Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations
Bruce R. Lindsay
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
Justin Murray
Information Research Specialist
April 12, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40708
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Summary
When a state is overwhelmed by an emergency or disaster, the governor may request assistance
from the federal government. Federal assistance is contingent on whether the President issues an
emergency or major disaster declaration. Once the declaration has been issued the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides disaster relief through the use of the Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF), which is the source of funding for the Robert T. Stafford Emergency Relief
and Disaster Assistance Act response and recovery programs. Congress appropriates money to the
DRF to ensure that funding for disaster relief is available to help individuals and communities
stricken by emergencies and major disasters (in addition, Congress appropriates disaster funds to
other accounts administered by other federal agencies pursuant to federal statutes that authorize
specific types of disaster relief).
The DRF is generally funded at a level that is sufficient for what are known as “normal” disasters.
These are incidents for which DRF outlays are less than $500 million. When a large disaster
occurs, funding for the DRF may be augmented through emergency supplemental appropriations.
A supplemental appropriation generally provides additional budget authority during the current
fiscal year to (1) finance activities not provided for in the regular appropriation; or (2) provide
funds when the regular appropriation is deemed insufficient.
Whether or not the current practice is the best system for budgeting disaster relief is subject to
debate. Some argue that more money should be appropriated in FEMA’s DRF account in annual
appropriations, while others maintain that augmenting the DRF through emergency supplemental
appropriations is preferable because it allows Congress to react directly to a particular situation.
Others may argue that emergency supplemental appropriations are preferable for fiscal
management reasons because an appropriation is not requested unless there is a real need for
supplemental funding. Another argument is to revamp the budgetary process to fund disaster
relief.
This report describes the various components of the DRF, including (1) what authorities have
shaped it over the years; (2) how FEMA determines the amount of the appropriation requested to
Congress (pertaining to the DRF); and (3) how emergency supplemental appropriations are
requested. In addition to the DRF, information is provided on funds appropriated in supplemental
appropriations legislation to agencies other than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Aspects of debate concerning how disaster relief is budgeted are also highlighted and examined,
and alternative budgetary options are summarized.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Contents
Disaster Relief Fund.................................................................................................................... 1
Past and Present Authorities Related to the Disaster Relief Fund ................................................. 2
Public Laws Influencing the Administration of Disaster Relief .............................................. 2
The Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-875)..................................................... 3
Disaster Relief Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-769) ........................................................................ 3
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288) ........................................................................ 4
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-
288) ............................................................................................................................. 4
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295)...................... 4
How the DRF is Funded.............................................................................................................. 5
The Debate over Emergency Supplemental Appropriations.......................................................... 8
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations: FY1989 – FY2010 .................................................. 10
Recent Enacted Emergency Supplemental Appropriations ................................................... 13
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.............. 14
Measures Enacted in FY2010........................................................................................ 14
Measures Enacted in FY2008........................................................................................ 15
Measures Enacted in FY2007........................................................................................ 15
Measures Enacted in FY2006........................................................................................ 16
Measures Enacted in FY2005........................................................................................ 16
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma by
Federal Agency ................................................................................................................ 16
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 19
Authorizing the DRF........................................................................................................... 19
Restructuring Budgetary Procedures.................................................................................... 19
Additional Approaches for Funding Federal Disaster Relief................................................. 21
Oversight on Reporting ....................................................................................................... 22
Concluding Policy Questions .................................................................................................... 22

Figures
Figure 1. Disaster Relief Fund Requests and Enacted Annual Appropriations, FY1989-
2010 ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Tables
Table 1. Disaster Relief Fund ...................................................................................................... 7
Table 2. Emergency Appropriations for Disaster Relief: All Agencies ........................................ 11
Table 3. FY2005-FY2008 Supplemental Disaster Appropriations After Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma ........................................................................................................ 17

Congressional Research Service

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 24
Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... 24


Congressional Research Service

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Disaster Relief Fund
The Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), sometimes referred to as the President’s Disaster Relief Fund, is
managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The DRF is the main account
used to fund a wide variety of programs that provide grants and other support to assist state and
local governments and certain nonprofit entities during disaster recovery. In most cases, funding
from the DRF is released after the President has issued a declaration pursuant to the Robert T.
Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act).1 There are, however, some
activities that may be funded by the DRF without a presidential declaration, mainly those
supported by the Disaster Readiness and Support Account. The Disaster Readiness and Support
Account pays for FEMA’s phone centers, finance centers, and housing inspectors. Through this
account certain recovery elements are already in place when the President issues a declaration.
The declaration process has the following general structure:
• the local government responds to an event;
• if the event overwhelms the local government, the state is called upon for
assistance;
• a Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) is completed by local, state, federal,
and volunteer organizations to determine loss and recovery needs;
• based on the PDA findings, a declaration request is submitted to the President by
the governor;2
• FEMA evaluates the governor’s request and recommends action to the White
House, based on the nature of the event and an assessment of the state’s ability to
recover; and
• the President may either approve the request or require FEMA to inform the
governor the request has been denied.3
A President’s declaration triggers the allocation of funds from the DRF, and the funding may be
distributed from any one, or any combination, of three categories of disaster aid:
1. Individual Assistance. Individual Assistance (IA) includes disaster housing for
displaced individuals, grants for needs not covered by insurance, crisis
counseling, and disaster-related unemployment assistance.
2. Public Assistance. Public assistance (PA), which is FEMA’s largest funded
program, helps communities absorb the costs of emergency measures such as
removing debris and repairing or replacing structures such as public buildings,
roads, bridges, and utilities.

1 42 USC 5121 et seq. For information on the declaration process, see CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster
Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis X. McCarthy.
2 Per 42 USC 5122(4), the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories use the same declaration process.
3 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. “The Disaster Process and Disaster Aid Programs.”
http://www.fema.gov/hazard/dproc.shtm.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

3. Hazard Mitigation. FEMA funds mitigation measures to prevent or lessen the
effects of a future disaster through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.4
Even if the President issues an emergency or major disaster declaration, not all persons or entities
affected by a disaster are eligible for disaster assistance. FEMA officials determine the need for
assistance after a declaration is issued. Aid is provided only to those persons or entities
determined by FEMA to need the assistance. An example of ineligibility would be a household
that has access to alternative housing.5
Past and Present Authorities Related to the Disaster
Relief Fund
The Stafford Act authorizes appropriations to carry out disaster relief activities, but does not
explicitly designate the DRF as the account for such funds. Rather, the DRF is the product of
legislation and federal policies that can be traced to the post-World War II era. Prior to that time,
disaster response activities were funded primarily through local efforts and voluntary groups. In
cases where the federal government did offer assistance, the needs of disaster victims and affected
communities were funded on an as-needed basis through appropriations that were then allocated,
pursuant to the legislation, by executive branch administrators and, ultimately, the President.6
Arguably, the forerunners to the DRF were appropriations known as “emergency funds for the
President.” For example, in a 1948 appropriation, Congress allocated $500,000 to “supplement
the efforts and available resources of state and local governments or other agencies, whenever ...
any flood, fire, hurricane, earthquake, or other catastrophe in any part of the United States is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant emergency assistance by the federal government.”7
In subsequent years Congress continued to appropriate funds for disaster relief and eventually a
series of authorizations were provided in Section 606 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974 as
amended.8 These authorizations provided funding for disaster-related activities until a specified
date. In 1988 Congress repealed Section 606 of the Disaster Relief Act ending extensions of
authorizations.9 Since then funds have been appropriated, though not specifically authorized.
Public Laws Influencing the Administration of Disaster Relief
The approach to disaster relief changed from 1950 to 1979, transitioning from a largely
uncoordinated and decentralized system of relief funding to one dominated by the federal
government. The transition was due in part to an increased awareness of the complex

