2017 Disaster Supplemental Appropriations: Overview
Released: 2018-03-20T00:00:00

Overview

2017 Disasters: Hurricanes and California Wildfires

In total, 57 major disasters were declared in 2017 under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq., henceforth the Stafford Act).

According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2017 was "a historic year of weather and climate disasters" for the United States:

In total, the U.S. was impacted by 16 separate billion-dollar disaster events tying 2011 for the record number of billion-dollar disasters for an entire calendar year....

More notable than the high frequency of these events is the cumulative cost, which exceeds $300 billion in 2017— a new U.S. annual record . The cumulative damage of these 16 U.S. events during 2017 is $306.2 billion, which shatters the previous U.S. annual record cost of $214.8 billion (CPI-adjusted), established in 2005 due to the impacts of Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita and Wilma.

As of December 2017, the 2017 hurricane season was the seventh most active on record in the Atlantic Basin, according to the National Hurricane Center. Four named storms made landfall on U.S. soil, three of which were major hurricanes (Category 3 or greater on the Saffir-Simpson scale), causing hundreds of billions of dollars in damage. Concurrently, a series of deadly wildfires began to ravage California, including some of the largest wildfires in the state's history.

Hurricane Harvey

Hurricane Harvey made landfall on August 25, 2017, on San Jose Island, TX, as a Category 3 hurricane. Harvey was the first hurricane to strike the coast of Texas since 2008 (Hurricane Ike) and the first major hurricane to strike South Texas since 1970 (Hurricane Celia). The storm remained over southeast Texas for several days. According to the National Weather Service, the storm produced "catastrophic devastating and deadly flash and river flooding. Southeast Texas beared [sic] the brunt of the heavy rainfall, with some areas receiving more than 40 inches of rain in less than 48 hours! Cedar Bayou in Houston received a storm total of 51.88 inches of rainfall which is a new North American record." The storm returned to the Gulf of Mexico and made a final landfall near Cameron, LA, on August 30.

Hurricane Irma

Hurricane Irma was "the strongest hurricane ever observed in the open Atlantic Ocean" according to the National Weather Service. It was one of five observed in the Atlantic Basin that attained Category 5 strength—characterized by sustained winds of at least 185 miles per hour. Irma passed just north of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico on September 6, 2017, at Category 5 strength, causing significant damage. After proceeding west and weakening slightly, Irma turned north, making landfall on September 10, first on Cudjoe Key as a Category 4 storm, then on Marco Island as a Category 3 storm. Irma then moved up the west coast of Florida on September 10 and 11, delivering heavy rains, strong winds, and storm surge flooding up the peninsula, with storm impacts extending into Florida's panhandle and into southern Georgia and Alabama.

Hurricane Maria

Hurricane Maria intensified from a Category 1 storm to a Category 5 storm on September 18, 2017—the second such storm to do so in the Caribbean during the 2017 hurricane season. Hurricane-force winds from the storm struck the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico early in the morning on September 20, 2017, with the storm making landfall as a strong Category 4 storm in Yabucoa, Puerto Rico. The storm moved northwest across the island, moving offshore in the early afternoon, although sustained heavy winds continued throughout the evening and overnight hours. Although the storm passed close by the Dominican Republic and the Bahamas, and remained for several days off the coast of Virginia and the Carolinas, it did not make additional landfalls on U.S. territory.

California Wildfires

According to the National Wildfire Center Coordinated Group's website, in the last 120 days of 2017, California faced 42 separate wildfire incidents. These fires burned over 700,000 acres and damaged or destroyed more than 9,000 structures, exceeding the total acres burned in the state in 2016 (560,815) and the structures destroyed nationwide (4,132) that year. The Thomas Fire, which began on December 4, 2017, in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, fed by strong winds and dry conditions, became the largest wildfire on record in the state, destroying or damaging over 1,000 structures.

