistent with language included in Senate-passed H.R. 1.
These can be grouped into three broad areas governing the submission and content of disaster
plans, allocation and use of funds, and waiver authority. The bill would:
• direct HUD to promulgate regulations governing the distribution and use of funds
within 45 days after passage of this act, including establishing minimum
allocations for CDBG grantees;
• require states and local government grantees to submit, and for HUD to approve,
disaster plans before CDBG disaster funds may be obligated;
• require that a grantee’s disaster plans articulate how proposed activities will
support long-term recovery efforts;
• require HUD to certify that state and local government grantee disaster plans
include adequate financial controls and procurement processes that would
prevent duplication of benefits; waste, fraud, and abuse; and encourage timely
expenditure of funds; and

58 Prepared by Maggie McCarty, Specialist in Housing Policy, 7-2163, and Eugene Boyd, Analyst in Federalism and
Economic Development Policy, 7-8689.
Congressional Research Service
31

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

• direct HUD to allocate one-third of CDBG disaster appropriations provided in
the bill to states and local government grantees within 60 days after passage of
the bill.
House-passed H.R. 152 would also establish conditions and terms for the use of funds, including:
• allowing grantees to use up to 5% of their CDBG disaster grant allocation for
administrative expenses;
• prohibiting grantees from contracting out the responsibility for administering the
CDBG disaster programs;
• requiring grantees to include performance requirements and penalties when
eligible activities are undertaken through the use of contractors or procurement
services;
• prohibiting disaster funds from being used for activities that are reimbursable by,
or made available by, FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers;
• requiring grantees to maintain a publicly accessible website identifying how all
grant funds are used, including information on contracting and procurement
processes; and
• holding harmless a state or community’s regular CDBG allocation by ensuring
that the amount of such funds awarded to grantees would not be affected by
CDBG disaster-assistance allocations.
The House-passed bill does not include two provisions that were included in Senate-passed H.R.
1. Specifically, the bill does not include provisions removing the $250,000 ceiling on the amount
of CDBG disaster funds that may be used to meet the non-federal cost share of a disaster-related
project funded by the Army Corps of Engineers; or limiting disaster recovery assistance to for-
profit entities to businesses that meet the Small Business Administration’s definition of small
business and to public utilities.
Finally, House-passed H.R. 152 would grant HUD broad authority to waive or establish
alternative program requirements, except for provisions governing fair labor standards, fair
housing, civil rights, and environmental review. However, the House bill includes two exceptions
related to environmental review requirements. Specifically, the bill would allow CDBG disaster
fund grantees who use their funding to meet certain FEMA matching requirements to adopt,
without public review, environmental reviews performed by other federal agencies. In cases
where a grantee has already performed an environmental review or the activity or project is
excluded from an environmental review, the bill would explicitly allow for the expedited release
of funds. The House-passed bill would allow HUD to reduce, from 70% to 50%, the percentage
of funds that must be targeted to activities benefiting low and moderate income (LMI) persons,
and would allow HUD to reduce the LMI-targeting requirement below 50% only if the grantee
can demonstrate a compelling need. Similar provisions were included in Senate-passed H.R. 1.
The President also requests legislative language for one HUD account for which funds were not
sought: the tenant-based rental assistance account, which funds the Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher program. Specifically, the President requests that Congress “hold harmless” program
administrators (public housing authorities, or PHAs) affected by the disaster when allocating
FY2013 voucher renewal and administrative fee funding provided through the regular annual
appropriations process. The President requests that disaster-affected PHAs be funded no lower
Congressional Research Service
32

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

than their FY2012 funding levels. Section 1001 of Senate-passed H.R. 1 included similar
language. It would have provided the Secretary the authority to make adjustments to PHAs’
funding levels to “avoid funding impacts that would otherwise result from the disaster,” at a
PHA’s request and provision of supporting documentation. House-passed H.R. 152 provided
language similar to Senate-passed H.R. 1.
Additional legislative provisions in the THUD section of Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have (1)
required DOT and HUD to submit implementation plans within 45 days of enactment and
biannually thereafter and (2) required DOT and HUD to notify the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations not less than three full business days before the announcement that a project,
state, or locality has been selected to receive a grant award totaling $500,000 or more. House-
passed H.R. 152 included similar provisions, except that the threshold for notifying the
congressional appropriations committees about individual grants was raised to $1 million.
General Legislative Provisions
While the Administration indicated a need for legislative language on a number of issues, no draft
texts of proposed language was circulated publicly.
There are four general provisions that apply to the appropriations division of House-passed H.R.
152. Three of these were generally administrative in nature, as were two of the nine included in
Senate-passed H.R. 1—provisions traditionally carried in supplemental appropriations bills with
emergency funding.
Internal Control Plans59
The President’s request includes a proposal to require the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to direct federal agencies to submit internal control plans for the programs receiving
supplemental appropriations.60 The President’s request states that the internal control plans should
contain enhanced grant management protocols, including quarterly program and financial
monitoring, timely submission of single audit reports and grants closeout, and improper payments
testing and reporting.
Existing statutory and regulatory provisions, and OMB guidance, already address these grants
management practices, so it is unclear what enhancement of grant management protocols might
entail.61 Additionally, the President’s request does not include specific provisions for additional

59 Prepared by Natalie M. Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy,
nkeegan@crs.loc.gov, 7-9569.
60 Internal controls are measures that the federal agency takes to ensure that the federal agency and grant recipients are
in compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and OMB circulars. Internal control standards seek to ensure that
the use of funds comply with applicable laws, that assets are appropriately protected against waste, fraud, and abuse,
and that federal agencies have efficient and effective financial and program administration systems that allow for
appropriate accountability of funds.
61 For example, there are statutory provisions for single audit reporting are contained in the Single Audit Act of 1984
(P.L. 98-502), as amended, and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations. Examples of statutory provisions for improper payments can be found in the Improper Payments Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-300). Examples of internal control provisions can be found in the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity
Act of 1982, as codified in 31 U.S.C. 3512, with OMB guidance contained in Circular A-123, Managements
Responsibility for Internal Controls.
Congressional Research Service
33