4 A structure does not have to be damaged to be eligible for mitigation. Hazard Mitigation Grants are available as block
grant funds and can be used outside of the disaster area. For more information, see CRS Report R40471, FEMA’s
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Overview and Issues, by Natalie Keegan.
5 44 C.F.R. § 206.101(2).
6 U.S. Congress, Senate Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief, Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief,
104th Cong., 1st sess., March 15, 1995, No. 104-4 (Washington: GPO, 1995), p. 1.
7 62 Stat. 1031.
8 See 42 USC 5202 (note).
9 P.L. 100-707, 102 Stat. 4708.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

responsibilities of federal and nonfederal entities before and after a disaster, and to the efforts of
policymakers and administrators to address a variety of concerns―most notably civil defense.10
After World War II, concern over the possible use of atomic weapons and growing hostility
between the United States and the Soviet Union gave rise to the Cold War. As a consequence,
disaster management in the United States was organized around two tracks: (1) the threat of a
nuclear war and (2) natural disasters. Several landmark federal disaster laws and policies
originate from attempts by lawmakers during this era to prepare the civilian population for a
potential atomic attack and provide aid after a natural disaster.11 The most notable of these laws
were the Civil Defense Act of 195012 and the Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1950.13 These laws
set into motion federal-to-state assistance, prompting the need for an account to fund disaster and
emergency activities.
Once a framework of federal to state disaster assistance had been constructed in the 1950 statute,
the process of administering disaster relief was further shaped by the Disaster Relief Acts of
196614 and 1974,15 and the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of
1988.16 Prompted by large disasters such as Hurricanes Betsy in 1965 and Agnes in 1972, these
laws significantly increased federal involvement in emergency management, which in turn
created the need for a funding mechanism to pay for emergency and disaster activities.
Summaries of the statutes follow.
The Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-875)
The Federal Disaster Relief Act established much of the framework through which disaster policy
is carried out in the United States. The Federal Disaster Relief Act provided an orderly, ongoing
continued means of federal assistance to states and localities to alleviate suffering and damage
that resulted from major disasters. Prior to the act, congressional action after each individual
incident was needed to provide federal aid. Once in place, the law authorized the President to
make the decision to provide federal aid without the consent of Congress. The act also put in
place the standard process in which the governors could ask the President for federal disaster
assistance for their respective states.17
Disaster Relief Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-769)
To some, the Disaster Act of 1950 appeared to effectively handle routine disasters, but did not
adequately address large-scale, catastrophic disasters. In response to this need, Congress enacted

10 Keith Bea, “The Formative Years: 1950-1978,” in Emergency Management: The American Experience, ed. Claire B.
Rubin (Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute, 2007), p. 81.
11 Richard Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security (Washington: CQ
Press, 2008), p. 48.
12 P.L. 81-920.
13 P.L. 81-875, 64 Stat. 1109.
14 P.L. 89-796, 80 Stat. 1316.
15 P.L. 93-288, 88 Stat. 143.
16 102 Stat. 4689.
17 Richard Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security (Washington: CQ
Press, 2008), p. 49.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

the Disaster Relief Act of 1966. Some of the measures in the act included the authorization of
federal agencies to provide disaster loans below market rates, and the extension of aid to
unincorporated areas.
Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288)
The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 contained several precedent-setting features. The act created the
first program to provide direct assistance to individuals and households following a disaster. It
instituted the Individual and Family Grant (IFG) program, which supplied 75% of the funding for
state-administered programs that provided money to purchase clothing, furniture, and essential
needs following a disaster. The act also formalized efforts to mitigate disasters, as opposed to
merely responding to them. Additionally, the act stressed a multi-hazard approach wherein
government officials would prepare and respond to all types of disasters, rather than maintaining
separate capacities for different types of hazards.18
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-
288)
Today, the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act constitutes the
statutory authority for most federal disaster response and recovery activities especially as they
pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs. The act authorizes the President to issue major disaster,
emergency, and fire management declarations at the request of the states. The declarations enable
federal agencies to provide assistance to states overwhelmed by disasters. Stafford Act disaster
assistance is provided through funds appropriated to the DRF. The funds may be used by states,
localities, and certain non-profit organizations for activities such as providing mass care, restoring
damaged or destroyed facilities, clearing debris, aiding individuals and families with uninsured
needs, and mitigating the impact of future disasters.19
The history of federal disaster relief legislation demonstrates a steady expansion of federal aid
since the 1950s. As the federal role in emergencies and major disasters expanded, so too have the
costs. The costs associated with disaster relief have led some to contemplate changing how the
federal government funds these events. Some of these proposals are discussed later in this report.
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-295)
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act20 to address emergency preparedness and response shortcomings identified in the
reports published by congressional committees and the White House. Based on those reports and
oversight hearings on many aspects of FEMA’s performance during the hurricane season of 2005,
Congress expanded the authority of the FEMA administrator, authorized accelerated federal aid,
and raised some ceilings on federal assistance, among other changes. In addition, Congress
mandated that, for FY2007, FEMA had to submit to Congress a monthly report on the DRF

18 Richard Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security (Washington DC: CQ
Press, 2008), p. 54.
19 CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and
Funding, by Keith Bea.
20 Title VI of P.L. 109-295, the FY2007 DHS appropriations legislation.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

detailing allocations, obligations, and expenditures for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma.21
The reports had to include information on national flood insurance claims, manufactured housing
data, obligations, allocations for housing assistance, public assistance, individual assistance and
expenditures by state for unemployment.22
How the DRF is Funded
FEMA receives appropriations for disaster relief through annual appropriations. Each fiscal year,
FEMA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) submit a request to the President for
the amount of funding the two agencies determine the DRF should receive. The President then
submits an administration request to Congress. The President may, or may not, use the amount
suggested by FEMA and the OMB.
The current methodology used to determine the budget recommendation for incorporates four
data points. These points include (1) the available appropriation, (2) the DRF monthly average
(the amount in the DRF), (3) the monthly cost estimates for catastrophic events, and (4) the
estimated monthly recoveries of unobligated funds.23
1. Available Appropriation. The available appropriation is a combination of prior-
year funds that are carried over, the current fiscal year appropriation, and any
supplemental appropriation funding.24
2. DRF Monthly Average. The calculation for the DRF monthly average is based
on a five-year rolling average “normal” disaster’s costs. Normal disasters are
incidents that cost less than $500 million. The rationale of excluding large events
from the calculation is discussed later in this report.
3. Monthly Cost Estimates for Catastrophic Events. Estimates obtained from the
field on pending (still open) disaster projects are routinely used in calculating
monthly cost estimates.
4. Estimated Recoveries. Estimated recoveries represent the recovery of obligated
funds that have not been used. This can include duplication of benefit funds25 as
well as long-term projects for PA or mitigation that either were not finished, or
were completed at a lower cost.
The end-of-fiscal-year projection is estimated by subtracting the cumulative DRF monthly
averages and cost estimates for incidents from the available appropriation. Then, the cumulative
recoveries are added. The DRF end-of-fiscal-year estimate is revised monthly, based on the actual