2017 Disaster Supplemental Appropriations

Enacted 2017 Hurricane Season Supplemental Appropriations

Congress has passed three supplemental appropriations bills in response to Administration requests made in September, October, and November 2017 in the wake of these incidents. Table 1 outlines the three requests and enacted appropriations.

September 2017 Requested Supplemental (P.L. 115-56, Division B)

On September 1, 2017, the Trump Administration requested $7.85 billion in supplemental funding. The Administration requested $7.4 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) and $450 million for Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loans for FY2017, and signaled support for authorizing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to obligate funds in the DRF at an accelerated rate that would make up to $6.7 billion available during the period of a possible FY2018 continuing resolution. On September 6, the House passed the relief package requested by the Administration as an amendment to H.R. 601 . On September 7, the Senate passed the bill further amended to include an additional $7.4 billion for disaster relief through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Fund, a short-term increase to the debt limit, and a continuing resolution to fund government operations through December 8, 2017. The House subsequently passed the Senate amended version of the bill on September 8, 2017, and it was signed into law by President Trump the same day ( P.L. 115-56 ).

October 2017 Requested Supplemental (P.L. 115-72, Division A)

On October 4, 2017, the Trump Administration requested an additional $12.7 billion for the DRF, and $16 billion in debt cancellation for the National Flood Insurance Fund (NFIF). On October 12, the House passed H.R. 2266 with a further House amendment to a Senate amendment to the measure, which originally concerned bankruptcy judgeships. The House amendment included $18.67 billion for the DRF, and also allowed some of that funding to be transferred to two other programs: $4.9 billion would go to FEMA's Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program account, and $10 million to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General for oversight of disaster related activities. The measure also included $577 million for the costs of fighting wildfire on federal lands, and authority to use $1.27 billion of reserve funds for a grant to support nutrition assistance programs in Puerto Rico. The bill subsequently was signed into law as P.L. 115-72 on October 26, 2017.

November Requested Supplemental Appropriations (P.L. 115-123, Division B)

The Trump Administration made a third supplemental appropriations request for disaster relief and recovery funding on November 17, 2017, seeking roughly $44.0 billion in additional funding.

On December 18, 2017, H.R. 4667 was introduced with House Appropriations Committee language prepared in response to this request. The measure included roughly $81 billion in additional funding, as well as other matters, including disaster recovery reform, agriculture assistance, and nutrition assistance.

On December 21, 2017, H.R. 4667 was brought to the House Floor under the terms of H.Res. 670 , a resolution reported from the House Committee on Rules which added additional disaster-related tax provisions and a designation of low-income communities in Puerto Rico as opportunity zones. The bill passed the House 251-169, and was sent to the Senate.

On February 7, 2018, the Senate took up H.R. 1892 , an unrelated piece of legislation, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell introduced S.Amdt. 1930 , which would become the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. Subdivision I of Division B of the amendment was titled "Further Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2018" and included more than $84 billion in additional disaster assistance funding. The amendment was agreed to by a vote of 71-28 on February 9, 2018. The amended bill passed the House by a vote of 240-186 later that same day and was signed into law by President Trump as P.L. 115-123 .

Table of Requested and Enacted Supplemental Appropriations

Table 1 details the supplemental appropriations requested and enacted in the wake of the storms and fires of 2017, organized by appropriations subcommittee of jurisdiction. Grey columns at the right provide totals requested and enacted for each subcommittee as of March 7, 2018. Table notes include details about transfers and specific tasking of funds outlined in the respective public laws.

The table does not make note of resources available from existing balances in accounts funding disaster-related programs or resources provided through the annual appropriations process. For details on program operations and funding, see the CRS experts list included at the end of the report.

Issues in Disaster Relief Appropriations

The series of supplemental appropriations requested and provided in the wake of 2017's hurricanes and wildfires are the latest exercise of the congressional role of exercising "the power of the purse" to provide relief to state and local governments overwhelmed by disaster response and recovery needs, fund certain relief for individuals and small businesses, and repair damage to federal facilities.