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

resources for federal agencies to implement grants oversight, such as supplemental funds for
federal agency inspector general offices or an increase in the allowable management and
administration percentage for individual grant programs. The Administration’s request does not
identify which programs would be affected by the enhanced protocols.
In the 112th Congress, Senate-passed H.R. 1 included a provision that would have required OMB
to issue guidance to federal agencies to develop internal control plans for funds provided by the
bill.62 The bill also included funding for oversight of supplemental funding and certain
management and administration activities, however the amounts were provided at the program
level and not all programs received additional funding for these activities.63 In the 113th Congress,
House-passed H.R. 152 would require federal agencies to submit internal control plans to OMB,
GAO, agency Inspectors General, and House and Senate Appropriations Committees for all
supplemental funding provided in the bill; and would direct GAO to develop the template for the
internal control plans.64
Improper Payments
The President’s request does not specifically address improper payments, but includes a provision
to ensure the integrity of federal spending. Both House-passed H.R. 152 and Senate-passed H.R.
1 include a provision65 that designates all programs and activities funded through the legislation
as “susceptible to significant improper payments” under the provisions of the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002 (IPIA).66 This designation requires federal agencies to estimate the
annual amount of improper payments made under the program and submit the estimates to
Congress annually. Additionally, for programs that have estimated improper payments that exceed
$10 million, the federal agency would be required to develop a report that identifies the causes
and corrective actions the agency would take to reduce the improper payments.67 It is likely that
several programs that would receive funding under the bill are not currently identified as
“susceptible to significant improper payments.” This provision, therefore, would potentially
increase the administrative burden on agencies and grant recipients. Neither the request nor
legislation responding to the request has included specific appropriations to fund compliance with
this provision.
Two provisions were added to Senate-passed H.R. 1 through the floor amendment process that
seek to prohibit payments from funds provided in the bills. One provision would have prohibited
payments to individuals who were deceased at the time funds were made available,68 and another

62 112th Congress, H.R. 1, section 1103(a).
63 Examples of funding provided for oversight of grant funds include $1 million for the Environmental Protection
Agency’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants for management and oversight, and an allowance for a percentage (less
than 1%) of funds provided to the Federal Transit Administration’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program
and the Federal Railroad Administration’s National Railroad Passenger Corporation grant to be used for management
and oversight.
64 H.R. 152, EH, section 904(a)(1) and 904(a)(2).
65 H.R. 152, EH, section 904(b).
66 P.L. 107-300, Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended by P.L. 111-204, Improper Payments
Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010.
67 31 U.S.C. 3321.
68 H.R. 1, EAS, 112th Congress, Sec. 1109. Funeral costs were exempted from this provision, though funeral costs are
traditionally funded under the “other needs assistance” provisions of the Stafford Act and are provided to the surviving
family member rather than to the deceased individual (42 U.S.C. 5174).
Congressional Research Service
34

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

would have prohibited payments to an individual or entity using funds provided under the bill if
the individual or entity had a pending “seriously delinquent tax debt.”69 In regards to the tax
provision, it is unclear how agencies would have implemented this provision, though there is
some question regarding federal agencies’ ability to access IRS tax records to screen disaster
recipients prior to providing federal disaster assistance. Neither the President’s request nor House
passed H.R. 152 included these provisions.
Trigger to De-Obligate Unexpended Grant Funding
The President’s request recommends the withdrawal of grant funds awarded through certain
programs if funds are not expended within 24 months of the award. It is unclear which federal
grant programs, and what types of grant awards, would be affected by this provision.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have directed agencies to identify (for application of the trigger)
grants funded through the legislation where funds should have been expended within the 24-
month period following the federal agency obligation of funding. The bill would also have
required the Director of OMB to issue guidance establishing the methods federal agencies would
use to identify grant awards affected by the trigger. Recipients of identified grants would have
had to expend funds in the 24-month period following the award. The federal agency would have
had to de-obligate any funds remaining unexpended after the 24-month period. Federal agency
heads could have requested a waiver of the 24-month expenditure requirement after consultation
with the Director of OMB to discuss exceptional circumstances that might justify an extension. It
is unclear whether the Senate provision would have required the director to approve the waiver,
and what “consultation” might have entailed. Additionally, in the absence of specific language
establishing a time frame for the waiver process, grant recipients could have faced uncertainty
about whether they could have continued expending funds once the 24-month period had elapsed.
This could have resulted in disaster recovery activities coming to a halt while federal agencies
debate approval of the waiver.
House-passed H.R. 152, as amended, contains a provision requiring grant recipients to expend
funds within the 24-month period following the federal agency obligation of funds for the grant
award unless the OMB Director waives the requirement. If the requirement is waived, the OMB
Director must submit written justification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Grant recipients that receive a waiver would be required to return any funds remaining
unexpended after 24 months to the awarding federal agency.70
Planning for and Projecting Future Vulnerabilities and Risks71
The Administration’s request proposes that federal agencies
work in partnership with State, local, and tribal officials to develop mutually agreed upon
assessments of future risks and vulnerabilities facing the region, including extreme weather,

69 112th Congress, H.R. 1, as amended, section 1108.
70 H.R. 152, as amended, Section 904(c).
71 Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, 7-4918.
Congressional Research Service
35

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

sea level rise, and coastal flooding and incorporate these into their recovery planning and
implementation.72
While the House did not address these specific factors in H.R. 152, the language of the request
was reflected in the text of Section 1104 of Senate-passed H.R. 1. For example, Section 1104(a)
would have directed federal agencies, in partnership with state, tribal, and local governments to
“inform plans for response, recovery, and rebuilding to reduce vulnerabilities from and build
long-term resiliency to future extreme weather events, sea level rise, and coastal flooding” (italics
added). Further, the provision stated that with respect to “repairing, rebuilding, or restoring
infrastructure and restoring land, project sponsors shall consider, where appropriate, the
increased risks and vulnerabilities associated with future extreme weather events, sea level rise
and coastal flooding” (italics added). Section 1104(b) would also have made available funds
under the legislation for the coordinated development of “regional projections and assessments of
future risks” to help improve the plans required under 1104(a). In general, the impact of this full
provision would have depended on how the relevant federal agencies interpreted and
implemented the directive to inform their plans, and how recipient project sponsors interpreted
and implemented the directive to consider these increased risks. It is possible, for example, that a
requirement, or choice, to take into account the risks delineated in the provision, could have
resulted in the need for new flood hazard maps that reflect new flood insurance zones based on
the future impact of extreme weather events, sea level rise, and coastal flooding; and also
possibly new floodplain management standards requiring communities under the NFIP that reflect
new land-use planning and construction standards in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). Also
by example, in interpreting and implementing this provision, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
could have adjusted their plans for the level of flood protection needed along the eastern
seaboard.
Mitigation of Future Power Outages73
Section 1105 of Senate-passed H.R. 1 as amended would have required the Secretary of HUD, as
the chair of the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force,74 to issue guidelines on how recipients
of federal funds for reconstruction should “to the greatest extent practicable ... maximize the
utilization of technologies designed to mitigate future power outages, continue delivery of vital
services and maintain the flow of power to facilities critical to public health, safety and welfare.”
These guidelines could have been issued in a number of ways. However, depending on the scope
of the guidelines and whether recipients were required to follow them, the guidelines could have
impacted the expenditure of funds for a number of programs. For example, recipients may have
been more likely to invest funds received from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program or
HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program in technologies that would mitigate
power outages, such as backup generators. The Administration’s proposal does not specifically
request this provision, but it is arguably consistent with the Administration’s emphasis on using
funding to mitigate future damages. No similar provision was included in House-passed H.R.
152.