21 Sec. 528, P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat 1383.
22 A similar reporting requirement has been carried forward in subsequent appropriations statutes. See, for example,
P.L. 110-329, 122 Stat 3674-75.
23 This section is based on the author’s in-person interview with a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) finance
official, March 9, 2009.
24 The DRF is a “no year” account; funds remain until expended.
25 An example of a duplication of a benefit fund is when the state receives an insurance payment for disaster damages
after obtaining federal funding for the same damages. In such a case the state is to return the funding to the federal
government.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

obligations that are recorded in lieu of the monthly estimates, and new estimates submitted for
“open” incidents.26
Since FY1989, the average initial Administration request for the DRF has been $1.7 billion (in
2010 dollars).27 The lowest request was in FY1992 for $286 million, while the largest request was
in FY2001 for $3.6 billion. By comparison, the average actual annual appropriation approved by
Congress is roughly $1.1 billion. The lowest actual annual appropriation was in FY1991 for $0
(due to a large carryover from the previous year), with the largest actual annual appropriation in
FY2000 for $3.5 billion (in 2010 dollars). A comparison between Administration requests and
annual appropriations is presented in Table 1 and Figure 1.



26 Open incidents are those whose related activities are currently being funded by FEMA.
27 These figures reflect annual appropriations and do not include supplemental appropriations.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Table 1. Disaster Relief Fund
Requests, Appropriations, and Supplemental Appropriations (in millions of dollars)
Enacted
Supplemental
Administrative
Enacted
Appropriation
(2010
Administrative
Request (2010
Appropriation (2010 Constant Supplemental
Constant
Total
Total (Constant
Fiscal Year
Request (Nominal)
Constant Dollars)
(Nominal)
Dollars)
(Nominal)
Dollars)
Nominal
2010 Dollars)
1989
200
352
100
176
1,108
1,950
1,208
2,126
1990
270
451
98
164
1,150
1,919
1,248
2,083
1991
270
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
1992
184
286
185
288
3,993
6,207
4,178
6,495
1993
292
454
292
441
1,735
2,619
2,027
3,060
1994
1,154
1,698
292
430
5,117
7,530
5,409
7,960
1995
320
458
318
455
2,275
3,256
2,593
3,711
1996
320
445
222
309
3,171
4,408
3,393
4,717
1997
320
435
1,320
1,794
3,300
4,484
4,620
6,278
1998
2,708
3,623
320
428
1,600
2,141
1,920
2,569
1999
2,566
3,359
308
403
1,806
2,364
2,114
2,767
2000
2,780
3,521
2,780
3,521
0
0
2,780
3,521
2001
2,909
3,584
1,594
1,964
0
0
1,594
1,964
2002
1,369
1,660
664
805
0
0
664
805
2003
1,843
2,185
800
948
1,426
1,690
2,226
2,638
2004
1,956
2,258
1,800
2,078
2,213
2,555
4,013
4,633
2005
2,151
2,402
2,042
2,280
43,091
48,122
45,133
50,402
2006
2,140
2,315
1,770
1,915
6,000
6,491
7,770
8,406
2007
1,941
2,042
1,500
1,578
4,092
4,305
5,592
5,883
2008
1,652
2,035
1,400
1,419
10,960
11,108
12,360
12,527
2009
1,900
2,043
1,278
1,299
0
0
1,299
1,299
2010
2,000
2,000
1,600
1,600
5,100
5,100
6,700
6,700
Total
31,245
38,039
20,683
24,295
98,137
116,250
118,820
140,544
Source: CRS analysis of Administration budget documents and appropriations statutes.

CRS-7

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Figure 1. Disaster Relief Fund Requests and Enacted Annual Appropriations,
FY1989-2010
(In millions of 2010 Dollars)
4,000
3,500
3,000
rs)
olla
2,500
D
s of
2,000
on
illi
1,500
M
n
(i
1,000
500
-
0
1
6
7
0
1
6
7
0
1989 199 199 1992 1993 1994 1995 199 199 1998 1999 200 200 2002 2003 2004 2005 200 200 2008 2009 201
Administrative Request (2010 Constant
Dollars)
Enacted Appropriation (2010 Constant Dollars)

Source: Table 1 of this report, using data from columns C and E.
The Debate over Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations
Congress has traditionally appropriated funds to maintain the DRF at a certain level, and then
provided additional financing for assistance through supplemental appropriations following a
specific large disaster. Currently, the DRF funds disaster relief for emergencies and major
disasters that cost $500 million or less. Major disasters costing more than $500 million are
generally funded with emergency supplemental appropriations. A supplemental appropriation
provides additional budget authority during the current fiscal year either to finance activities not
provided for in the regular appropriation, or to provide funds when the regular appropriation is
deemed insufficient.
Catastrophic incidents may deplete the DRF. In such cases, the President may submit a request to
Congress for an emergency supplemental appropriation. Historically, FEMA is the second-largest
recipient of supplemental appropriations.28 Most emergency supplemental appropriations

28 Based on U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disaster Relief: Government Framework Needed to Collect and
Consolidate Information to Report on Billions in Federal Funding for the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes, GAO-06-834,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

originate with the Administration. Some emergency supplemental appropriations, however, have
been initiated by Congress. For example, in 2007, Congress waived the cost share provisions for
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which prompted a supplemental appropriation (P.L. 110-28).
Another example of an emergency supplemental appropriation originating in Congress was in
2008, when Congress added DRF supplemental funding (P.L. 110-329) to the FY2009
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill on its own initiative in response to the
Midwest Flooding and Hurricanes Ike and Gustav. The amount of funding for the supplemental
appropriation was based on estimates provided to Congress by FEMA.
The current process of funding disasters has been a subject of debate at times because of concern
over high levels of federal spending and the inability to institute fiscal planning mechanisms.
Some of the debate includes discussions of options for lowering the budget deficit through
budgetary enforcement procedures in Congress. Others argue supplemental appropriations are
used to make budgets appear to forecast a lower deficit. OMB indicated a desire to break from the
current practice of funding disaster relief by budgeting for large-scale disasters. In A New Era of
Responsibility, the first FY2010 document issued by the Obama Administration, OMB stated that
“in the past, budgets assumed that there would not be any natural disasters in our nation that
would necessitate federal help.... This omission is irresponsible, and has permitted past
Administrations to project deficits that were lower than likely occur.”29
Accordingly, the debate over the amount of funding in the DRF generally falls into two basic
categories: (1) proponents who advocate the use of emergency supplemental appropriations to
augment the DRF, and (2) those who oppose their use.
Proponents of the current system of using emergency supplemental appropriations argue there are
several benefits associated with their use. Some of these perceived benefits are summarized as
follows:
• Disasters cannot be anticipated, a condition that creates a budgeting challenge.
Because of their flexibility, emergency supplemental appropriations facilitate
funding decisions for disasters, the timing and severity of which are
unpredictable. Budgeting for large disasters through regular appropriations would
likely require Congress to reduce funding for other programs to pay for an
unknown and possibly non-existent future event.
• The President is authorized to unilaterally determine when federal assistance is
made available after an incident. Congress retains authority to control spending
by voting on supplemental funding legislation. In essence, a balance of powers is
at least theoretically maintained through this process.
• A large balance in the DRF may be subject to transfer or rescission. Such actions
could carry an additional negative consequence if a large disaster were to take
place after funds have been withdrawn. An emergency supplemental can be sized
according to the needs of the actual incident.