In the process of exercising this power, a number of issues frequently reemerge in congressional debate. One is the use of exemptions from discretionary budget limits to enable investments in disaster relief, and whether such exemptions are properly structured. Although these exemptions are in law, and precedents for not directly reducing spending to offset many types of disaster costs exist, Congress periodically debates amendments to offset some or all of the cost of emergency and disaster relief appropriations measures. Congress also often asks questions about how quickly relief and recovery funding is made available, and how it can ensure that the funding provided is not spent in wasteful or fraudulent endeavors.

Adjustments to Spending Limits Under the Budget Control Act for Disaster Relief

Federal budget control laws passed since 2011 outline two exemptions to discretionary spending limits to facilitate spending in response to emergencies: an unlimited exemption that can be applied to meet emergency requirements, and a limited exemption for the specific purpose of paying the costs of major disasters declared under the Stafford Act.

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), passed in the first session of the 112 th Congress as part of a deal to raise the debt limit, placed statutory limits on discretionary spending. The BCA also provided exceptions to those limits for a number of purposes. One such exception was a reiteration of a long-standing exception for funding designated as an emergency requirement.

The Budget Control Act of 1990 had previously established an adjustment to discretionary spending limits to accommodate spending that both the President and Congress designate as an emergency requirement. Prior to the enactment of the BCA in 2011, this adjustment was frequently used to provide funding for the disaster response and recovery. However, it was also used for a broad variety of other purposes, some instances of which sparked debate over whether the designated funding was truly for unanticipated "emergency" needs, stoking controversy in some quarters over the potential for abuse.

The BCA also included a more specifically defined limited adjustment specifically for disaster relief, distinct from emergency funding. The BCA defined "disaster relief" as federal government assistance provided pursuant to a major disaster declared under the Stafford Act. 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 a modified 10-year rolling average of what has been spent by the federal government on relief efforts for major disasters.

The allowable adjustment for disaster relief does not, however, act as a limit on federal appropriations for disaster assistance. When Congress provides more funding for disaster relief than can be covered by the disaster relief adjustment in a given fiscal year, as was the case for Hurricane Sandy and the 2017 disasters, the emergency designation may be used for such funding.

All funding provided in the three enacted supplemental appropriations measures discussed in this report carries the emergency designation; none is designated as disaster relief pursuant to the BCA.

Offsetting Disaster Relief

Periodically, Congress has weighed whether some or all of the costs associated with disaster relief should be offset by cuts to other spending. The BCA spending caps would not need to be adjusted for funding that is offset. In most cases between 1990 and 2017 FEMA's DRF generally has been given a priority status for prompt funding in times of need, without offsetting spending reductions. Disaster assistance from other agencies has at times been funded through shifting resources from one program to another through appropriations legislation, but such activity is relatively rare. The largest single occurrence of this was in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, when P.L. 104-134 rescinded $23.4 billion from the DRF and subsequently appropriated a similar amount to other agencies to meet disaster response and recovery needs.

The question of offsets was salient in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Beginning in November 2012 there were calls for supplemental appropriations for Hurricane Sandy relief efforts, as well as calls for offsets to pay for them. On December 7, 2012, the Obama Administration requested $60.4 billion in supplemental appropriations in connection with Hurricane Sandy, including $11.5 billion for the DRF. The preamble to the request specifically opposed offsetting the cost of the legislation, and although amendments to offset the cost of the legislation were considered in the House and Senate, they did not become law.

During Senate debate on a Hurricane Sandy supplemental appropriations bill, a point of order was raised against the emergency designation for $3.4 billion in Army Corps of Engineers Construction appropriation for disaster mitigation projects. This point of order was sustained, eliminating the emergency designation for that particular appropriation. This meant that the $3.4 billion for the mitigation projects would count against the discretionary spending limits imposed by the BCA, limiting the amount that could be provided for other discretionary appropriations. At the time, some observers critical of the move considered this as setting a precedent by effectively requiring an offset for disaster assistance. Others considered this as including part of the cost of disaster preparedness (as opposed to disaster relief) within the discretionary budget.