72 Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, second
page of Appendix: Detailed Estimates of Necessary Federal Resources.
73 Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, 7-4918.
74 The Secretary of HUD was designated as the chair in Executive Order 13632, “Establishing the Hurricane Sandy
Rebuilding Task Force,” 77 Federal Register 74341, December 14, 2012, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/
2012/12/14/2012-30310/establishing-the-hurricane-sandy-rebuilding-task-force.
Congressional Research Service
36

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Embassy Security75
Section 1107 of Senate passed H.R. 1 would have authorized the Department of State to transfer
up to about $1 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds, previously appropriated
in FY2012 for operations in Iraq, for increased security at U.S. embassies and other overseas
posts identified in the Department’s security review after the Benghazi attack. These unobligated
funds are no longer needed because of reduced operations in Iraq, according to Senator Mikulski.
CBO had determined that the amendment had no outlay scoring impact, but the legislation did
require the Department of State to follow congressional notification requirements prior to using
the funds. House-passed H.R. 152 carried no such provision, and it was not included in the
Administration’s formal request.
Considerations for Congress
Disaster Relief and Emergency Funding Under the Budget
Control Act76
The Budget Control Act (BCA)77 changed the way Congress accounted for federal funding for
disaster response and recovery. In previous years, Congress provided funds over and above limits
on discretionary appropriations by designating additional appropriations as being for emergency
needs. Budget authority provided in this manner did not count against funding limitations on
discretionary spending in budget resolutions.
Although the BCA included legislation allowing for emergency appropriations, the new law
included provisions that outlined separate treatment for disaster relief,78 as distinct from
emergency funding. Funding designated as disaster relief in future spending bills could be “paid
for” by adjusting upward the discretionary spending caps. This allowable adjustment for disaster
relief is limited, however, to an amount based on the 10-year rolling average of what has been
spent by the federal government on relief efforts for major disasters.79
This disaster relief allowable adjustment for FY2013 was $11.8 billion. Under the current
continuing resolution, the amount of disaster relief that would be provided under the BCA if the
CR extended for the year was $6.4 billion. The Administration proposed using the remainder of
the allowable adjustment for disaster relief in its supplemental request, and using an emergency
funding designation to ensure the remaining resources provided through the request do not count
against the FY2013 budget caps.

75 Prepared by Susan B. Epstein, Specialist in Foreign Policy, 7-6678.
76 Prepared by William L. Painter, Analyst in Homeland Security Policy and Emergency Management, 7-3335.
77 P.L. 112-25.
78 The BCA also specifically redefined “disaster relief” as being federal government assistance provided pursuant to a
major disaster declared under the Stafford Act, not to be confused with funding provided for other types of incidents, or
exclusively resources provided through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).
79 For a more extensive discussion of this structure, see CRS Report R42352, An Examination of Federal Disaster
Relief Under the Budget Control Act, by Bruce R. Lindsay, William L. Painter, and Francis X. McCarthy.
Congressional Research Service
37

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

The Administration proposes designating all of the supplemental funding it sought as an
emergency requirement, with the exception of a portion of the request for the DRF, which would
be designated as being for disaster relief under the BCA. The Administration noted in the letter
accompanying the request that it is unclear how much of the disaster relief allowable adjustment
might be available pending the finalization of general FY2013 appropriations, and that therefore
these numbers could require adjustment. H.R. 1 as amended proposed $5,379 million in DRF
funding be designated as being for disaster relief under the BCA, with all but $3,461 million (for
Army Corps of Engineers construction activities)80 of the remaining funding in the bill being
designated as emergency funding.
House-passed H.R. 152 contains $41,669 million in emergency funding, $5,379 million for the
DRF designated as disaster relief, and $3,461 million for Army Corps of Engineers construction
activities that would count against the discretionary budget caps.81
Offsetting Disaster Relief82
One potential method for accommodating disaster response and recovery costs beyond the
allowable adjustment for disaster relief would be offsetting the additional spending through
rescissions or other means that would reduce the net budgetary scoring of the bill.
Traditionally, supplemental funding for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) has been treated as
emergency spending—it was not counted against discretionary budget caps, nor was an offset
required. However, supplemental spending packages have at times carried rescissions or transfers
that have offset, to one degree or another, the budgetary impact of other forms of disaster
assistance that could be defined as “disaster relief” under the BCA.
Of the 59 bills passed with supplemental appropriations from 1990 to the end of 2012, 6 were
fully offset by rescissions. Only one of those actually provided net additional resources for the
DRF—the Emergency Supplemental and Rescissions for Antiterrorism and Oklahoma City
Disaster, 1995 (P.L. 104-19). In other cases, the DRF was used as an offset for disaster assistance
provided through other federal entities.83
Offsetting the Administration’s supplemental request, however, would be complicated by two key
factors. First, as the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution, there is no
baseline appropriation in the current fiscal year to offset from. It is also worth noting the scale of
the offset required. The budget authority sought in the request is more than all but 3 of the 12
general appropriations bills for FY2012, and exceeds the 3 smallest appropriations bills from that
year combined—even if none of the nearly $13 billion in the Administration’s mitigation request
were counted.

80 The emergency designation for the Army Corps of Engineers Construction account was stricken by a point of order
on the Senate floor. See Congressional Record, December 21, 2012, pp. S8341-S8342.
81 CBO, “Estimate of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (H.R. 152) As Passed by the House on January 15,
2013,” January 16, 2013. The total score against the discretionary budget cap is $2 million lower due to conversion of
some unobligated balances of budget authority to emergency funding in the bill.
82 Prepared by William L. Painter, Analyst in Homeland Security Policy and Emergency Management, 7-3335.
83 A fuller discussion of this issue can be found in CRS Report R42458, Offsets, Supplemental Appropriations, and the
Disaster Relief Fund: FY1990-FY2013, by William L. Painter.
Congressional Research Service
38