(...continued)
September 2006. The Department of Defense (DOD) is the largest recipient of supplemental funding.
29 Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, Washington DC,
February 26, 2009, p. 36.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Arguments used by some of the opponents against the enactment of emergency supplemental
appropriations to augment the DRF include the following:
• Supplemental spending allows lawmakers to circumvent budgetary enforcement
mechanisms by deliberately underfunding programs in annual appropriations.
Because there is a perception that a supplemental appropriation must be passed
quickly, supplemental appropriations may be less likely to be scrutinized in the
same manner as an annual appropriation.30
• Reliance upon emergency supplemental appropriations may result in
unnecessarily high funding levels, as early damage estimates may overstate
actual needs. Maintaining DRF funds at a level that more accurately reflects the
needs would foster fiscal responsibility because all disaster response would have
to be budgeted with existing funds.
• Use of emergency supplemental appropriations may give the appearance of fiscal
irresponsibility on the part of the federal government, especially when they are
frequent and large. Peter Orszag, former Director of the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), voiced this concern when he stated: “The first step in
addressing this very deep fiscal hole is honesty. This budget will not play the
games that are typically played in which you assume that there will never again
be a hurricane or disaster.”31
• Emergency supplemental appropriations provide a vehicle for non-germane
provisions that may not pass on their own, or make the appropriation contentious,
thus slowing down federal recovery assistance after a disaster.
Comparative data on administration requests, annual appropriations, and supplemental
appropriations for the DRF are provided in Table 1 of this report.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations:
FY1989-FY2010
This section provides additional summary information on emergency supplemental appropriations
legislation enacted since 1989; it uses a broad concept of what constitutes emergency disaster
assistance. The funds cited include appropriations to all federal agencies that undertook disaster
relief, repair of federal facilities, and hazard mitigation activities directed at reducing the impact
of future disasters. Funds used for activities such as research or administrative costs have been
omitted from this analysis in an attempt to focus solely on disaster relief and assistance.
Moreover, counterterrorism, law enforcement, and national security appropriations are not

30 U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Supplemental Appropriations in the 1990s, March 2001,
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/27xx/doc2768/EntireReport.pdf.
31 CQ Financial Transcripts, “OMB Director Orszag and CEA Chair Romer Hold Briefing on the Fiscal 2010 Budget
Request,” press release, February 26, 2009, http://www.cq.com/display.do?dockey=/cqonline/prod/data/docs/html/
transcripts/financial/111/financialtranscripts111-000003061915.html@committees&pub=financialtranscripts&print=
true#speakers. The President’s request for the DRF for FY2010 was increased by $600 million over the FY2009
enacted amount of $1.4 billion.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

included in this compilation. Unless otherwise noted, this report does not take into account
rescissions approved by Congress after funds have been appropriated for disaster assistance.
Since FY1989, Congress has appropriated roughly $292 billion32 for disaster assistance in 35
appropriations acts, primarily supplemental appropriations acts after significant catastrophes
occurred in the United States. The mean annual appropriation is approximately $13.3 billion
($292 billion / fiscal 22 years). The mean annual appropriation for all 35 bills is approximately
$8.3 billion ($292 billion / 35 bills). Current dollar figures for each appropriation and totals for
the period appear in Table 2.
Table 2. Emergency Appropriations for Disaster Relief: All Agencies
FY1989 – Present (Dollars in Thousands)
Date Signed
Emergency
Emergency
Fiscal
Disaster Event and Date of
into Law and
Assistance
Assistance Funding
Year
Major Disaster Declarationa
P.L. Number
Funding
(2010 dollars)
2010 Hurricane Katrina, severe
July 19, 2010
$5,563,600 $5,563,600
storms/flooding, wildfires, oil spill,
P.L. 111-212
various dates
2008 Hurricane Katrina, Midwest Flooding
Sept. 30, 2008
$23,389,800 $23,705,000
and the 2008 hurricanes, various dates
P.L. 110-329
2008 Hurricane Katrina and other hurricanes
June 30, 2008
$8,381,805 $8,494,758
in the 2005 season
P.L. 110-252
2008 Hurricane Katrina & California
Nov. 13, 2007
$6,355,000
$6,440,639
Wildfires,
P.L. 110-116
October 24, 2007
2007 Hurricane
Katrina,
May 25, 2007
$7,679,000 $8,079,064
Aug. 29, 2005
P.L. 110-28
2006 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Aug. -
June 15, 2006
$19,340,000
$20,922,887
Sept. 2005
P.L. 109-234
2006 Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Aug. -
Dec. 30, 2005
$29,046,985 $31,424,342
Sept. 2005
P.L. 109-148
2005 Hurricane
Katrina
Sept. 8, 2005
$51,800,000 $57,847,312
Aug. 29, 2005
P.L. 109-62
2005 Hurricane
Katrina
Sept. 2, 2005
$10,500,000 $11,725,806
Aug. 29, 2005
P.L. 109-61
2005 Hurricanes Ivan, Jeanne,
Oct. 13, 2004
$11,103,887 $12,400,193
Sept. 1, 2004
P.L. 108-324
2004 Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Sept. 1,
Sept. 8, 2004
$2,000,000 $2,309,158
2004
P.L. 108-303
2004 Wildfires, various dates
Aug. 8, 2004
$500,000
$577,290
P.L. 108-287
2004 Hurricane
Isabel

Nov. 6, 2003
$813,000 $938,673
Sept. 18, 2003
P.L. 108-106

32 Funding amount is in 2010 dollars.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Date Signed
Emergency
Emergency
Fiscal
Disaster Event and Date of
into Law and
Assistance
Assistance Funding
Year
Major Disaster Declarationa
P.L. Number
Funding
(2010 dollars)
2003 Storms, various 2003 dates
Sept. 30, 2003
$820,700
$972,797
P.L. 108-83
2003 Tornadoes, May 6, 2003
Aug. 8, 2003
$983,600 $1,336,750
P.L. 108-69
2002 Terrorist attacks,
Aug. 2, 2002
$6,167,600
$7,599,738
Sept. 11, 2001
P.L. 107-206
2001 Terrorist attacks,
Sept. 18, 2001
$20,000,000 $24,644,068
Sept. 11, 2001
P.L. 107-38
2001 Nisqual y
Earthquake
24-Jul-01
$365,700
$450,617
P.L. 107-20
2000 Hurricane
Floyd
Oct. 20, 1999
$2,480,425 $3,141,584
Sept. 16, 1999
P.L. 106-74
1999 Tornadoes,
various
dates
21-May-99
$1,296,723
$1,697,571
P.L. 106-31
1999 Hurricanes Georges, Bonnie, flooding,
Oct. 21, 1998
$1,830,977 $2,396,975
various dates
P.L. 105-277
1998 El
Niño
floods,
1-May-98
$2,602,173 $3,481,803
Feb. 9, 1998
P.L. 105-174
1997 Dakotas
flooding,
12-Jun-97
$5,863,883 $7,968,305
Apr. 7, 1997
P.L. 105-18
1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Apr. 25, 1995
27-Jul-95
$6,599,531 $9,444,604
P.L. 104-19
1995 Northridge
Earthquake,