All three of the Trump Administration's supplemental appropriations requests have sought an emergency designation for the funding that would be provided in the legislation. However, unlike the Trump Administration's first two requests for supplemental disaster relief funding, the November 2017 request sought to offset some of the additional spending as well, suggesting $14.8 billion in rescissions and spending cuts and $44.4 billion in savings from extending the nondefense discretionary spending limits for two additional years. Many of the rescissions and spending cuts had already been proposed in the Administration's FY2018 budget request. The House, however, did not elect to include these offsets in H.R. 4667 , the bill it passed in response to the November 2017 request. No offsets were included in any of the three supplemental appropriations measures discussed in this report.

The "Appropriate" Scope of a Supplemental Appropriation

Basic descriptions of appropriations legislation often focus on three factors: what entity is being funded, for what purpose, and how much is being provided. In the case of regular annual appropriations, the answer to the first two questions is largely determined by which subcommittee is drafting the measure, and the third is limited by the level of budget authority suballocated to that subcommittee from the allocation of total budgetary resources available to the Appropriations Committee.

Jurisdiction over supplemental appropriations, however, is generally reserved for the full Appropriations Committee, and may incorporate provisions from multiple subcommittees. In addition, when supplemental spending is designated as an emergency requirement (as is typically the case with disaster relief), it is often considered outside the constraints of a single subcommittee's suballocation. The scope, purpose, and size of a supplemental appropriations measure is instead typically driven by an event or events, the unfunded needs such events generate, and the associated political support for considering and enacting the legislation. In the case of disaster relief supplemental appropriations measures, these conductors may include a single unanticipated catastrophic event, a series of events over time, events occurring as the legislation is being developed and considered, or a combination of all three.

Although the colloquial naming practice of recent years has associated supplemental appropriations legislation with a particular event or problem that has drawn public attention, it is rare to have a supplemental appropriations bill focus on a single event to the exclusion of all other purposes.

At times, "controlling language" has been included in supplemental appropriations measures to clarify the intent of a specific appropriation, more often in the case of accounts that are not usually for disaster-related activities. Examples of the application of such language in the case of the 2013 supplemental in the wake of Hurricane Sandy and the 2017 disaster supplementals are discussed below.

Controlling Language and Hurricane Sandy

The "Hurricane Sandy" supplemental appropriations act ( P.L. 113-2 ) contained uniform language that specified many of its appropriations were "for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy." Most of these were for funding to accounts that usually do not provide traditional disaster assistance.

Ten provisions in the 48-page act did not carry that specific language. Five of them were for disaster relief-specific programs. The single largest appropriation, $16 billion for disaster relief through the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Fund, was available for disaster relief and long-term recovery from major disasters that occurred from 2011 to 2013. The second-largest appropriation, $11.5 billion for the DRF, also did not have language limiting its use.

Other appropriations not specifically directed to the consequences of Hurricane Sandy in P.L. 113-2 included funding for mitigation of the risks of future disasters through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Transportation, and funding to support or improve monitoring or forecasting of severe weather through the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.

Controlling Language and the 2017 Disaster Supplementals

The three supplemental appropriations bills, with their need to address multiple incidents and differing levels of complexity, show a different application of controlling language.

In P.L. 115-56 , which included the first supplemental appropriations measure responding to the disasters of 2017, appropriations were provided to the DRF, the Small Business Administration's Disaster Loan Program Account, and HUD's Community Development Fund. Controlling language was only added to the last of these, specifying the funding was for "disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster declared in 2017 pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act."

The second supplemental appropriations measure, included in P.L. 115-72 , provided appropriations to the DRF, debt forgiveness for the National Flood Insurance Program, and three separate appropriations for paying the costs of wildfire suppression. Of these, only the wildfire appropriations included directive language. A general provision also provided funding for a grant to support Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance Program, specifically noting the grant was "for disaster nutrition assistance in response to the Presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies."