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

The Administration’s request, House-passed H.R. 152, and Senate-passed H.R. 1 as amended did
not include offsets, and the Administration’s request letter and Statement of Administration Policy
on H.R. 152 stated the Administration’s position that the funding could and should be provided
without offset.84 However, an amendment was offered to offset $17 billion of disaster assistance
from H.R. 152 by making an across-the-board cut of 1.63% to FY2013 discretionary spending.85
This failed by a vote of 162-258.86
When the Senate struck the emergency designation for Army Corps of Engineers construction
activities, it allowed $3,461 million of H.R. 1 as amended to count against the FY2013
discretionary budget caps. The House legislation provides the same treatment to the $3,461
million it provides for Army Corps of Engineers construction. If this provision is enacted without
further changes, that discretionary budget authority will no longer be available to resolve the
outstanding FY2013 appropriations bills. Therefore a similar accommodation will need to be
made in the FY2013 appropriations endgame to avoid violating the budget caps.87
Including Legislative Provisions in Supplemental Appropriations88
The President’s proposal for Hurricane Sandy funding included several requests for legislative
revisions to existing programs. If Congress wishes to proceed with a supplemental appropriation
and include some, all, or different legislative provisions as those suggested by the Administration,
it may need to consider the internal rules of the House and the Senate on including legislative
provisions in appropriations bills. The internal rules of the House and Senate distinguish between
provisions that provide appropriations, and other types of legislation, including those that
authorize the purposes for which such appropriations are provided.89 Generally, such rules
discourage the inclusion of authorization or “legislative” provisions in general appropriations
bills.90
Congress has previously chosen to include legislative provisions in supplemental appropriations
acts, however. For example, Section 10101 of P.L. 110-329, created the Rural Development
Disaster Assistance Fund, provided the Secretary with transfer authority with respect to specified
prior and current year appropriations, and imposed congressional notification requirements. The

84 Letter from Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management, to the Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the
House of Representatives, December 7, 2012, p. 2, and OMB, “Statement of Administration Policy: Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013—H.R. 152,” January 14, 2013.
85 H.Amdt. 4.
86 House Roll No. 14, January 15, 2013.
87 An unrelated provision has the effect reducing discretionary spending by $2 million in FY2013, so the net
accommodation required would be $3.459 billion.
88 Prepared by Jessica Tollestrup, Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process, 7-0941.
89 For further information on the distinction between authorizations and appropriations generally, see CRS Report
R42098, Authorization of Appropriations: Procedural and Legal Issues, by Jessica Tollestrup and Brian T. Yeh.
90 In the House, “general appropriations bills” are the annual appropriations acts (or any combination thereof) and any
supplemental appropriations acts that cover more than one agency. Continuing resolutions are not considered to be
general appropriations bills. See W[illia]m Holmes Brown and Charles W. Johnson, House Practice: A Guide to the
Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House, 112th Cong., 1st sess., (Washington: GPO, 2011), chapter 4, §3, p. 76-
77. In the Senate, “general appropriations bills” are the annual appropriations acts (or any combination thereof) and any
supplemental or continuing appropriations acts that cover more than one agency or purpose. See Floyd M. Riddick and
Alan S. Frumin, Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and Practices, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S. Doc. 101-28
(Washington: GPO, 1992), pp. 159.
Congressional Research Service
39

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

inclusion of such provisions in supplemental appropriations bills, however, may create potential
procedural issues under House and Senate rules during floor consideration.
In the House, clause 2(b) of Rule XXI prohibits the Committee on Appropriations from reporting
legislative provisions in a general appropriations bill, making such provisions subject to a point of
order during floor consideration.91 Under clause 2(c), an amendment to a general appropriations
bill that contains legislative language is also not in order, and Rule XXII clause 5(b) bars House
conferees from agreeing to Senate amendments that are legislative.92 These points of order,
however, are not self-enforcing and would need to be made during floor consideration.93 Such
points of order can also be waived by a special rule, suspension of the rules, or unanimous
consent.
In the Senate, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Rule XVI prohibit amendments containing legislative
language in general appropriations measures, unless they are determined to be germane to
legislative language passed by the House and already contained in the appropriations bill.94 There
is no Senate rule prohibiting the inclusion of legislative provisions in appropriations bills or
conference reports. As in the House, these rules are enforced by points of order that must be
raised on the Senate floor during consideration. Points of order against legislative language can
be waived by unanimous consent or suspension of the rules.95
Sharing the Cost of Disaster Assistance Projects96
The Administration notes in the supplemental funding proposal that
The level of damage caused by Hurricane Sandy is expected to meet the regulatory threshold
necessary to increase the Federal share of most disaster programs to 90 percent. In
accordance with the whole community approach outlined in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency’s National Disaster Recovery Framework, impacted States and
localities will share, as appropriate, the remaining 10 percent of costs. [italics added]97
Beyond the information provided above by the Administration, it is currently difficult to estimate
what amount of shared costs will be expected from state, local government, or other aid recipients
for each of the requested disaster assistance programs. Generally, when people reference cost-

91 Rules of the House of Representatives, in House Manual, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, H.Doc. 110-162, 110th
Cong., 2nd sess., [compiled by] John V. Sullivan, Parliamentarian (Washington: GPO, 2009), §1038. Exceptions are
made under clause 2(b) for provisions providing rescissions or retrenchments. See Rules of the House of
Representatives, in House Manual, 111th Congress, §1062 for a further explanation of how these exceptions operate.
92 See House Manual, 111th Congress, §1076-1077 for an explanation of current House practice regarding legislative
amendments and conference reports.
93 For further information on points of order in the House, see CRS Report 98-307, Points of Order, Rulings, and
Appeals in the House of Representatives, by Valerie Heitshusen.
94 Riddick’s Senate Procedure, pp. 150-151. The defense of germaneness is explained in CRS Report R41634,
Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of Procedural Issues, by Jessica Tollestrup.
95 For further information on potential procedural issues related to the inclusion of authorization language in
supplemental appropriations bills, see CRS Report R41634, Limitations in Appropriations Measures: An Overview of
Procedural Issues, by Jessica Tollestrup.
96 Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, 7-4918.
97 Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, first page
of Appendix: Detailed Estimates of Necessary Federal Resources.
Congressional Research Service
40

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

shares in disaster assistance, they are frequently referring to the percentages of federal assistance
on the Public Assistance projects managed by FEMA.98 However, as noted in the
Administration’s proposal, there are numerous other disaster assistance programs that also have
cost share provisions both in statute and regulation.99 In some past disasters, Congress has
legislated that the federal government waive or eliminate the state or local government’s share of
the costs for several FEMA disaster assistance programs, meaning that the federal government
has paid a full 100% of the eligible costs of the assistance.100
As Congress evaluates the Administration’s supplemental funding request, it may choose to allow
the federal government to set cost shares as currently applicable under the law and regulations.
However, it may also seek to address each disaster assistance program individually to determine
the appropriate level of cost share for the recipient, as was done for several programs through
provisions in H.R. 1 as amended.101 Congress could also decide to comprehensively set a single
cost share percentage on disaster assistance dollars across a number of appropriate accounts and
programs for Hurricane Sandy.
Comparing Past Disasters to Hurricane Sandy102
As Congress evaluates the provision of supplemental funding in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, it
may compare the scope and magnitude of Hurricane Sandy to past disasters. Generally, Hurricane
Sandy has drawn numerous comparisons to other major disasters in recent memory, including
Hurricane Irene of 2011 because of the similarities in geographic region impacted, and
Hurricanes Katrina of 2005 and Andrew of 1992 because of their scope and magnitude of
damage. Some measurements of comparison speak to the loss of life, the disruption of daily
activities of citizens, or the economic impacts to the local and regional economies.103 While these
comparisons can help illustrate the scale of devastation from one disaster to another, it is
important to note that all disasters, and especially disasters of the magnitude of Hurricane Sandy,
are produced by a set of unique circumstances that result in an equally unique set of needs for
assistance from the federal government.
Two major concepts should be considered when comparing the need for federal assistance
following disasters. First, because of the federalism principles of emergency management—that