Sept. 28, 1994
$417,500 $597,485
Tropical Storm Alberto, various dates
P.L. 103-327
1994 Midwest floods, CA fires, and
Feb. 12, 1994
$8,837,952 $13,006,460
Northridge earthquake
P.L. 103-211
Jan. 17, 1994
1993 Midwest
floods,
Aug. 12, 1993
$3,494,750 $5,274,775
June 11, 1993
P.L. 103-75
1993 Hurricanes Andrew, Iniki,
2-Jul-93
$52,345 $79,007
various dates
P.L. 103-50
1992 Hurricanes Andrew, Iniki,
Sept. 23, 1992
$5,767,116 $8,965,132
Aug. 24, 1992
P.L. 102-368
1992 L.A. riots/Chicago flood, various dates
22-Jun-92
$469,650 $730,083
P.L. 102-302
1992 Hurricane
Bob,
Dec. 12, 1991
$943,000 $1,465,918
various dates
P.L. 102-229
1990 Hurricane Hugo, Exxon Valdez, various
25-May-90
$670,412 $1,118,721
dates
P.L. 101-302
1990 Hurricane Hugo,
Oct. 26, 1989
$2,850,000
$4,755,815
Loma Prieta Earthquake, Oct. 18, 1989
P.L. 101-130
1989 Hurricane
Hugo,
Sept. 29, 1989
$1,108,000 $1,950,402
Sept. 20, 1989
P.L. 101-100
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Date Signed
Emergency
Emergency
Fiscal
Disaster Event and Date of
into Law and
Assistance
Assistance Funding
Year
Major Disaster Declarationa
P.L. Number
Funding
(2010 dollars)
1989 Fires on federal lands, various dates
30-Jun-89
$348,969 $614,287
P.L. 101-45
Total

$250,444,803
$292,121,619
Source: Supplemental funding totals derived, in part, from CRS analysis of emergency appropriations after
disasters, FY1989-FY2010. Other supplemental funding totals obtained from Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
Supplemental Appropriations series, including “CBO Data on Supplemental Budget Authority for the 2000s,”
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6630&type=1. Totals for Administration requests were obtained from OMB
correspondence to Congress and from the House Appropriations Committee Budget Estimates volumes, Table
VIIIa. Editions for recent Congresses through the 107th are on the Government Printing Office GPO Access
Congressional Documents site, http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/cdocuments/budgets.html.
a. Data in this column represent the date the President issued a major disaster declaration for the disaster
that appeared to be the primary catalyst for the supplemental appropriations legislation. In a series of
disasters (such as the Midwest floods of 1993) this date represents the first of several declarations
associated with that particular disaster. In some instances, identifying which disasters were primarily
associated with consideration of the supplemental appropriations was not possible.
As reflected in Table 2, supplemental appropriations have generally been enacted as stand-alone
legislation. In some instances, however, emergency disaster relief funding has been enacted as
part of regular appropriations measures, continuing appropriations acts (continuing resolutions),
or as a part of omnibus appropriations legislation. Requested funding levels noted in the third
column of Table 2 reflect House Appropriations Committee data on total requested funding for
the entire enacted bill. Where possible, OMB data taken from correspondence to Congress
requesting emergency supplemental funding have been used to identify dates of Administration
requests for supplemental funding.33
Recent Enacted Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
In the 111th Congress, H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act of 2010, was
introduced in the House by Representative David Obey on March 21, 2010. The bill included
$5.1 billion for the DRF. During consideration H.R. 4899 became a vehicle for additional non-
disaster funding including $33 billion in war funding for the Department of Defense, and funding
for court case relief for veterans, Native Americans and minority farmers. The bill was signed
into law on July 29, 2010, and became P.L. 111-212.
In addition to the $5.1 billion provided for the DRF, other types of disaster assistance in P.L. 111-
212 included $18 million for forest restoration, $49 million for the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) for long-term recovery and infrastructure restoration for floods and
another $5 million for technical assistance for activities associated with the Deepwater Horizon
oil spill. The act provided $100 million to the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for housing and economic revitalization and roughly $26 million was provided to the

33 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Website on Supplementals, Amendments, and Releases
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/omb/budget/amendments.htm contains a list of the presidential
submission transmittals from FY2008 and FY2009(calendar year 2008). Prior fiscal year submissions back to FY2003
are available.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Department of the Interior to address environmental and fishery impacts resulting from the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In the 110th Congress, President George W. Bush signed into law four measures (P.L. 110-28, P.L.
110-116, P.L. 110-252, and P.L. 110-329) that provided roughly $45 billion in supplemental
appropriations for disaster relief and recovery (most of it for the DRF). P.L. 110-28, signed on
May 25, 2007, included an appropriation of $7.6 billion for disaster assistance, $6.9 billion of
which was classified for Hurricane Katrina recovery. P.L. 110-116, signed into law on November
13, 2007, provided a total of $6.3 billion for continued recovery efforts related to Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, and for other declared major disasters or emergencies. P.L. 110-116
also included $500 million for firefighting expenses related to the 2007 California wildfires. P.L.
110-252, signed into law June 30, 2008, provided $8.4 billion in disaster assistance, most of
which was directed at continuing recovery needs resulting from the 2005 hurricane season.
P.L. 110-329, signed into law on September 30, 2008, included an appropriation for emergency
and disaster relief of $23.4 billion. Of this amount, roughly $2.9 billion was continued disaster
relief for the 2005 hurricane season. The largest share of the funding (just over $8.8 billion),
however, was for a string of disasters that occurred in 2008 including Hurricanes Gustav and Ike,
wildfires in California, and the Midwest floods. One of the largest funding components in P.L.
110-329 was designated for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD)
Community Development Fund, which received $6.5 billion specifically for disaster relief, long-
term recovery, and economic revitalization for areas affected by the 2008 disasters. Other funding
in the law included $135 million for wildfire suppression, and a $100 million direct appropriation
for the American Red Cross for reimbursement of disaster relief and recovery expenditures
associated with emergencies and disasters that took place in 2008.34
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma
Since FY2005, a number of supplemental appropriations have been enacted to provide the Gulf
Coast disaster relief and recovery assistance after Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. The
following section provides examples of federal assistance provided in each supplemental
appropriation.
Measures Enacted in FY2010
P.L. 111-212 provided FEMA funding for ongoing recovery projects in the Gulf Coast and to pay
claims awarded by arbitrators to state, local, and nonprofits for damages resulting from Hurricane
Katrina. The claims were the result of damage disputes. In the case of Louisiana’s Charity
Hospital, FEMA questioned whether all the damages to the aging hospital were storm-related and
offered the state $150 million for repairs. The state disagreed and appealed the decision. The
arbiters agreed with the state and ruled that FEMA must pay the state $475 million for repairs to
the hospital.

