FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Congressional research reportFeb 19, 2013
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for
Disaster Relief
-name redacted-, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
-name redacted-, Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
February 19, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R42869
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Summary
On January 29, 2013, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, a $50.5 billion package of
disaster assistance largely focused on responding to Hurricane Sandy, was enacted as P.L. 113-2.
In late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy impacted a wide swath of the East Coast of the United
States, resulting in more than 120 deaths and the major disaster declarations for 12 states plus the
District of Columbia. The Administration submitted a request to Congress on December 7, 2012,
for $60.4 billion in supplemental funding and legislative provisions to address both the immediate
losses and damages from Hurricane Sandy, as well as to mitigate the damage from future disasters
in the impacted region.
On January 15, 2013, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 152, the Disaster Relief
Appropriations Act, 2013. This bill included $50.5 billion in disaster assistance. This was the
third piece of disaster legislation considered by the House in the 113th Congress. H.R. 41, which
passed the House and Senate on January 4, 2013 and was signed into law two days later as P.L.
113-1, provided $9.7 billion in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance
Program. On January 14, the House passed H.R. 219, legislation making changes to disaster
assistance programs. The rule for consideration of H.R. 152 combined the text of H.R. 219 with
H.R. 152 upon its engrossment, to send them to the Senate as a single package.
The Senate passed H.R. 152 unchanged on January 28, 2013 by a vote of 62-36, and it was signed
into law as P.L. 113-2 the next day.
H.R. 152 was not the initial legislative response to the storm. In the 112th Congress, the Senate
passed a separate package of disaster assistance totaling $60.4 billion, as well as several
legislative provisions reforming federal disaster programs. While appropriations legislation
generally originates in the House of Representatives, the Senate chose to act on the
Administration’s request first by amending an existing piece of House-passed appropriations
legislation—H.R. 1. This passed the Senate December 28, 2012, by a vote of 62-32. The House
did not act on the legislation before the end of the 112th Congress.
This report analyzes the Administration’s request, the initial Senate position from the 112th
Congress, and H.R. 152, the legislative package developed in the House that was ultimately
enacted as Division A of P.L. 113-2. It includes information on legislative provisions as well as
funding levels. The report also includes a list of CRS experts available to provide more in-depth
analysis of the implications of the legislation. Division B of P.L. 113-2, which amends several
disaster assistance programs managed by FEMA, is discussed separately in CRS Report R42991,
Analysis of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013.
Congressional Research Service
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Legislative History........................................................................................................................... 1
112th Congress ........................................................................................................................... 1
113th Congress ........................................................................................................................... 2
Analysis of the Administration’s Supplemental Request and the Legislative Response ................. 3
Disaster Relief and Emergency Funding Under the Budget Control Act ................................ 10
P.L. 113-2 Appropriations by Subcommittee ................................................................................. 11
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies ............................................................................................................................... 11
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies ................................................................ 12
Defense .................................................................................................................................... 14
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies ......................................................... 15
Financial Services and General Government .......................................................................... 17
Homeland Security .................................................................................................................. 19
Homeland Security Legislative Provisions ....................................................................... 20
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies .......................................................................... 22
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies .................................. 24
Department of Labor ......................................................................................................... 24
Department of Health and Human Services ...................................................................... 25
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies ............................................... 27
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies ............................. 27
Department of Transportation ........................................................................................... 27
Housing and Urban Development ..................................................................................... 29
General Legislative Provisions ...................................................................................................... 31
Internal Control Plans .............................................................................................................. 32
Improper Payments ........................................................................................................... 32
Trigger to De-Obligate Unexpended Grant Funding......................................................... 33
Planning for and Projecting Future Vulnerabilities and Risks ................................................. 34
Mitigation of Future Power Outages ....................................................................................... 35
Embassy Security .................................................................................................................... 35
Tables
Table 1. FY2013 Disaster Supplemental Request and Congressional Action ................................. 4
Table 2. Selected CRS Experts by Supplemental Request............................................................. 36
Table A-1. Survey of FY2013 Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Request ....................................... 42
Appendixes
Appendix. Summary of the Administration’s Request .................................................................. 40
Congressional Research Service
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 46
Congressional Research Service
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Introduction
On October 25, 2012, Tropical Storm Sandy strengthened to become Hurricane Sandy. The next
day, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) elevated its ongoing preparedness
efforts, sending Incident Management Assistance Teams to states from North Carolina to
Vermont. Public and private sector entities began to ramp up efforts to prepare for the storm,
including a wide range of federal entities from the Federal Aviation Administration to the
Department of Energy. On October 28 and 29, as the storm neared land, the President signed
emergency declarations for eight states, as well as the District of Columbia, making federal
resources available to help state and local governments as they prepared and as the storm began to
impact coastal communities.1 Hurricane Sandy made landfall in New Jersey the night of October
29, 2012, as a Category 1 Hurricane, with a field of hurricane-force winds 900 miles across.2
The storm was responsible for at least 131 deaths in the United States, and damage estimates are
still being made. In early November EQECAT, an economic forecasting firm, estimated economic
losses from Sandy as $30 billion to $50 billion.3 As of January 31, 2013, the President had
declared major disasters for 12 states as well as the District of Columbia under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act).4
Given the scale of the damage, the Administration submitted a request to Congress on December
7, 2012, for $60.41 billion in supplemental funding and legislative provisions to address both the
immediate losses and damages from Hurricane Sandy, as well as to mitigate the damage from
future disasters in the impacted region.5
Legislative History
112th Congress
On December 12, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee published a draft amendment to
H.R. 16 on its website that would have provided $60.41 billion in supplemental appropriations.
The amendment also included a variety of authorizing provisions sought by the Administration as
1
Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Hurricane Sandy: Timeline,” http://www.fema.gov/hurricane-sandytimeline.
2
Voiland, Adam, “Comparing the Winds of Sandy and Katrina,” November 9, 2012, http://www.nasa.gov/
mission_pages/hurricanes/archives/2012/h2012_Sandy.html.
3
As downloaded from http://www.eqecat.com/news/in-the-news/2012/hurricane-sandy/, link verified January 23, 2013.