98 Namely, Sections 406 and 407 of the Stafford Act, which provide assistance for debris removal and the repair and
replacement of public and private non-profit facilities. For more, see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-
Shares: Evolution and Analysis, by Francis X. McCarthy.
99 For instance, the Administration suggests that funding through the Federal Transit Administration’s Emergency
Relief Program will have a comparable cost-share to FEMA’s Public Assistance program. See p. 43 of the proposal.
100 For example, following Hurricane Katrina, Congress mandated that the federal share be 100% of eligible costs
under four major FEMA disaster assistance programs. See Section 4501 of P.L. 110-28.
101 For example, H.R. 1 as amended includes language in Chapter 4 for the Corps of Engineers civil works program
proposing that the federal government pay 90% of construction costs for projects to reduce future flood risk, with
nonfederal project sponsors responsible for the remaining 10%. These nonfederal costs are to be financed over a period
of 30 years. Under current law, cost share requirements for these same projects are generally 65% federal and 35%
nonfederal, or 50% federal and 50% nonfederal for ongoing expenses for sand nourishment. Most other Corps activities
funded in the Senate bill would be financed consistent with existing statute, which is 100% federal for emergency
response and repair.
102 Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, 7-4918.
103 For a description of how economic damage is difficult to evaluate in particular, see
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/12/what-are-the-costs-of-superstorm-sandy.html.
Congressional Research Service
41

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

the federal government generally provides assistance to supplement the work of state, tribal, and
local governments only after they become overwhelmed and only at their request—the varying
capabilities of a state/tribal/local government can change the types and scope of assistance
provided by the federal government. This issue was discussed by the Administrator of FEMA in
recent testimony on Hurricane Sandy. In reference to the denial of an application for one form of
disaster assistance (individual assistance), Administrator Fugate explained that decisions to
provide federal assistance are based not upon the need of any particular individual, but upon the
need of the state as whole and whether the state is capable of addressing that need without federal
assistance.104
Second, the relative levels of federal assistance required for each disaster depend on the
proportional impact to various sectors of the community. For example, a particular disaster may
destroy one community’s business district and overwhelm the ability of the state to respond to
that impact, while another may significantly damage the majority of the community’s public
facilities. In the first disaster, the assistance from the federal government may be noteworthy for
the relatively large amount loan assistance provided by the Small Business Administration, while
the second disaster may be noteworthy for the relatively large amount of assistance provided
through the FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program.
Some additional disaster specific factors that may inhibit the usefulness of general disaster to
disaster comparisons include:
• The density and socioeconomic status of the impacted population;
• The percentage of properties and private/public losses that were insured, and the
adequacy of the insurance coverage; and
• The number of jurisdictions impacted by the disaster, and whether these
jurisdictions span multiple states requiring greater federal coordination of the
response and recovery effort.
Understanding the Mitigation Funding in the Proposal105
As summarized in Table A-1Table A-1., the Administration’s total request of approximately
$60.4 billion in funding is split into two portions. The first portion is approximately $47.4 billion,
and is necessary for the “recovery and repair of damage caused by Hurricane Sandy.” The second
portion is for about $13 billion and is requested for “mitigation projects to reduce the risk of
damage from future disasters.”106 Of note, there are four accounts that have funding requests for
both “repair and recovery” and “mitigation,” and five accounts where the request for mitigation is
the only request.107 The Administration is also requesting that the mitigation portion include
legislative provisions that would allow monies to be flexibly transferred between programs.

104 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, A Review of the Preparedness, Response to
and Recovery from Hurricane Sandy, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., November 4, 2012.
105 Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, 7-4918.
106 Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, p. 64.
107 The accounts receiving requests for both “recovery and repair” and “mitigation” are: Dept. of Agriculture’s
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations; NOAA’s Operations, Research and Facilities; Federal Transit
Administration’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program; and HUD’s Community Development Fund.
Congressional Research Service
42

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

As Congress evaluates the mitigation portion of the Administration’s request, it is useful to
understand how the Administration may be defining “recovery and repair” and “mitigation.”
Using definitions drawn from Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8), “recovery” refers to
those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to recover
effectively, including, but not limited to, rebuilding infrastructure systems; providing
adequate interim and long-term housing for survivors; restoring health, social, and
community services; promoting economic development; and restoring natural and cultural
resources.
In the same Directive, the Administration notes that “mitigation” refers to
those capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of
disasters. Mitigation capabilities include, but are not limited to, community-wide risk
reduction projects; efforts to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and key resource
lifelines; risk reduction for specific vulnerabilities from natural hazards or acts of terrorism;
and initiatives to reduce future risks after a disaster has occurred.108
If one relies on these definitions, the key difference between recovery funding and mitigation
funding may be that the mitigation funding will be explicitly directed to “initiatives to reduce
future risk after a disaster has occurred.” However, some of the activities outlined in the
Administration’s proposal as “mitigation” appear to be orientated towards “recovery and repair,”
and vice versa. For example, the Administration is proposing $400 million in mitigation funding
for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management account that would be used, among
other purposes, for “restoring and enhancing natural systems on State, local and private lands.”109
Further, the Administration’s proposal for mitigation funds does not include at least one
noteworthy program most traditionally linked with hazard mitigation, that being FEMA’s Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which is funded through the Disaster Relief Fund.110
As Congress considers supplemental funding for Hurricane Sandy, it may seek to clarify or
eliminate this distinction between funding for “mitigation” and the funding for “repair and
recovery.” In neither House-passed H.R. 152 nor Senate-passed H.R. 1 is there a distinct chapter
or title that separately funds accounts for mitigation. However, in some circumstances, provisions
include “mitigation” as part of the purpose of the funds, without separating that purpose from
recovery.111 In another circumstance, provisions in Senate-passed H.R. 1 specifically identified
subset of funds from the total appropriation to an account that may be used exclusively for
“mitigation.”112 In addition, Sections 1104 and 1105 of Senate-passed H.R. 1, which were general
provisions applying to all funds in the legislation, may encourage the funds to be used in a
manner that mitigates future risks.