34 Congress did not meet the full request of the American Red Cross, which requested $150 million for reimbursement
of disaster relief and recovery expenditures as a result of disasters occurring in 2008. This is not the first time Congress
appropriated funds for the organization. In 2004, Congress gave $70 million in aid to the American Red Cross after
four hurricanes hit Florida (118 Stat, 1251-1252).
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Although some of the disaster assistance in P.L. 111-212 funds Gulf Coast recovery, the amount
of assistance for projects related to the 2005 hurricane season is unclear. Thus, funding data from
P.L. 111-212 has been excluded from the following summary section and Table 3.
Measures Enacted in FY2008
On June 30, 2008, Congress enacted the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252).
Some of the funding in P.L. 110-252 includes $100 million for the Economic Development
Administration’s economic development assistance programs, $73 million for the Louisiana Road
Home Program, and $300 million for HUD’s Community Development fund. The majority of
disaster assistance funding (over $6 billion) in P.L. 110-252 was directed to the Corps of
Engineers for projects aimed at repairing damages incurred during the 2005 hurricane season, as
well as programs designed to mitigate against future hurricanes.35
Another supplemental, the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing
Appropriations Act of 2009, was passed three months later on September 30, 2008 (P.L. 110-329).
P.L. 110-329 includes ongoing disaster relief for destruction resulting from the 2005 hurricane
season, including $85 million for the Tenant-Based Assistance Program and $15 million for the
Public Housing Capital Fund (administered by HUD), and $15 million for school education
programs to help local educational agencies with increased homeless students enrollments as a
result of the 2005 hurricanes (administered by the Department of Education). The amount
provided in the statute for disaster relief as a result of the 2005 hurricane season is roughly $2.9
billion.36
Measures Enacted in FY2007
On May 25, 2007, the President signed into law P.L. 110-28, which appropriated $120 billion in
emergency supplemental funding for Iraq, Afghanistan, and other matters, including $6.9 billion
for continued Gulf Coast relief and waived cost-shares for the Gulf Coast states. The measure was
a successor to previous emergency supplemental legislation in the 110th Congress, H.R. 1591,
which had been vetoed by the President on May 1, 2007. This was the fifth supplemental measure
enacted in the 110th Congress containing disaster assistance specifically provided in response to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The sixth supplemental measure enacted as part of P.L. 110-116 on
November 13, 2007, provided an additional $6.3 billion for emergency assistance, most, but not
all, of which can be attributed to the Gulf Coast recovery. The $3 billion appropriated for HUD’s
Community Planning and Development Fund can only be used for the Louisiana Road Home
program,37 but the $2.9 billion appropriated for the DRF can be used not only for the Gulf Coast
but for other declared disasters as well.
After the enactment of P.L. 110-252, the total amount appropriated by Congress in supplemental
funding after the 2005 hurricanes surpassed the $130 billion mark. In addition to these rescissions

35 See CRS Report RL33188, Protecting New Orleans: From Hurricane Barriers to Floodwalls, by Nicole T. Carter.
36 Some of the funding in P.L. 110-329 was directed at the 2005 hurricanes and hurricanes, flooding, and other disasters
occurring in 2008. An exact amount for each of these events could not be identified from the legislative text.
37 See CRS Report RL34410, The Louisiana Road Home Program: Federal Aid for State Disaster Housing Assistance
Programs, by Natalie Keegan.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

and appropriations, Congress enacted other funding changes by transferring $712 million from
FEMA to the Small Business Administration for disaster loans (P.L. 109-174).
Measures Enacted in FY2006
Later, when Hurricanes Rita and Wilma struck, Congress enacted two additional emergency
supplemental appropriations; the costs of both were offset by rescissions. The FY2006
appropriations legislation for the Department of Defense (P.L. 109-148) rescinded roughly $34
billion in funds previously appropriated (almost 70% of which was taken from funds previously
appropriated to DHS) and appropriated $29 billion to other accounts primarily to pay for the
restoration of federal facilities damaged by the hurricanes).38 Also in FY2006, Congress agreed to
an Administration request for further funding—$19.3 billion was appropriated in supplemental
legislation (P.L. 109-234) for recovery assistance, with roughly $64 million rescinded from two
accounts ($15 million from flood control, Corps of Engineers, and $49.5 million from Navy
Reserve construction, Department of Defense).
Measures Enacted in FY2005
In response to the widespread destruction caused by three catastrophic hurricanes at the end of the
summer of 2005, Congress enacted four emergency supplemental appropriations bills. Two of the
bills were enacted as FY2005 emergency supplemental appropriations after Hurricane Katrina
devastated parts of Florida and Alabama and resulted in presidential major disaster declarations
for all jurisdictions in Louisiana and Mississippi. The two emergency supplemental
appropriations (P.L. 109-61 and P.L. 109-62) together provided $62.6 billion for emergency
response and recovery needs; most of the appropriations in these two bills funded the DRF.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma by Federal Agency
The primary recipient of emergency supplemental appropriations related to Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma is DHS, which has received 57% of emergency supplemental funding for
disaster assistance. HUD received 16%, DOD Army Corps of Engineers received 13%, the DOD
received another 7% for miscellaneous activities, and the Department of Transportation received
3%.39 Table 3 provides information on the appropriations made in the eight emergency
supplemental appropriations enacted largely to address losses associated with Hurricanes Katrina,
Rita, and Wilma and identify the departments and agencies that received funding for disaster
relief.


38 In requests to Congress, President Bush termed the sequence of events as a “reallocation” of funds.
39 See Table 3.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Table 3. FY2005-FY2008 Supplemental Disaster Appropriations After Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma
(thousands of current dollars)

FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
TOTAL
P.L. 109-
P.L. 110-
P.L. 110-
P.L. 110-
P.L. 110-
Department
P.L. 109-61
P.L. 109-62
148 P.L.
109-234 28
116
252
329 Department
Agriculture

$1,183,000
$152,000a
$38,000
$1,373,000
Department of Commerce


$55,000
$150,000
$110,000

$100,000
$481,000
$896,000
Defense-Military $500,000
$1,400,000 $5,754,000 $1,488,000b
$9,142,000
Defense-Civil/Corps of
$400,000 $2,900,000 $3,686,000c $1,433,000
$6,366,988 $1,621,200 $16,407,188
Engineers
Education and related

$1,600,000
$285,000
$60,000

$30,000
$1,975,000
agencies
Health and Human Services


$640,000
$12,000



$600,000d
$1,252,000
Homeland Security
$10,000,000
$50,000,000
$285,000
$6,662,000
$4,110,000
$2,900,000

$20,000
$73,977,000
Housing and Urban

$11,890,000
$5,200,000
$7,000
$3,000,000
$373,000
$150,000
$20,620,000
Development
Interior