4
The Stafford Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. To date, the major disaster declarations are: New York (DR4085); New Jersey (DR-4086); Connecticut (DR-4087); Rhode Island (DR-4089); Delaware (DR-4090); Maryland
(DR-4091); Virginia (DR-4092); West Virginia (DR-4093); New Hampshire (DR-4095); the District of Columbia (DR4096); Massachusetts (DR-4097); Ohio (DR-4098); and Pennsylvania (DR-4099). More information on each
declaration is available at http://www.fema.gov/disasters.
5
Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
supplemental__december_7_2012_hurricane_sandy_funding_needs.pdf.pdf.
6
H.R. 1 was a continuing resolution for FY2011 passed by the House in the 112th Congress that was not previously
voted on in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
well as provisions originating in the Senate to modify disaster assistance processes and functions.
On December 17, 2012, this proposal was introduced as S.Amdt. 3338.7 On December 19, the
amendment was withdrawn and S.Amdt. 3395, with the same title and overall cost was offered in
its place. The Senate amended the amendment, passed it by voice vote and then passed the
underlying legislation (H.R. 1) on December 28, 2012, by a vote of 62-32. The House did not act
on the legislation before the end of the 112th Congress.
However, one facet of the Administration’s request did become law through the 112th Congress.
The Administration had sought a legislative provision to increase the bond limit for the Small
Business Administration’s Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund. A provision increasing the
bond limit to $6.5 million, and up to $10 million if a federal contracting officer certified it was
necessary, was included in P.L. 112-239, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2013.8
113th Congress
On January 4, 2013, the House and Senate both passed H.R. 41, legislation providing an
additional $9.7 billion in borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
which had been a part of the Administration’s request.9 The President signed it into law as P.L.
113-1 on January 6, 2013.
H.R. 152, which included another portion of the Administration’s supplemental request, was
introduced on January 4, 2013, and an amendment was filed that same day that included further
portions of the original request. The House Appropriations Committee described H.R. 152 as
including $17 billion “to meet immediate and critical needs,” and the amendment as including
$33 billion “funding for longer-term recovery efforts and infrastructure improvements that will
help prevent damage caused by future disasters.” On January 7, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute to H.R. 152 which contained some minor textual changes, along with a restructured
“long-term recovery” amendment, was posted on the House Rules Committee website.10
The House took up the legislation on January 15, 2013. The amendment with long-term recovery
funding passed with several amendments, and the amended bill passed the House by a vote of
241-180. The rule for consideration of the bill combined H.R. 219, a House-passed package of
legislative provisions reforming disaster assistance programs, with the appropriations legislation
upon engrossment of H.R. 152, and sent them to the Senate as a single package.
The Senate passed H.R. 152 unchanged on January 28, 2013 by a vote of 62-36, and it was signed
into law as P.L. 113-2 the next day. P.L. 113-2 is split into two divisions. Division A provides the
supplemental funding for disaster relief, while Division B contains the originating text of H.R.
219 amending a number of disaster assistance programs authorized in the Stafford Act.
7
Slight changes were made from the draft on the Senate website including designating what had been chapters as titles,
and altering the section numbering.
8
For more information, see CRS Report R42037, SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program, by (name redacted).
9
For more information, see CRS Report R42850, The National Flood Insurance Program: Status and Remaining
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
10
The analysis in this report of the House position is based on those texts from the House Rules Committee website.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Analysis of the Administration’s Supplemental
Request and the Legislative Response
Table 1 below outlines the Administration’s request for supplemental funding and mitigation
funding in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, and the congressional response to those requests. All
figures are in millions of dollars of budget authority.
The Administration’s request is redistributed by appropriations subcommittee. There is no
distinction made in this table for mitigation funding. A breakdown of the Administration’s request
that illuminates the Administration’s separate request for mitigation funding is included in the
Appendix.
Headers in bold italics note the Appropriations subcommittee of jurisdiction, followed by the
department or independent agency in bold capitals. Two columns then specify where a given
appropriation is going, by bureau, if applicable, then account or program. The Administration’s
request is next, in millions of dollars of budget authority, followed by the appropriations that
would have been provided if Senate-amended H.R. 1 from the 112th Congress had been enacted.
This is provided only for historical reference, as the bill expired with the end of the 112th
Congress. The last column reflects the amount of funding provided in H.R. 152 as it passed both
House and Senate and was ultimately signed into law. Where accounts are funded through
transfers, that number is shown in the table and the donor account is reduced accordingly.
After the table is an analysis of this supplemental appropriations bill in the context of the Budget
Control Act, and a more detailed discussion of the contents of the request and the positions taken
by the House and Senate in response to it.