108 Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, p. 69.
109 White House, Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness, Washington, DC, March 30, 2011, p.6,
http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness.
110 The Administration does request $11.5 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) in the “recovery and repair”
section of the request, of which some to be determined amount will be used for HMGP. The amount of assistance
provided through HMGP is set through a statutory formula per disaster declaration. For more on this program, see CRS
Report R40471, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Overview and Issues, by Natalie Keegan.
111 For example, see the designation of $336 million in budget authority for the National Railroad Passenger
Corporation in Chapter 10.
112 For example, see the designation of $2 billion in budget authority for the Community Development Fund in Chapter
10.
Congressional Research Service
43

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

If the Congress chooses to clarify the Administration’s distinction between mitigation and
recovery, it may consider providing a separate list of authorized activities that would constitute a
“mitigation” project so that the funding in these accounts could only be used for those approved
reasons. Similarly, Congress may consider including reporting requirements that would detail the
expenditure of “mitigation” funds by projects. Conversely, Congress may consider eliminating
the distinction drawn by the Administration all together, and provide a single appropriation
amount for each disaster assistance program for a single set of authorized activities. This may
result in more flexibility for the Administration in providing disaster assistance.
Strategic Planning for Disaster Recovery and/or Rebuilding113
With or without additional funding, the rebuilding and recovery process following Hurricane
Sandy will involve a significant number of communities, government jurisdictions and agencies,
and stakeholders from the non-profit and private sectors. To maximize the efficient use of
recovering, rebuilding, and mitigation funds, the efforts of all the impacted regions’ stakeholders,
to include the federal government, may need to be coordinated through a strategic plan. For
example, several states may wish to invest in and build a system of physical infrastructure to
protect their coastlines from future coastal flooding and storm surge incidents. Each state and
community along the coast may pursue individual infrastructure projects. However, benefits may
be gained from coordinated effort that creates an agreeable combination of infrastructure projects
along the regions coastline (be it seawalls, sand dunes, beach re-nourishment projects, or
otherwise) to address this need. Such coordination and strategic planning may impact the overall
ability of the infrastructure system to mitigate future damages.
The federal government’s role in the strategic planning process will be guided by two policies
mentioned throughout the Administration’s funding proposal. The first is the National Disaster
Recovery Framework (NDRF) and associated guidance on planning for and coordinating disaster
recovery.114 In brief, the NDRF was first mandated by Section 682 of Post-Katrina Emergency
Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295) and is a component of the National Preparedness System
established by Presidential Policy Directive 8.115 The NDRF “defines how Federal agencies will
more effectively organize and operate to utilize existing resources to promote effective recovery
and support States.” In providing federal assistance to an impacted region, the NDRF organizes
federal agencies into six Recovery Support Functions (RSFs)116 that are led by a Federal Disaster
Recovery Coordinator (FDRC).117

113 Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, 7-4918.
114 Department of Homeland Security, National Disaster Recovery Framework, Washington, DC, September 2011,
http://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/orig/fema_pdfs/pdf/recoveryframework/ndrf.pdf.
115 For more on the history of PPD-8, its other component policies, and the National Preparedness System, see CRS
Report R42073, Presidential Policy Directive 8 and the National Preparedness System: Background and Issues for
Congress, by Jared T. Brown. The NDRF is one of five National Planning Frameworks to be released under PPD-8, the
others are frameworks for Prevention, Protection, and Mitigation. A National Response Framework pre-dates the
release of PPD-8, but is currently being revised.
116 The six RSFs are: Community Planning and Capacity Building; coordinated by FEMA; Economic, coordinated by
Department of Commerce; Health and Social Services, coordinated by HHS; Housing, coordinated by HUD;
Infrastructure Systems; coordinated by USACE; and Cultural and Natural Resources, coordinated by Department of
Interior.
117 The FDRC is similar to the position of a Federal Coordinating Officer, as established by §302 of the Stafford Act
(42 U.S.C. §5143).
Congressional Research Service
44

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

The second major policy guiding the federal government is the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task
Force, which was formally established by an Executive Order (E.O.) released in conjunction with
the Administration’s funding proposal.118 The Rebuilding Task Force’s stated purpose is to
identify opportunities for achieving rebuilding success, consistent with the NDRF’s
commitment to support economic vitality, enhance public health and safety, protect and
enhance natural and manmade infrastructure, and ensure appropriate accountability ... [and]
work to ensure that the Federal Government continues to provide appropriate resources to
support affected State, local, and tribal communities to improve the region’s resilience,
health, and prosperity by building for the future.119
The Task Force is chaired by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and includes the
heads of 23 executive departments, agencies, and offices; or their designated representatives. The
chair of the Task Force may also convene an Advisory Group of non-federal government elected
officials to support the activities of the Task Force. The Task Force is also instructed to provide a
Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy within six months of first convening.
Congress may consider evaluating the impact of these two policies on the regions’ overall efforts
to plan for and implement the disaster recovery and rebuilding process. It is possible that the
leadership of the NDRF and the Task Force may be redundant, or it may provoke confusion
among non-federal stakeholders as to who is “in charge” of the federal recovery and rebuilding
efforts. Further, the various officials named and established under the NDRF and the Task Force
may have (or may be perceived to have) competing or overlapping authority to coordinate and
approve of the use of federal assistance in the recovery/rebuilding process.120 It is also possible
that actors working through the NDRF and the Rebuilding Task Force will provide inconsistent
input to the regions’ overall recovery and rebuilding plans.121 This may especially be problematic
for areas that are recovering from multiple recent disasters, such as Hurricane Irene and Tropical
Storm Lee. Many sources identified similar confusion with the federal leadership during the
response to Hurricane Katrina, and therefore the potential confusion over the federal role and
leadership in the recovery and rebuilding process for Hurricane Sandy may be evaluated closely
by Congress.122

118 Executive Order 13632, “Establishing the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force,” 77 Federal Register 74341,
December 14, 2012, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/12/14/2012-30310/establishing-the-hurricane-sandy-
rebuilding-task-force.
119 Executive Order 13632, “Establishing the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force,” 77 Federal Register 74341,
December 14, 2012, p. 1.
120 For example, the NDRF calls for the designation of a Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator, as well as
coordinators for each of the six Recovery Support Functions. The functions and authorities of these officials are
described in Chapters 7 and 8 of the NDRF. The various roles and responsibilities of the Rebuilding Task Force, the
Task Force Chair, the Task Force Executive Director, and the Task Force Advisory Body are outlined in E.O. XXX. If
the impacted regions’ stakeholders are confused over the roles and authorities of these positions, whether such
confusion is warranted or not, may result in a less efficient strategic planning process.
121 For example, the NDRF calls for the development of long-term community recovery plans, and the Task Force calls
for the creation of a Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy. It is also suggested in the Administration’s proposal that
mitigation projects will be guided by “regional response plans” (see p. 64 of the Proposal). If these plans are not well
coordinated, it could result in a disjointed overall strategic plan for recovering and rebuilding the region.
122 See, for example, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and Accountability
Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation’s Preparedness, Response and Recovery System, 06-618,
September 2006, http://www.gao.gov/assets/260/251287.pdf; or U.S. Congress, House Select Bipartisan Committee to
Investigate Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of the Select
Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina, 109th Cong., December 31,
2005, H.Rept. 109-377.
Congressional Research Service
45