$70,000
$256,000
$10,000
e
$336,000
Justice

$229,000
$9,000
$50,000



$288,000
Labor

$125,000
$16,000




$141,000
Transportation

$2,798,000
$702,000f $906,020


$4,406,020
Veterans Affairs


$658,000
$586,000
$14,500



$1,258,500
Armed Forces Retirement

$176,000

$176,000
Home
Corp. for National &

$10,000

$10,000
Community Svc
Environmental Protection

$8,000
$13,000

$21,000
Agency
General Services

$38,000
$37,000

$75,000
Administration
CRS-17

---

FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
TOTAL
P.L. 109-
P.L. 110-
P.L. 110-
P.L. 110-
P.L. 110-
Department
P.L. 109-61
P.L. 109-62
148
P.L. 109-234
28
116
252
329
Department
Historically Black Colleges

$15,000

$15,000
Cap. Financing
Nat’l Aeronautics & Space

$350,000
$35,000
$20,000

$405,000
Admin.
Judiciary

$18,000





$18,000
Small Business

$446,000
$542,000
$181,070

$1,169,070
Administration
Total
$10,500,000 $51,800,000 $29,047,000 $20,032,000 $6,901,590 $5,900,000 $6,839,989 $2,910,200 $133,960,778
Source: Congressional Research Service. Numbers have been rounded.
a. Does not include authority for $500 million in direct assistance to be drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation, authorized in Title III of P.L. 109-234.
b. Includes rescissions and military construction accounts.
c. Includes rescissions.
d. This funding amount is divided between the 2005 hurricane season, and hurricanes, floods, and other disasters that occurred in 2008.
e. In Division B of P.L. 110-116, 121 Stat. 1342-1343, Section 157 provides $329 million for Forest Service Wildland Fire Management and $171 million for Bureau of
Land Management Wildland Fire Management. This funding is not included in the table since the funding was for wildland firefighting activities and not related to Gulf
Coast hurricane relief and recovery.
f.
Department of Transportation funds derived from Highway Trust Fund rescission.

CRS-18

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Issues for Congress
Authorizing the DRF
As mentioned earlier in this report, the DRF has not been authorized explicitly by Congress.
Authorization measures are generally used to establish, continue, or modify an agency or program
for a fixed or an indefinite period of time. The measures are also used to explicitly name accounts
or programs.40 Authorizations also establish the duties and functions of an agency or program, its
organizational structure, and the responsibilities of agency or program officials. One function of
such legislation is to authorize subsequent spending in appropriations bills for specific agencies,
programs, projects, accounts, or funds; such authorizations may include spending ceilings.41
It may be argued that a large account such as the DRF should be authorized specifically by name
to ensure these functions are formally established. Others may view this as unnecessary because
they believe the Stafford Act, which authorizes appropriations to carry out disaster relief,
preparedness, and hazard mitigation activities is sufficient.42
If authorizing the DRF became an issue of active debate, Congress could consider legislation
similar to Section 329 of H.R. 3377 (introduced in the 111th Congress) to authorize the DRF, or it
could elect to maintain the DRF as described under 42 U.S.C. 5197e of the Stafford Act.
Restructuring Budgetary Procedures
Some proposals have been advanced to reduce the need for emergency supplemental
appropriations. For example, the Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief43 offered
several policy options for changing budgetary procedures for funding disaster assistance. Some of
these options for restructuring the budgetary process include the following:
• Eliminate any Nonemergency Funding in a Bill. Many emergency
supplemental bills include a variety of funding and other needs in a single bill.
Eliminating nonemergency (or nongermane) elements from legislation could
prevent the passage of legislation that might not pass Congress if it were not
attached to an emergency supplemental appropriation. Such action may make
emergency supplemental appropriations less controversial and ensure expedited
enactment.
• Strengthening Criteria. The Bipartisan Task Force offered the use of more strict
criteria as a policy option. If specific criteria were enforced, it is argued,
Congress and the President would have to issue written justifications for

40 CRS Report RS20371, Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process, by Bill Heniff Jr.
41 A ceiling arguably limits the amount of funding an account may receive. The ceiling however, is not binding,
Congress may appropriate funds at levels above the authorization.
42 42 U.S.C. 5197e.
43 U.S. Congress, Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief, Federal Disaster Assistance, Report of the
Senate Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief, 104th Cong., 1st sess., March 15, 1995, No. 104-4 (Washington: GPO,
1995), pp. 69-74.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

designating appropriations as emergencies. Proponents of rewriting the criteria
say the measure would open the debate on the use of emergency supplemental
appropriations by adding an additional layer of scrutiny to the emergency
appropriation process. Opponents may argue that changing the criteria may create
unnecessary delays for appropriating needed emergency funding.
• Increase Funding to the DRF. As mentioned earlier in this report, Congress
may decide to increase the funding level of the DRF through annual
appropriations. Doing so could eliminate, or at least greatly decrease, the need
for emergency supplemental funding.
• The Creation of a Rainy-Day Fund. A rainy-day fund, also known as a reserve
account, would be financed by cuts in other discretionary accounts, or through
revenue raising measures. Spending from this fund would then be allowed only
when needed for expensive disasters. Proponents of this policy option would
likely argue a rainy-day fund carries several advantages. For one, in contrast to
emergency supplemental appropriations which increase the federal deficit
through borrowing funds, rainy-day accounts do not add to the federal deficit
because they are funded through savings and/or revenue raising measures.
Furthermore, the balance for a rainy-day fund would increase during periods in
which there are few, or relatively small disasters. Another advantage would be
that a rainy-day fund would not require a restructuring of the process of
administering disaster relief.
• The Creation of a Contingency Fund. A contingency fund based on a cost
analysis of previous disasters could be created for use after large a disaster
occurs. A contingency fund could be funded at a level sufficient for large
disasters, while relatively routine disasters would still be funded through the
DRF. Unlike a rainy-day fund—which pays for disasters through savings and
revenue generating measures—a contingency fund would receive an annual
appropriation. As the contingency fund is drawn down, the account would be
replenished through regular appropriations, obviating the need for emergency
supplemental appropriations. During congressional testimony, James Lee Witt,
who was the Director of FEMA during the Clinton Administration, summarized
the fund as follows:
What we did and what worked so well with Congress and with OMB was we were able
to use that five year cost analysis to set up a contingency fund that was under OMB that
was budgeted, that you did not have to go back for supplementals every time you had a
disaster declaration. And then all we would do then is go to OMB and say we have a
Presidential disaster declaration that’s going to cost $400 million.44
• Model Federal Disaster Funding on State Statutes. In the majority of states,
the first recourse for funding disaster relief is to reallocate departmental
appropriations to meet emergency needs. Should the reallocation prove
insufficient, the legislature may be called into special session to approve the
appropriation of additional funds. In some states, local agency funds must be
exhausted before state financial assistance is requested.