Congressional Research Service
3
Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental
Table 1. FY2013 Disaster Supplemental Request and Congressional Action
By appropriations subcommittee, amounts in millions of dollars of budget authority
112th Congress
Subcommittee / Bureau
Account/ Program
President’s
Request
113th Congress
Senate-passed
P.L. 113-2
H.R. 1
(H.R. 152)
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Farm Service Agency
Emergency Conservation Program
15
25.09
15
Farm Service Agency
Emergency Forest Restoration Programa
23
58.855
23
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Emergency Watershed Protection Programb
180
125.055
180
Food and Nutrition Service
Commodity Assistance Program
6
15
6
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration
Operations, Research and Facilities
393
373
140
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration
Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction
100
109
186
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
Office of the Inspector General
0.02
0.02
0
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Salaries and Expenses
4
4
10.02
Drug Enforcement Agency
Salaries and Expenses
1
1
1
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and
Explosives
Salaries and Expenses
0.23
0.23
0.23
Federal Prison System
Buildings and Facilities
10
10
10
4
15
15
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration
CRS-4
Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental
Subcommittee / Bureau
Account/ Program
President’s
Request
112th Congress
113th Congress
Senate-passed
P.L. 113-2
H.R. 1
(H.R. 152)
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
Payment to LSC
1
1
1
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance, Army
5.37
5.37
5.37
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance, Navy
41.2
40.015
40.015
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance, Air Force
8.5
8.5
8.5
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance, Army National Guard
3.165
3.165
3.165
Operations and Maintenance
Operations and Maintenance, Air National Guard
5.775
5.775
5.775
Procurement
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
1.31
1.31
1.31
Revolving and Management Funds
Defense Working Capital Funds
24.2
24.2
24.2
Investigations
30
50
50
Construction
3,829
3,461
3,461
Operations and Maintenance
899
821
821
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
592
1,008
1,008
0
10
10
7
7
7
Defense
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Energy & Water Development, and Related Agencies
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Expenses
Financial Services and General Government
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Real Property Activities
Federal Buildings Fund
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
CRS-5
Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental
Subcommittee / Bureau
Account/ Program
President’s
Request
112th Congress
113th Congress
Senate-passed
P.L. 113-2
H.R. 1
(H.R. 152)
Salaries and Expenses
50
40
20
Office of the Inspector General
5
5
5
Disaster Loan Program Account
750
760
779
Homeland Security
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Customs and Border Protection
Salaries and Expenses
2.402
1.667
1.667
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Salaries and Expenses
0.855
0.855
0.855
Coast Guard
Operating Expenses
66.844
d
d
Coast Guard
Acquisition, Construction and Improvements
207.389
274.233
274.233
Secret Service
Salaries and Expenses
0.3
0.3
0.3
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster Relief Fund
11,500
11,484.735
11,484.735
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program
300
300
300
Science and Technology
RDAO
3.249
3.249
3.249
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office
Systems Acquisition
3.869
3.869
3.869
Office of the Inspector General
(by transfer)
0
3
3
National Flood Insurance Fundc
9,700
9,700
0
General Provisions for this title
0
13
0
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Resource Management
400
0
0
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Construction
78
78
68.2
National Park Service
Historic Preservation Fund
0
50
50
CRS-6
Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental
Subcommittee / Bureau
Account/ Program
National Park Service
Construction
Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement
Departmental Operations
President’s
Request
112th Congress
113th Congress
Senate-passed
P.L. 113-2
H.R. 1
(H.R. 152)
348
348
348
Oil Spill Research
3
3
3
Office of the Secretary
0
150
360
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Environmental Programs and Management
0.725
0.725
0.725
Hazardous Substance Superfund
2
2
2
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
5
5
5
610
810
600
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (FOREST SERVICE)
Forest Service
Capital Improvement and Maintenance
4.4
4.4
4.4
Salaries and Expenses
2
2
2
50
50
25
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Employment and Training Administration
Training and Employment Services
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Social Services Block Grant
500
500
500f
Administration for Children and Families
Children and Families Services Programs
100
100
100f
Departmental Management
Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund
200
200
195f
Office of the Inspector General
(by transfer)
0
0
5f
2
2
2e
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
CRS-7
Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental
Subcommittee / Bureau
Account/ Program
President’s
Request
112th Congress
113th Congress
Senate-passed
P.L. 113-2
H.R. 1
(H.R. 152)
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (MILITARY CONSTRUCTION)
Military Construction
Military Construction, Army National Guard
24.235
24.2
24.235
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Services
21
21
21
Veterans Health Administration
Medical Facilities
6
6
6
1.1
1.1
2.1
0.531
0.5
0.531
National Cemetery Administration
Departmental Administration
IT Systems
Departmental Administration
Construction, Major Projects
207
207
207
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Facilities and Equipment
30
30
30
Federal Highway Administration
Emergency Relief Program
308
921
2,022
Federal Railroad Administration
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
32
336
118
Federal Transit Administration
Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program
11,700
10,777
10,894
Office of the Inspector General
(by transfer)
0
6
6
17,000
16,990
15,990
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Community Planning and Development
Community Development Fund
Office of the Inspector General
(by transfer)
0
10
10
TOTAL
$60,408.669
$60,407.418
$50,507.684
Source: CRS analysis of FY2013 Supplemental Appropriations Request, as transmitted in a letter from Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management, to the
Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, December 7, 2012; H.R. 1, 112th Congress; H.R. 152, 113th Congress.
CRS-8
Summary Report: Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental
Notes:
a.
The Administration requested funding for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to carry out program activities authorized under the Emergency Forest
Restoration Program. The Senate amendment does not refer to the CCC as the authorized funding mechanism, but rather appropriates funds directly to the
Emergency Forest Restoration Program.
b.
This is described as funding for “Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations” in the Administration’s request.
c.
P.L. 113-1 was signed into law on January 6, 2013, providing the $9,700 million in additional borrowing authority requested for the National Flood Insurance
Program.
d.
Transfer authority is provided to other Coast Guard accounts from Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction and Improvements.
e.
The House derives these funds from unobligated balances, therefore they do not add to the bill’s budgetary score, according to CBO.
f.
P.L. 113-2 appropriates $800 million to the PHSSEF account, but requires the HHS Secretary to transfer specified portions of these funds as follows: $500 million to
the SSBG, $100 million to the Head Start program (within the Children and Families Services Programs account), and at least $5 million to the HHS Office of the
Inspector General (OIG). The remaining $195 million remains available to the HHS Secretary for other activities in the PHSSEF account.
CRS-9
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Disaster Relief and Emergency Funding Under the Budget
Control Act
The Budget Control Act (BCA)11 changed the way Congress accounted for federal funding for
disaster response and recovery. In previous years, Congress provided funds over and above limits
on discretionary appropriations by designating additional appropriations as being for emergency
needs. Budget authority provided in this manner did not count against funding limitations on
discretionary spending in budget resolutions.
Although the BCA included legislation allowing for emergency appropriations, the new law
included provisions that outlined separate treatment for disaster relief,12 as distinct from
emergency funding. Funding designated as disaster relief in future spending bills could be “paid
for” by adjusting upward the discretionary spending caps. This allowable adjustment for disaster
relief is limited, however, to an amount based on the 10-year rolling average of what has been
spent by the federal government on relief efforts for major disasters.13
This disaster relief allowable adjustment for FY2013 is $11.8 billion. Under the terms of the
continuing resolution signed into law on September 28, 2012 (P.L. 112-175), the amount of
disaster relief that would be provided under the BCA if the CR extended for the year was $6.4
billion. The Administration proposed using the remainder of the allowable adjustment for disaster
relief in its supplemental request, and using an emergency funding designation to ensure the
remaining resources provided through the request do not count against the FY2013 budget caps.