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Table 2. Selected CRS Experts by Supplemental Request
Agency
Bureau
Account
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
Emergency
Conservation
Farm Service Agency
Program
CRS Report R42854, Emergency
Commodity Credit
Assistance for Agricultural Land
Megan Stubbs, mstubbs@crs.loc.gov, 7-8707
Department of
Corporation Fund
Rehabilitation
Agriculture
Watershed and Flood
Natural Resources
Prevention
Conservation Service
Operations
Food and Nutrition
Commodity
CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food
Service
Assistance Program
Assistance: Summary of Programs
Randy Alison Aussenberg, raussenberg@crs.loc.gov, 7-8641
Operations, Research
National
and Facilities
CRS Report R42440, Commerce,
Department of
Oceanographic and
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies: Harry Upton, hupton@crs.loc.gov, 7-2264
Commerce
Atmospheric
Procurement,
FY2013 Appropriations
Administration
Acquisition, and
Construction
Operations and

Operations and
Maintenance, Army
Department of
Maintenance
Pat Towell, ptowell@crs.loc.gov, 7-2122
Operations and

Defense
Maintenance, Navy
Daniel H. Else, delse@crs.loc.gov, 7-4996
Revolving and
Working Capital

Management Funds
Fund, Navy
CRS-46

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Agency
Bureau
Account
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
Investigations
Construction
CRS Report R42841, Army Corps
Corps of Engineers -
Nicole Carter, ncarter@crs.loc.gov, 7-0854
Supplemental Appropriations: Recent
Civil Works
Operations and Maintenance
History, Trends, and Policy Issues
Charles Stern, cstern@crs.loc.gov, 7-7786
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
CRS Report R42730, Financial
General Services
Federal Buildings Fund
Services and General Government:
Garrett Hatch, ghatch@crs.loc.gov, 7-7822
Administration
FY2013 Appropriations
Salaries and Expenses
CRS Report R42037, SBA Surety
Bond Guarantee Program
Small Business
Office of the Inspector General
Sean Lowry, slowry@crs.loc.gov, 7-9154
Administration
CRS Report R41309, The SBA
Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund
Disaster Loan Program: Overview and
Bruce Lindsay, blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
Disaster Loan Program Account
Possible Issues for Congress
CRS-47

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Agency
Bureau
Account
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
Operating Expenses
Coast Guard
Acquisition,

John Frittelli, jfrittelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-7033
Construction and
Improvements
CRS Report R40708, Disaster Relief
Funding and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations
Bruce Lindsay, blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
Disaster Relief Fund
CRS Report RL33053, Federal
Francis X. McCarthy, fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533
Department of
Stafford Act Disaster Assistance:
Homeland Security
Presidential Declarations, Eligible
Jared T. Brown, jbrowm@crs.loc.gov, 7-4918
Activities, and Funding, by Francis X.
FEMA
McCarthy
CRS Report R42527, FEMA’s
Disaster Assistance
Community Disaster Loan Program:
Jared T. Brown, jbrowm@crs.loc.gov, 7-4918
Direct Loan Program
History, Analysis, and Issues for
Congress
National Flood
CRS Report R42850, The National
Insurance Fund
Flood Insurance Program: Status and
Rawle O. King, rking@crs.loc.gov, 7-5975
Remaining Issues for Congress
CRS-48

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Agency
Bureau
Account
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
Resource
Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
CRS Report R42466, Fish and
Department of the
Service
Wildlife Service: FY2013
Lynne Corn, lcorn@crs.loc.gov, 7-7267
Interior
Appropriations and Policy
Construction
National Park Service
Construction

Carol Hardy-Vincent, chvincent@crs.loc.gov, 7-8651
Environmental Programs and Management
Environmental
Hazardous Substance Superfund
CRS Report R42520, Environmental
Protection Agency
Protection Agency (EPA):
Rob Esworthy, resworthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7236
LUST Trust Fund
Appropriations for FY2013
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Employment and
CRS Report R41135, The
Department of Labor
Training
Training and
Workforce Investment Act and the
David Bradley, dbradley@crs.loc.gov, 7-7352
Administration
Employment Services
One-Stop Delivery System
Social Services Block
CRS Report 94-953, Social Services
Administration for
Grant
Block Grant: Background and Funding Karen Lynch, klynch@crs.loc.gov, 7-6899
Children and Families
Department of Health
Children and Families
CRS Report RL30952, Head Start:
and Human Services
Services Programs
Background and Issues
Departmental
Public Health and
Management
Social Services

Sarah Lister, slister@crs.loc.gov, 7-7320
Emergency Fund
Department of
Military Construction
Military Construction, CRS Report R42586, Military
Daniel H. Else, delse@crs.loc.gov, 7-4996
Defense
Army National Guard
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2013
Department of
Departmental
Construction, Major
Appropriations
Sidath Panangala, spanangala@crs.loc.gov, 7-0623
Veterans’ Affairs
Administration
Projects
CRS-49

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Agency
Bureau
Account
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
Federal Aviation
Facilities and
CRS Report R42781, Federal Civil
Bart Elias, belias@crs.loc.gov, 7-7771
Administration
Equipment
Aviation Programs: An Overview
CRS Report R42804, Emergency
Federal Highway
Emergency Relief
Relief Program: Federal-Aid Highway
Robert Kirk, rkirk@crs.loc.gov, 7-7769
Administration
Program
Assistance for Disaster-Damaged
Department of
Roads and Bridges
Transportation
Federal Railroad
Operating Subsidy
CRS Report RL33492, Amtrak:
D. Randall Peterman, dpeterman@crs.loc.gov, 7-3267
Administration
Grants to NRPC
Budget and Reauthorization
Federal Transit
Public Transportation
CRS Report R42706, Federal Public
Administration
Emergency Relief
Transportation Program: An Overview
William Mallett, wmallett@crs.loc.gov, 7-2216
Program
Public and Indian
Tenant-Based Rental
Housing Programs
Assistance

Maggie McCarty, mmccarty@crs.loc.gov, 7-2163
Department of
Housing and Urban
CRS Report R41754, Community
Development
Community Planning
Community
Development Block Grants: Funding
and Development
Development Fund
Issues in the 112
Eugene Boyd, eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
th Congress and
Recent Funding History