44 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Small Business, Hearing on Disaster Relief and Access to Capital Legislation,
110th Cong., 1st sess., March 8, 2007, 110-6.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

In other states, state statutes impose limits on the amount that may be expended on a given
disaster. For example, the governor of Alaska may use up to $1 million in state funds per year for
disaster assistance. Another example is Hawaii, which caps the amount of funding for a single
disaster at $1 million.45
Proponents of applying the model used by some states may claim that such measures would
reduce the amount needed to fund the DRF. Opponents of the measure, on the other hand, may
claim that reallocating funds from other accounts would jeopardize programs that already struggle
with tight budgets. They may also argue that should the reallocation of funds for disaster relief
become a standard practice, there would be a need to fund potential donor accounts at higher
levels, defeating the purpose of reallocating funds to save money. Finally, they may argue that its
usage would be impractical for large events such as Hurricane Katrina, which would still require
an emergency supplemental appropriation for disaster relief.
If there is interest in changing current practices in funding disaster relief, Members of Congress
may wish to further explore other policies for reforming the disaster funding budgeting process
such as the ones discussed above, or formulate other strategies that may potentially reform federal
disaster relief funding.
Additional Approaches for Funding Federal Disaster Relief
Should Congress become concerned that disaster relief negatively affects the federal deficit, or
that the federal share of disaster relief has become disproportionate, other avenues exist for
decreasing the amount of federal funding. Two of these include the following:
• Decrease the Federal Cost Share. Generally, when the President declares a
disaster the federal government reimburses 75% of a state’s disaster relief
expenses. The cost share could be altered so that states pay for more of their
disaster activities. For example, prior to the Midwest floods in 1993, the federal
cost share for mitigation was 50%. Reducing the federal cost share could
significantly decrease the amount the federal government pays for disaster relief.
• Strengthen Declaration Criteria. It may be argued that the current declaration
process allows what some call “marginal” disasters to receive federal funding. A
marginal disaster is an event that some argue could be handled by the state
without federal assistance. A set of standardized criteria could be developed to
ensure that only events meeting a certain criteria would be eligible for federal
disaster relief. Proponents would further argue that scaling back federal funding
may be beneficial because states may trim investments in mitigation if federal
assistance is too generous.46

45 CRS Report RL32287, Emergency Management and Homeland Security Statutory Authorities in the States, District
of Columbia, and Insular Areas: A Summary, by Keith Bea, L. Cheryl Runyon, and Kae M. Warnock.
46 James F. Miskel, Disaster Response and Homeland Security: What Works, What Doesn't (Westport, CT: Praeger
Security International, 2006), p. 126.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Oversight on Reporting
A 2006 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report indicated there was a need to improve
the information in FEMA’s weekly reports on the status of hurricane relief, and that OMB should
take action to improve transparency and accountability regarding the status of hurricane related
funding.47 Both OMB and FEMA agreed that these improvements were needed and would be
forthcoming. Congress could authorize oversight mechanisms to investigate the extent to which
FEMA has made such improvements. For example, section 203 of H.R. 5351 (introduced in the
109th Congress) would have required each state, local, tribal, and non-profit entity that received
federal assistance funds in response to catastrophic events or other emergencies to report to the
pertinent federal agency six months after the initial disbursement of resources. Furthermore, the
legislation would have also required any agency that disbursed federal assistance funds to report
to the Inspector General of the Department the purpose for which resources were provided, the
amounts disbursed, allocated, and expended, and the status of reporting by agencies that received
disbursements.
Concluding Policy Questions
Since the 1950s, the level of financial assistance given to states for disaster relief by the federal
government has steadily increased. In light of the federal deficit, the increased federal
involvement has raised policymaking questions concerning how disaster relief should be
equitably funded. Some of these questions include the following:
• The model for emergency and disaster response is built on the premise that
emergencies and disasters are local. Requests for assistance from the next level of
government are made only if that unit of government is overwhelmed. Some
would argue that some incidents funded by the federal government do not meet
this requirement. An example might be snow removal or repairs after minor
flooding. Is the federal government funding emergencies and major disasters that
do not meet the criterion of the states being overwhelmed before requesting
assistance? Are states using federal funding for disaster relief to protect their
budgets?
• Should federal disaster relief be subject to thresholds and maximums? For
example, an emergency or major disaster might not receive federal funding
unless damage estimates reach a certain level. As another example, the total
amount of federal relief for an event could be capped at a certain amount. After
this level has been reached, the state would then be responsible to pay for the rest
of recovery.
• Should the state’s fiscal capability factor into disaster relief? In 1986 FEMA
proposed measures to reduce the amount the agency contributed toward disaster
relief. One of the proposals argued that funding allocations should be made
according to each state’s ability to fund its own disaster relief. The determination
would be based on a comparison of the state’s per capita income with the national

47 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disaster Relief: Governmentwide Framework Needed to Collect and
Consolidate Information to Report on Billions in Federal Funding for the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes, GAO-06-834,
September 2006.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

per capita income.48 The calculation would then be used to create a sliding scale
for assistance. Communities capable of funding their own disaster relief would
receive limited or no assistance. In contrast, struggling communities would be
eligible to receive more federal assistance.49
• Some may argue that federal funding for disaster relief has become entrenched to
the point that it has contributed to unintended consequences. For example, it has
been argued that some states do not properly fund mitigation measures because
there is a presumption that federal funding is virtually guaranteed should an
emergency or major disaster occur.50 Those advocating this position could
arguably point out that federal involvement in disaster relief will continue to
increase and that in order to be fiscally responsible, changes should be made in
the way in which disaster relief is funded. Others may claim the function of the
federal government is to help states in their time of crisis. Withholding, or
limiting the amount of funding a state could receive for an incident would be
neglectful of that state’s needs.
• OMB’s A New Era of Responsibility projects that spending for disaster costs for
FY2010 will be $11 billion. By 2019 disaster costs are projected to rise to $30
billion.51 This represents an increase of 173% in disaster costs. On what basis did
the Administration calculate this increase in disaster costs?
• Congress requires FEMA to submit a monthly status report on the DRF.52 The
reports must detail obligations, allocations, and expenditures for Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Other than the DRF report, scant data exists on other
federal funding for emergencies and major disasters. In light of the amount of
federal funding going to these incidents, could better transparency be achieved by
requiring the same level of reporting for all declared emergencies and major
disasters?
These and other questions may be raised should Congress elect to debate the past and future
funding of disaster relief.


48 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Proposed Disaster Relief Regulations (Budget Driven
Rulemaking), committee print, 100th Cong., 1st sess., August 1987, 75-963 (Washington: GPO, 1987), pp. 4-5.
49 Under current law (42 USC 5163) areas cannot be precluded from receiving assistance solely on the basis of a sliding
scale or formula. Congress amended the Stafford Act in this fashion as a response to the 1986 proposed regulation.
50 See James F. Miskel, Disaster Response and Homeland Security: What Works, What Doesn't (Westport, CT: Praeger
Security International, 2006), or Rutherford H. Platt, Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events
(Washington DC: Island Press, 1999) for arguments against increased federal involvement in disaster assistance.
51 Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility: Renewing America’s Promise, Washington DC,
February 26, 2009, p. 117.
52 P.L. 110-161, also 42 USC 5208.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Author Contact Information

Bruce R. Lindsay
Justin Murray
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
Information Research Specialist
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
jmurray@crs.loc.gov, 7-4092

Acknowledgments
This report was updated with the assistance of Nicole Borland, a graduate student at George Washington
University and research intern at CRS.

Congressional Research Service
24

---