The Administration proposed designating all of the supplemental funding it sought as an
emergency requirement, with the exception of a portion of the request for the DRF, which would
be designated as being for disaster relief under the BCA. The Administration noted in the letter
accompanying the request that it was unclear how much of the disaster relief allowable
adjustment might be available pending the finalization of general FY2013 appropriations, and
that therefore these numbers could require adjustment. Senate-passed H.R. 1 proposed that $5,379
million in DRF funding be designated as being for disaster relief under the BCA, with all but
$3,461 million (for Army Corps of Engineers construction activities)14 of the remaining funding
in the bill designated as emergency funding.
P.L. 113-2 contains $41,669 million in emergency funding, $5,379 million for the DRF
designated as disaster relief, and $3,461 million for Army Corps of Engineers construction
activities that would count against the discretionary budget caps.15
11
P.L. 112-25.
The BCA also specifically redefined “disaster relief” as being federal government assistance provided pursuant to a
major disaster declared under the Stafford Act, not to be confused with funding provided for other types of incidents, or
exclusively resources provided through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).
13
For a more extensive discussion of this structure, see CRS Report R42352, An Examination of Federal Disaster
Relief Under the Budget Control Act, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
14
The emergency designation for the Army Corps of Engineers Construction account was stricken by a point of order
on the Senate floor. See Congressional Record, December 21, 2012, pp. S8341-S8342.
15
CBO, “Estimate of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (H.R. 152) as Cleared by Congress for the
President’s Signature on January 28, 2013,” January 29, 2013. The total score against the discretionary budget cap is $2
million lower due to conversion of some unobligated balances of budget authority to emergency funding in the bill.
12
Congressional Research Service
10
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
P.L. 113-2 Appropriations by Subcommittee
This section of the report is organized by alphabetically by subcommittee of jurisdiction. Except
where otherwise noted, all numbers are in budget authority rounded to the nearest million.
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies16
Both the President’s request and H.R. 152 as enacted (P.L. 113-2) included $224 million for
programs under the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee. The Senate bill,
H.R. 1 as amended, would also have provided $224 million for the same programs. Three of the
four programs that received funding under the President’s proposal and P.L. 113-2 are for
emergency land assistance and typically only receive funding through supplemental
appropriations bills, rather than annual appropriations bills. The fourth is a nutrition assistance
program. While the President’s request and P.L. 113-2 are similar, they are not identical. The
difference between the two is that the President’s proposal would have provided $150 million for
watershed protection mitigation efforts, while P.L. 113-2 added this $150 million to watershed
response and recovery. The Senate bill would have divided the $150 million for mitigation
between all four programs proposed under response and recovery.
The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Emergency Forest Restoration Program
(EFRP) are administered by the USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA). ECP assists landowners in
restoring the productivity of agricultural land damaged by natural disaster. Participants are paid a
percentage of the cost to restore the land to a productive state. EFRP assists private forestland
owners with damage caused by a natural disaster on nonindustrial private forest land. Both the
President’s request and P.L. 113-2 provided $15 million for ECP and $23 million for EFRP; the
Senate bill would have provided approximately $25 million and $59 million, respectively.
Following Hurricane Sandy, USDA made $15.5 million in previously appropriated ECP funds
available to producers in counties that received a major disaster declaration pursuant to the
Stafford Act. According to press releases, producers in counties without a declaration were still
encouraged to sign up in the event that future funds were made available (further discussed
below). Similarly, USDA announced that no funding is available under EFRP; likewise,
producers were encouraged to apply if future funding becomes available.17
The Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program and the EWP floodplain easement program
are administered by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS). The EWP program assists sponsors, landowners, and operators in
implementing emergency recovery measures for runoff reduction and erosion prevention to
relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by a natural disaster. The EWP floodplain
easement program is a mitigation program that pays for permanent easements on private land in
order to safeguard lives and property from future floods, drought, and the products of erosion.
The President’s proposal would have provided $30 million for EWP recovery and response and
16
This section prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy (7....) and Randy Aussenberg, Analyst in Nutrition Assistance Policy (7-....).
17
USDA, “Farmers and Ranchers Urged to Record Losses from Hurricane Sandy,” press release, October 31, 2012,
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/10/0337.xml&contentidonly=true.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
$150 million for EWP floodplain easements for mitigation. P.L. 113-2 did not include funding for
EWP floodplain easements and instead added $150 million to the general EWP program.
Similarly, Senate-passed H.R. 1 did not include funding for EWP floodplain easements, but rather
would have provided the equivalent of the President’s proposed $150 million to the other USDA
programs proposed for funding response and recovery efforts, including $125 million for general
EWP. Following Hurricane Sandy, USDA released $5.3 million in prior appropriated EWP funds
to 11 states to respond to imminent hazards to life and property.18 The EWP floodplain easement
program has not received funding since FY2009 and has no current funding available for
mitigation.19
The emergency agricultural land assistance programs are funded through supplemental
appropriations, rather than annual appropriations. As a result, funding for emergency agricultural
land assistance varies greatly from year to year. These programs traditionally do not require a
federal disaster designation from either the President or a state official. Recent changes in
appropriations and budget law, however, have altered how disaster funding for the programs may
be used. Funding appropriated in FY2012 was to be used for major disasters declared pursuant to
the Stafford Act. This same Stafford Act requirement was present in P.L. 113-2 with the additional
requirement that funding may only be used for expenses related to the consequences of Hurricane
Sandy. The Senate bill also included the Stafford Act requirement but only to a portion of the
appropriation for all three land assistance programs. The Senate bill did not include P.L. 113-2’s
requirement that funds only be used for Hurricane Sandy expenses.