The third appropriations measure was broader, addressing not only relief programs, but also paying direct costs of storm operations and damage incurred by many federal agencies, as well as funding programs to address specific concerns arising in the aftermath of the disasters. This measure included a range of forms of controlling language, the most common being "for necessary expenses related to the consequences of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria." Other controlling language of varying specificity targeted various subsets of the disaster-related needs across the United States, including the following:

Natural disasters; Natural disasters occurring in 2017; Damage reduction in flood and storm damage in states with more than one flood-related major disaster in calendar years 2014-2017; Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and 2017 wildfires; Hurricanes occurring in 2017; Hurricane Harvey; Hurricanes Irma and Maria; Major disasters; and Oversight of funds provided in the measure.

Such a range of overlaying specific intentions of controlling language is distinct from the unified controlling language from P.L. 113-2 . However, in both cases, because in most cases the language does not direct funding with a high degree of specificity, and much of the resources are for programs that allocate resources to state governments outside the legislative process, it is not possible to determine exact amounts provided for individual jurisdictions or incidents solely on the basis of the legislation.

Disaster Relief Appropriations Without Controlling Language

These appropriations measures continue a pattern of applying controlling language to appropriations that do not on a regular basis provide disaster relief. Such language generally has not been applied to accounts that have a primary mission of providing disaster assistance, such as the SBA disaster Loan Program Account and FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund. The absence of such specific controlling language for some of these accounts allows for flexibility needed to ensure resources are directed to meet evolving needs on short notice.

For example, appropriations for FEMA's DRF are regularly obligated to relief and recovery efforts from multiple disasters across many fiscal years, regardless of the legislative vehicle that provided them. Before passage of P.L. 113-2 , FEMA had already obligated almost $3.4 billion from the DRF for declarations linked to Hurricane Sandy from appropriations provided in other measures, and at of the end of 2017, almost twice the amount provided in the "Sandy Supplemental" for the DRF had been obligated by FEMA pursuant to disaster declarations from the storm. Similarly, funding for the DRF from recent supplemental appropriations will also be obligated for a wide range of recently declared and impending disasters.

Timelines for Obligation

Once Congress appropriates funding for disaster relief and recovery costs, the timeline for when that funding is used varies significantly from program to program. Comparison of these timelines in an effort to assess program efficiency requires an understanding of differences in mission and program structure to ensure assessments are made in context.

For example, within relief provided through the DRF, some costs are borne up front, such as emergency protective measures and much of the individual assistance program, and funding is obligated and expended relatively quickly. Other costs incurred by state and local governments are reimbursed by the federal government after the work is complete—projects to restore major infrastructure often follow this model and can take longer to obligate and expend the appropriated funding (e.g., FEMA's Public Assistance Grant Program). Other redevelopment funds may take time to be obligated as eligible state and local governments must develop a plan and have it approved—this process cannot begin until the funds are provided to the program and official announcements of the grant competition process are made (e.g., HUD's Community Development Block Grant Program).

Oversight of Spending

Concerns about waste, fraud, and abuse exist for a variety of federal programs, but supplemental disaster relief often receives special attention due to the fact that it is unusual, highly visible, provided in chaotic situations, and meant to address pressing needs. The 2017 disaster supplemental appropriations include $71 million in appropriations specifically for audits and oversight efforts, including $14 million for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), as well as transfers of more than $57 million. The federal government has encountered challenges effectively tracking some federal disaster relief spending in the past, but OMB has announced a new directive to track emergency and disaster relief spending related to 2017 that may improve the availability of information.