CRS-50

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Appendix. Summary of the Administration’s
Request
The Administration’s proposal includes $47.44 billion in funding for response and recovery, and
$12.97 billion specifically for mitigation of damage from potential future storms and flooding.
The Administration proposed designating all of the funding in the bill as an emergency
requirement, with the exception of $5.4 billion of the request for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF),
which would be designated as disaster relief under the BCA. The Administration noted in the
letter accompanying the request that it is unclear how much of the disaster relief allowable
adjustment may be available pending the finalization of general FY2013 appropriations, and
therefore these numbers could require adjustment. These designations would eliminate the need
for an offset to avoid triggering sequestration under the BCA.
Requested funding levels are provided by appropriations account in Table A-1, below. It provides
a summary and brief analysis of the Administration’s budget request. A series of columns notes
the agency, bureau, and account for which appropriations were requested. The table then notes
how much the Administration sought as funds needed for recovery and repair of damage, as
opposed to mitigation of future disaster impacts, and a total of the two categories. The table then
notes what percentage that request is of the overall total sought. Finally the table includes a quick
assessment of whether the appropriation is intended to pay for damaged federal government
property, federal services, or needs of non-federal entities (noted as the “Recipient Type”
category). These final categories on potential recipients are not mutually exclusive at the account
level. Requests for appropriations of $10 million or less are combined in a single line for the sake
of brevity—as the table indicates, these 30 items represent less than 0.2% of the total request.
They can be found in the more complete accounting of the request, and the Senate legislative
response to date, in Table 1.

Congressional Research Service
1

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Table A-1. Survey of FY2013 Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Request
millions of dollars in budget authority
Recipient of Appropriation
Request
Recipient Type
Response
% of
Federal
Non-
and
Total
Damage
Federal
Federal
Agency Bureau
Account
Recovery
Mitigation
Total
Request
Recovery
Services
Entities
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Farm Service Agency
Emergency Conservation
15.00 15.00
0.02%
No
No Yes
Program
Department of
Farm Service Agency
Commodity Credit
23.00 23.00
0.04%
No
No Yes
Agriculture
Corporation Fund
Natural Resources
Watershed and Flood
30.00 150.00 180.00
0.30%
No No Yes
Conservation Service Prevention Operations
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee
National
Operations, Research and
33.00 360.00 393.00
0.65%
Yes Yes Yes
Oceanographic and
Facilities
Atmospheric
Department of
Administration
Commerce
National
Procurement, Acquisition,
100.00
100.00
0.17%
No No Yes
Oceanographic and
and Construction
Atmospheric
Administration
Defense Subcommittee
Operations and
Operations and
41.20 41.20
0.07%
Yes
No No
Department of
Maintenance
Maintenance, Navy
Defense
Revolving and
Working Capital Fund,
24.20 24.20
0.04%
Yes
No No
Management Funds
Navy
CRS-2

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Recipient of Appropriation
Request
Recipient Type
Response
% of
Federal
Non-
and
Total
Damage
Federal
Federal
Agency Bureau
Account
Recovery
Mitigation
Total
Request
Recovery
Services
Entities
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Investigations
30.00
30.00
0.05%
No
Yes
No
Army Corps of
Construction
3,820.00
3,820.00
6.32%
No
Yes
No
Engineers - Civil
Works
Operations and Maintenance
899.00

899.00
1.49%
Yes
Yes
No
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
592.00

592.00
0.98%
No
No
Yes
Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee
Salaries and Expenses
50.00

50.00
0.08%
No
Yes
Yes
Small Business
Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund

0.00
0.00%
No
No
Yes
Administration
Disaster Loan Program Account
750.00

750.00
1.24%
No
No
Yes
Homeland Security Subcommittee
Coast Guard
Operating Expenses
66.84

66.84
0.11%
Yes
No
No
Coast Guard
Acquisition, Construction
207.39 207.39
0.34%
Yes
No No
and Improvements
Department of
FEMA
Disaster Relief Fund
11,500.00

11,500.00
19.04%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Homeland
Security
FEMA Disaster
Assistance
300.00 300.00
0.50%
No
No Yes
Direct Loan Program
FEMA
National Flood Insurance
9,700.00
9,700.00
16.06%
No
No Yes
Fund
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Resource Management

400.00
400.00
0.66%
No
Yes
Yes
Service
Department of
the Interior
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Construction 78.00

78.00
0.13%
Yes
No
No
Service
National Park Service Construction
348.00

348.00
0.58%
Yes
No
No
CRS-3

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Recipient of Appropriation
Request
Recipient Type
Response
% of
Federal
Non-
and
Total
Damage
Federal
Federal
Agency Bureau
Account
Recovery
Mitigation
Total
Request
Recovery
Services
Entities
Environmental
State and Tribal Assistance Grants

610.00
610.00
1.01%
No
No
Yes
Protection
Agency
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Department of
Employment and
Training and Employment
50.00 50.00
0.08%
No
No Yes
Labor
Training
Services
Administration
Administration for
Social Services Block
500.00 500.00
0.83%
No
No Yes
Children and Families Grant
Department of
Health and
Administration for
Children and Families
100.00 100.00
0.17%
No
No Yes
Human Services
Children and Families Services Programs
Departmental
Public Health and Social
200.00 200.00
0.33%
No
Yes Yes
Management
Services Emergency Fund
C29386
Department of
Military Construction, Army National Guard
24.24

24.24
0.04%
Yes
No
No
Defense—
Military
Construction
Veterans Health
Medical Services
21.00

21.00
0.03%
Yes
No
No
Department of
Administration
Veterans’ Affairs Departmental
Construction, Major
207.00 207.00
0.34%
Yes
No No
Administration
Projects
CRS-4

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Recipient of Appropriation
Request
Recipient Type
Response
% of
Federal
Non-
and
Total
Damage
Federal
Federal
Agency Bureau
Account
Recovery
Mitigation
Total
Request
Recovery
Services
Entities
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Federal Aviation
Facilities and Equipment
30.00

30.00
0.05%
Yes
No
No
Administration
Federal Highway
Emergency Relief
308.00 308.00
0.51%
No
Yes Yes
Administration
Program
Department of
Transportation
Federal Railroad
Operating Subsidy Grants
32.00 32.00
0.05%
No
No Yes
Administration
to NRPC
Federal Transit
Public Transportation
6,200.00 5,500.00
11,700.00 19.37% No
No
Yes
Administration
Emergency Relief
Program
Department of
Public and Indian
Tenant-Based Rental

N/A
N/A
No
No
Yes
Housing and
Housing Programs
Assistance
Urban
Community Planning
Community Development
15,000.00 2,000.00
17,000.00 28.14% No
No
Yes
Development
and Development
Fund
Requests for Appropriations of $10 Million or Less
30 Individual requests of $10 million or less
108.80 108.80
0.18%
88.07
12.73 7.00

TOTAL 47,438.67
12,970.00
60,408.67
100.00%
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2013 Supplemental Appropriations Request, as transmitted in a letter from Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management, to The
Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, December 7, 2012.
CRS-5

FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief

Author Contact Information

William L. Painter, Coordinator
Jared T. Brown, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
Security Policy
wpainter@crs.loc.gov, 7-3335
jbrown@crs.loc.gov, 7-4918

Congressional Research Service
6