The President requested and P.L. 113-2 provided $6 million for the Commodity Assistance
Program account—specifically for The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP).20 The
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $15 million for TEFAP. TEFAP funding provides
USDA commodity foods and administrative funding to food banks and other emergency feeding
organizations. In their request for $6 million, the Administration reasoned that “this amount is
equivalent to one month’s worth of TEFAP entitlement commodities in the affected areas.” In
annual appropriations, TEFAP funds are typically available for one fiscal year, but Senate-passed
H.R. 1 would have allowed the funds to be available through the end of FY2014. P.L. 113-2 did
not include this extended availability of funding. In addition, P.L. 113-2 granted USDA flexibility
to allocate foods and funds for administrative expenses to the Sandy-affected areas beyond the
TEFAP authorizing law’s parameters. Senate-passed H.R. 1 carried the same provision.
Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies21
The Administration’s request included $513.3 million for the accounts that are traditionally
funded by the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) appropriations bill. The
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $513.3 million for these accounts. P.L. 113-2 provided
18
USDA, “USDA Delivers Funding for Hurricane Sandy Recovery Projects in 11 States,” press release, November 8,
2012, http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/11/0342.xml&contentidonly=true.
19
Additional information on ECP, EFRP, EWP, and EWP floodplain easements—collectively referred to as emergency
agricultural land assistance programs—may be found in CRS report, CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for
Agricultural Land Rehabilitation.
20
Aside from TEFAP, many of the food assistance benefits provided and being provided by USDA’s Food and
Nutrition Service programs (such as the Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP)) require no
additional appropriations because the benefits are entitlements.
21
Prepared by (name redacted), Analyst in Crime Policy (7-....).
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
$363.3 million for the CJS accounts. As outlined in Table 1, the Administration’s request for the
CJS agencies included $493.0 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), $15.3 million for the Department of Justice (DOJ), $4.0 million for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and $1.0 million for the Legal Services
Corporation (LSC). Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $11.0 million less for NOAA and
$11.0 million more for NASA than the Administration’s request. P.L. 113-2 provided $167.0
million less than the Administration’s request for NOAA, $6.0 million more for DOJ, and $11
million more for NASA.
Some of the specific differences between the Administration’s request, Senate-passed H.R. 1, and
P.L. 113-2 are as follows.
•
The Administration requested $4.0 million for NASA’s Construction and
Environmental Compliance and Protection account. The Senate-passed H.R. 1
would have provided $15.0 million for this account. P.L. 113-2 provided $15.0
million for this account.
•
The Administration requested a total of $393.0 million for NOAA’s Operations,
Research, and Facilities (ORF) account. The Administration’s request would have
allocated most funding to mitigation projects that would have enhanced
resiliency of coastal communities and ecosystems. The Senate bill would have
allocated more funding to repairs, replacement, and enhancement of equipment
and facilities. P.L. 113-2, like the Senate bill, allocates more funding to repairs,
replacement, and enhancement of equipment and facilities.
•
Specifically, the Administration requested $360.0 million under the ORF
account to assess risks associated with storms and flooding, provide technical
assistance to improve preparedness and resiliency in coastal communities,
improve forecast and modeling capabilities to support mitigation efforts, and
stabilize and restore ecosystems. The Administration requested $13.0 million
under the ORF account to repair or replace damaged weather observation,
weather radio, and ocean observing assets and facilities belonging to the
National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and National
Weather Service. The Administration also requested $20.0 million to evaluate
impacts on natural resources, support mapping and charting missions, and
conduct marine debris assessments.
•
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $373.0 million for the ORF
account, of which $6.2 million was for repairing or replacing ocean
observing and coastal monitoring assets damaged by Hurricane Sandy; $10.0
million was for repairing and improving weather forecasting capabilities;
$150.0 million was for evaluating, stabilizing, and restoring costal
ecosystems damaged by the storm; $56.8 million was for mapping, charting,
damage assessment, and marine debris coordination and remediation; and
$150.0 million was for necessary expenses related to fishery disasters
declared in 2012.22
22
In addition to the fisheries failure that was declared for New Jersey and New York fisheries, during 2012 disasters
were also declared for Alaska Chinook salmon, New England groundfish, Mississippi fisheries, and American Samoa
bottomfish.
Congressional Research Service
13
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
•
•
P.L. 113-2 provided $140.0 million for the ORF account, of which $50.0
million was for mapping, charting, geodesy services and marine debris
surveys for coastal states impacted by Hurricane Sandy, $7.0 million was to
repair and replace ocean observing and coastal monitoring assets damaged by
Hurricane Sandy, $3.0 million was for providing technical assistance to
support state assessments of coastal impacts of Hurricane Sandy, $25.0
million was for improving weather forecasting and hurricane intensity
forecasting capabilities, $50.0 million was for laboratories and cooperative
institutes research activities associated with sustained observations weather
research programs, and ocean and coastal research, and $5.0 million was for
necessary expenses related to fishery disasters declared in 2012 that were the
direct result of Hurricane Sandy.23
The Administration’s request for NOAA included $100.0 million under the
Procurement, Acquisition and Construction (PAC) account to support state and
local acquisition of land to restore and build coastal resiliency in areas where
rebuilding physical infrastructure is not feasible or desirable, and on activities
that can increase the protective capacity of natural ecosystems. Senate-passed
H.R. 1 would have provided $109.0 million for the PAC account, of which $47.0
million was for the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program to support
state and local restoration in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy, $9.0 million was
for repairing NOAA facilities damaged by the storm, $44.5 million was for
repairs and upgrades to NOAA hurricane reconnaissance aircraft, and $8.5
million was for improvements to weather forecasting equipment and
supercomputer infrastructure. P.L. 113-2 provided $186.0 million for the PAC
account, of which $9.0 million was to repair NOAA facilities damaged in the
storm, $44.5 million was for repairs and upgrades to NOAA hurricane
reconnaissance aircraft, $8.5 million was for improvements to weather
forecasting equipment and supercomputer infrastructure, $13.0 million was to
accelerate the National Weather Service ground readiness project, and $111.0
million was for a weather satellite data mitigation gap reserve fund.
Defense
The Administration sought $90 million for the Department of Defense in accounts managed by
the Defense Appropriations subcommittees in its request for FY2013 supplemental appropriations
for repair and replacement of damaged equipment and facilities.