In September 2016, GAO released a report on disaster assistance provided by the federal government over the 10-year period from FY2005 through FY2014. GAO analysts attempted to survey disaster relief provided by 17 federal departments and agencies, and although they were able to identify over $277 billion in obligations for disaster relief provided over that period, obligations were not separately tracked for all disaster-applicable programs and activities. GAO noted in the report that

At least 5 federal departments and agencies reported that some disaster assistance programs or activities are not separately tracked because spending related to these activities is generally subsumed by a department's general operating budget or mission-related costs. For example, U.S. Coast Guard officials stated that most of the agency's disaster-related costs are associated with maintaining a constant state of readiness to immediately respond to disaster and emergency incidents, which is funded from the U.S. Coast Guard search and rescue appropriation and is not separately tracked. Similarly, the Army has deployed personnel in anticipation of a possible disaster event, even when FEMA has not requested the support. If a disaster does not occur or the activity does not result in a FEMA mission assignment, the Army will not be reimbursed for prepositioning personnel or assets in anticipation of an event and therefore may categorize the expenditure as training in the event of a disaster. Another 4 federal departments and agencies reported that obligations and expenditures specific to disaster assistance activities are not tracked or cannot be reliably estimated because there is no requirement for state or other recipients of the financial support to indicate whether or how much of the funding or assistance is used for disasters.

Placing consistent reporting requirements on agencies providing assistance through disaster-applicable programs would be one way to obtain a clearer picture of precisely how much the federal government is spending on disaster relief and recovery. Such reporting requirements could include pass-through requirements to state and local governments that receive the funds to provide contract and subcontract data to the providing federal agency. This could help inform budgeting decisions, and determine if a particular program is providing fewer resources than anticipated to its nondisaster missions. On its own, however, such information cannot provide an answer to questions of whether such funds are subject to waste, fraud, or abuse. Answering such questions requires detailed analysis of the individual programs and activities funded, how they complement or duplicate other assistance programs, and whether they are providing the assistance Congress intended.

On February 2, 2018, OMB issued a memorandum to all federal chief financial officers and budget officers about new requirements for tracking emergency funding and disaster relief funding. Agencies will be required to track these resources, starting with the first of the three 2017 disaster supplemental appropriations by applying a special accounting code to those resources. It remains to be seen if and how the information collected will be able to support congressional oversight efforts.

Tracking Hurricane Sandy Funding

Prior to 2017, the last time Congress attempted to specially track the use of a large amount of supplemental appropriations was in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

At that time, a provision of P.L. 113-2 specifically authorized the Recovery and Transparency Board (RATB) to "develop and use information technology resources and oversight mechanisms to detect and remediate waste, fraud, and abuse in the obligation and expenditure of funds" provided in the act. Pursuant to this authorization, the RATB, which was originally established to track funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, developed a website containing quarterly financial reports, a map of where contracts have been awarded, and other summaries of spending under the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013. The RATB had its mission extended and funded by Congress for FY2015, but its authority lapsed at the end of that year and it shut down.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) established a Program Management Office (PMO) in February 2013 to monitor funding flows for Hurricane Sandy Recovery. They coordinated their efforts with the RATB and provided public information on the status of funding as reported by the agencies. As of November 2014, the responsibilities of the HUD Sandy PMO were transferred to FEMA's Office of Federal Disaster Coordination (OFDC), and it was the only remaining source of interagency spending information of funds appropriated in P.L. 113-2 .

The authoritativeness of the data that were gathered by the RATB and the PMO was potentially limited by the fact that the agencies reporting their data did not use a consistent methodology. For example, while some agencies reported specifically on the resources provided by P.L. 113-2 , FEMA provided information on all obligations for Hurricane Sandy response and recovery—those funded by previous appropriations as well as those funded by P.L. 113-2 . This difference means the FEMA-reported data are not comparable with those of other agencies or departments.

2017 Hurricane Season Supplemental Appropriations: CRS Experts

The following list provides a point of contact for questions regarding the particular appropriations provided in the various supplemental bills considered or enacted in the wake of the 2017 hurricane season. Appropriations or legislative provisions are listed by the appropriations subcommittee to which CBO attributes their scoring.