Both Senate-passed H.R. 1 and P.L. 113-2 provided $88 million for the Department of Defense,
following the same structure. The only difference between the bills and the request was a slightly
more than $1 million reduction in both bills in the $41 million request for Navy Operations and
Maintenance funding.
23
The amendment to H.R. 152 offered by Congressman Frelinghuysen (H.Amdt. 5) would have provided a total of
$290.0 million for the ORF account, which included $150.0 million for Regional Ocean Partnership grants to coastal
states impacted by Hurricane Sandy. However, the House adopted an amendment offered by Congressman Flores
(H.Amdt. 6), which struck the $150.0 in funding for Regional Ocean Partnership grants and reduced funding for the
ORF account to $140.0 million.
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies24
The President’s request, Senate-passed H.R. 1 in the 112th Congress and H.R. 152 as enacted (P.L.
113-2) all included $5.35 billion in supplemental funds for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) Civil Works program. The Corps receives annual appropriations through the Energy &
Water Development Appropriations bill. Major differences between the bills and the President’s
request are summarized below.25
While the three proposals shared the same total level of Corps funding, they differed in
distribution of funds across Corps accounts, eligible uses, and availability of funds.26 The Senate
bill and P.L. 113-2 as enacted both designated Corps funding as an “emergency requirement,”
with the exception of the Corps Construction Account funding.27 Thus, while the bills’ funding for
the Corps Construction Account counted against discretionary budget caps, their funding for other
Corps accounts did not count against the caps.
For the Investigations account, the President requested $30 million, while the Senate-passed H.R.
1 and P.L. 113-2 both provided $50 million. P.L. 113-2 set aside $29.5 million of these funds for
ongoing storm damage reduction studies in Hurricane Sandy-impacted areas of the Corps North
Atlantic Division (which spans the Atlantic coast from Maine to Virginia). Senate-passed H.R. 1
would have made $34.5 million available for a similar study, and expanded the study area to
include Gulf Coast areas in the Mississippi Valley Division impacted by Hurricane Isaac
(principally Mississippi and Louisiana). Senate-passed H.R. 1 also would have provided $15
million for an interagency planning process with federal and nonfederal officials that would have
developed plans to address coastal flooding risks and include innovative approaches to long-term
stability. P.L. 113-2 provided the Corps $20 million to conduct a comprehensive coastal flood risk
study of the Hurricane Sandy-impacted areas of the Corps North Atlantic Division.
For the Construction Account, the Administration requested $3.83 billion, including $9 million
for repair of existing Corps construction projects and $3.82 billion in “mitigation” funding for
projects to reduce damages from future storms.28 The Administration proposed allowing the
Corps to transfer the funds to other agencies, states, or local governments to implement elements
of plans that would have resulted from the studies funded in the Investigation account. Senatepassed H.R. 1 and P.L. 113-2 both agreed with the Administration’s request for $9 million for
repair of existing projects, but included $3.46 billion for all other construction needs,
24
Prepared by Charles Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy (7-....), and Nicole Carter, Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy (7-....).
25
The Administration’s request for the Corps included account-level funding requests and descriptions; it did not
include bill language, which complicates comparisons with some of the House and Senate provisions.
26
Supplemental appropriations for the Corps were proposed for five accounts: the Investigations account for new and
ongoing Corps studies; the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) account for flood fighting, preparedness
and response, and repair of eligible damaged nonfederal flood and hurricane protection projects; the Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) account for operational Corps projects; the Construction account for construction of new projects
or major upgrades; and the General Expenses account for administrative and oversight.
27
The Administration request did not specify whether the Corps funding was an “emergency requirement.” For more
information on this designation, see above section, “Disaster Relief and Emergency Funding Under the Budget
Control Act.”
28
The Administration used the term “mitigation” for Corps construction projects. Most Corps projects reduce flood risk
by reducing the vulnerability to the flood hazard (i.e., structures that reduce the probability of an area flooding), not by
reducing the consequence if a flood event occurs (i.e., limits the value of the damaged property). Typically it is the
latter type of activity that has been referenced to as “mitigation” among federal programs and floodplain mangers.
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
approximately $360 million less than the Administration’s request. The two bills differed in their
direction regarding the use of the funding. P.L. 113-2 designated the overall funding allocation for
rehabilitation, repair, and construction of Corps projects, while Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have
provided the funding for these same efforts as they relate to the “consequences of natural
disasters.” It would have also allowed for the transfer of up to $499 million in funds to other
Corps accounts “to address damages from previous natural disasters, following normal policies
and cost sharing.”29 P.L. 113-2 included no such provision.
Both Senate-passed H.R. 1 and P.L. 113-2 designated $2.90 billion of the $3.83 billion for
specific construction purposes. The enacted bill set the funding aside for projects that reduce
future flood risk and support long-term sustainability in coastal areas of the North Atlantic
Division affected by Sandy, while under Senate-passed H.R. 1 funding would have also been
available for projects in Gulf Coast areas of the Mississippi Valley Division affected by Hurricane
Isaac. The enacted bill provided that any project “under study” by the Corps in the North Atlantic
Division for reducing flooding and storm damage in areas affected by Sandy that the Secretary
determines is “technically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally feasible,” is
eligible for funding, provided House and Senate appropriations committees approve such a
recommendation. Eligibility for the construction funding in Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have
been based on the study demonstrating “that the project will cost-effectively reduce those risks
and is environmentally acceptable and technically feasible.”
The three proposals also differed in their approach to construction cost sharing. The construction
costs of Corps projects for flood control and coastal storm damage reduction generally are shared
65% federal, 35% nonfederal (33 U.S.C. 2213), with the nonfederal entity receiving credit toward
its share for the provision of lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas
(known collectively as LEERDs).30 Senate-passed H.R. 1 proposed to alter this practice, and
instead required that nonfederal sponsors provide 10% of project costs, plus the LEERD costs.31
P.L. 113-2 included a waiver for ongoing construction activities to be undertaken at 100% federal
expense. This waiver applied only to ongoing construction activities funded by the bill, not for
other construction projects.32 Both bills allowed nonfederal costs to be repaid over a 30-year
period. Both bills waived a requirement for congressional approval for projects that exceed 120%
of their authorization of appropriations under §902 of the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA) of 1986 (33 U.S.C. 2280).
Other differences between the three proposals included differences in the Corps Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) and the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) accounts. While
the President had requested $899 million for the O&M account, both P.L. 113-2 and Senatepassed H.R. 1 provided $821 million. This account includes expenses for dredging of navigation
channels and project repair. P.L. 113-2 limited availability for these funds to expenses related to
29
The Senate bill did not define “previous natural disasters” or further spell out the terms for use of this funding.
Nonfederal cost shares, as specified in statute, are 35% for Corps flood and coastal storm damage reduction projects
and 50% for beach renourishment components projects that have been authorized since 2003. Notably, in those cases
nonfederal LEERD costs are counted toward the nonfederal share.
31
The Administration Request also proposed a 90/10 cost share, but did not provide directions on the treatment of
LEERD costs.
32
While not specified in the bill, all other construction projects that are not “ongoing” potentially would be subject to
the typical cost sharing requirements referenced above. This would exclude from the cost-share waiver later beach
renourishment activities for coastal storm damage reduction projects carried out with funds other than those provided in
the supplemental legislation.
30
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, while O&M funding in Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have
been available nationally.
Both bills provided $1.01 billion for the FCCE account, or $409 million more than the
Administration requested.33 While P.L. 113-2 limited these funds to expenses related to Hurricane
Sandy, the FCCE amounts in Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have been for “flood, hurricane, or
other natural disasters,” with $430 million of that amount specified to restore projects impacted
by Hurricane Sandy to their design profiles. Therefore, under Senate-passed H.R. 1, remaining
FCCE funds would have been available to support Corps emergency expenditures nationwide,
including emergency operations preparations for future events. P.L. 113-2 also set aside $430
million to restore projects impacted by Hurricane Sandy to their “design profiles,” but made these
funds contingent on completion of one of the major studies required pursuant to language in the
Investigations Account.34 Both bills also waived FCCE project cost limits under §902 of WRDA
1986, similar to the proposed provisions for the Construction Account.
Finally, both P.L. 113-2 and Senate-passed H.R. 1 provided $10 million for the Corps and
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) expenses for oversight of emergency response and
recovery activities. The Assistant Secretary is to use these funds to facilitate monthly reporting to
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the allocations and obligations of all the
aforementioned Corps funding, beginning 60 days after enactment. The Administration’s request
included no such funding or reporting requirement.
Financial Services and General Government35
One consequence of Hurricane Sandy is that properties under the control of the General Services
Administration (GSA) may have been damaged or deemed uninhabitable until repairs are made.
The President requested $7 million to be deposited in the Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) at GSA
for the repair and alteration of GSA properties damaged by Sandy. Senate-passed H.R. 1 would
have provided the amount the President requested. P.L. 113-2 provides $7 million to GSA for
repairs to properties damaged by Sandy and other real property activities.
The provisions for the Small Business Administration (SBA) in P.L. 113-2 provided $804 million
in budget authority. Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $805 million in budget authority,
along with legislative language sought by the Administration. Although P.L. 113-2 contained
similar provisions to Senate-passed H.R. 1, there are some slight differences between the two
bills and the Administration’s request. These differences are discussed below and include
33
Many repairs to existing coastal storm damage reduction projects are eligible for 100% funding under the Corps
FCCE account for repair to their pre-storm conditions. Improvements that go beyond repair would not be eligible for
FCCE funding, and would have to be funded by the Construction account.
34
Specifically, receipt of these funds is contingent upon the Corps completing and providing to Congress an interim
report that includes an assessment of authorized Corps projects for reducing flooding and storm risks in the area
affected by the storm that have been constructed or are under construction. The deadline for this report is March 1,
2013.
35
GSA component prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in American National Government, 7-..... SBA component
prepared by Bruce Lindsay, Analyst in American National Government, 7-...., and Robert Dilger, Senior Specialist in
American National Government, 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
17
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
•
P.L. 113-2 provided $20 million for salaries and expenses as well as a provision
for grants for cooperative agreements with organizations (such as Small Business
Development Centers and Women’s Business Centers) to provide technical
assistance related to disaster recovery, response, and long-term resiliency to small
businesses that are recovering from Hurricane Sandy. However, P.L. 113-2 did
not specify—as Senate-passed H.R. 1 did—how the funds should be disbursed
between salaries and expenses and grants for cooperative agreements.36
•
With respect to grants for cooperative agreements and technical assistance, P.L.
113-2 retained the provision to waive matching requirements that was proposed
in Senate-passed H.R. 1. The designated recipients of the cooperative
agreements and grants differed between the two bills. H.R. 1 would have
explicitly directed the grants and cooperative agreements for only current
recipients of grants and cooperative agreements. P.L. 113-2, on the other hand,
directed the grants and cooperative agreements for small businesses that are
recovering from Hurricane Sandy. Both P.L. 113-2 and H.R. 1 contained
provisions to expedite the delivery of assistance. H.R. 1 would have expedited
the delivery of assistance by using a process that relied, to the maximum extent
practicable, upon previously submitted documentation. P.L. 113-2 did not
mention the use of previously submitted documents as a method for expediting
assistance.
•
P.L. 113-2 provided $5 million—the same amount proposed in Senate-passed
H.R. 1—to the SBA’s Office of Inspector General.
•
P.L. 113-2 provided $520 million for the Disaster Loan Program Account for the
cost of direct loans to small businesses. It also provided $260 million for
administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program, of which $250
million was for direct administrative expenses of loan making and servicing
(including salaries), and $10 million was for indirect administrative expenses
(such as information technology security, staffing, and financial management
expenses). Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $500 million for the
Disaster Loan Program Account as well as $260 million for direct and indirect
administrative expenses of loan making.
The Administration requests for response, recovery, and mitigation funding in the wake of
Hurricane Sandy included a provision for surety bond guarantees. This provision was not
included in P.L. 113-2 as enacted because a similar provision was included in P.L. 112-239, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have amended the Small Business Act to prohibit the SBA from
requiring small business owners to use their primary residence as collateral for disaster loans of
up to $200,000 relating to damage to or destruction of the small business, or for economic injury
to the small business if the SBA determined that the small business owner had other assets with a
value equal to or greater than the amount of the loan that could be used as collateral for the loan.
36
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $40 million for salaries and expenses of which, $20 million was for
grants or cooperative agreements for public-private partnerships to provide economic development assistance to
industries and/or regions affected by Hurricane Sandy.
Congressional Research Service
18
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
The President’s request did not address the issue concerning the use of collateral for the loans,
and the provision was not included in P.L. 113-2.
Homeland Security
The Administration requested $12,085 million for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
as well as $9,700 million in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance
Fund. In the opening days of the 113th Congress, both the House and Senate passed P.L. 113-1, a
separate piece of legislation providing the additional borrowing authority.
P.L. 113-2 included $12,072 million for DHS, with several slight changes in its structure from the
Administration’s request. P.L. 113-2 provided almost $11,488 million for the Disaster Relief Fund
(DRF),37 approximately $12 million less than the request. P.L. 113-2 also included a transfer of $3
million from the DRF to the Office of the Inspector General for DHS. $5,379 million of the
appropriation for the DRF was designated as “disaster relief” under the Budget Control Act, as
requested by the Administration. The remainder of the funding for the DRF (and in this section)
was designated as an emergency requirement, and therefore none of the funding in this section
counts against the discretionary budget caps.
P.L. 113-2 included $0.7 million less for replacement of Customs and Border Protection
equipment (down from the $2.4 million request). It included a larger appropriation and transfer
authority for the Coast Guard’s Acquisition, Construction and Improvements function to meet
costs in the Operating Expenses function, rather than providing the $67 million requested by the
President as a separate appropriation.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 had included the same funding levels for these accounts.
The Administration requested $300 million in subsidy loan authority for the Disaster Assistance
Direct Loan Program account, which funds the Community Disaster Loan (CDL) program. The
CDL program provides loan assistance to local governments in declared disaster areas to help
them overcome a loss in revenues. In Senate-passed H.R. 1, $300 million would have been
appropriated to the account to subsidize no more than $400 million in direct loan obligations. The
Senate also directed that $4 million of the amount can be used for administration of the program.
P.L. 113-2 included these amounts, as well as an additional provision (Section 401) that
repurposed approximately $146 million in unused subsidy loan authority for CDLs in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina provided in the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-88). As the
eligibility of local governments to get loans under this act had expired, the unobligated subsidy
loan authority would have remained unused without this provision, which allows it to be used for
CDLs sought pursuant to a major disaster declaration for Hurricane Sandy. Senate-passed H.R. 1
did not include this provision.38
37
The DRF provides funding for the majority of disaster assistance programs authorized under the Stafford Act (42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), including Public Assistance, Individual Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Assistance. For more,
see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and
Funding, by (name redacted).
38
For more on the Community Disaster Loan program (Sec. 417 of the Stafford Act), see CRS Report R42527,
FEMA’s Community Disaster Loan Program: History, Analysis, and Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
19
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Homeland Security Legislative Provisions
Senate-passed H.R. 1 included a number of legislative provisions in its section on homeland
security, some of which had been requested by the Administration. One of these—$9,700 million
in additional borrowing authority for the National Flood Insurance Program—was enacted
separately. The Senate also included a number of general provisions in Senate-passed H.R. 1 that
would have amended programs funded through the DRF. The House passed many of these
provisions in H.R. 219, which passed the House on January 14, 2013, and was appended to
House-passed H.R. 152 at engrossment as directed by the rule governing floor consideration of
the supplemental appropriations bill. These provisions were ultimately enacted as part of P.L.
113-2. Several other provisions from Senate-passed H.R. 1 were not taken up by the House as
part of their legislative response to Hurricane Sandy.
NFIP Borrowing Authority39
In an attempt to protect the financial integrity of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP),
and ensure that the FEMA has the financial resources to cover its existing commitments following
the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy, both the President’s request and Senate-passed H.R. 1
as amended would have provided for an increase of an additional $9.7 billion in borrowing
authority for the NFIP, which is now capped at $20.725 billion.
On January 4, both the House and Senate passed H.R. 41, a separate piece of legislation providing
this $9.7 billion in additional borrowing authority. This legislation was signed by the President on
January 6, 2013 as P.L. 113-1, and no further borrowing authority for the NFIP is included in P.L.
113-2.
As background, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Congress passed and the President
signed into law legislation to increase the NFIP’s borrowing authority to allow the agency to
continue to pay flood insurance claims: first to $3.5 billion on September 20, 2005;40 to $18.5
billion on November 21, 2005;41 and finally to $20.725 billion on March 23, 2006.42 The NFIP is
currently about $18 billion in debt largely as a result of the claims from Hurricane Katrina.43
By law, the NFIP does not operate under the traditional definition of insurance solvency—that is,
it has not been capitalized, rates are set at levels that make the program self-supporting for the
historic average loss year, losses and operating expenses are paid out of policyholder premiums,
39
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Financial Economics and Risk Assessment, 7-.....
P.L. 109-65; 110 Stat. 1998.
41
P.L. 109-106; 119 Stat. 2288.
42
P.L. 109-208; 120 Stat. 317.
43
Under current law, FEMA must repay any borrowed funds (with interest) as it collects premiums. However, FEMA
is unlikely to repay the funds borrowed to pay 2005 hurricane-related claims within the next 10 years. Even if FEMA
increased flood insurance rates up to the maximum amount allowed by law (20% per year), the program would still not
have sufficient funds to cover future obligations for policyholder claims, operating expenses, and interest on debt
stemming from recent catastrophic flood events. Some experts have suggested that Congress consider forgiving some
or all of NFIP’s Treasury borrowing. Supporters of debt forgiveness point to billions of dollars in flood losses that
would otherwise have been paid by the Treasury and thus taxpayers. According to FEMA, the NFIP saves taxpayers
over $1.7 billion annually in flood losses that, in the absence of the program, would be paid by taxpayers. Debt
forgiveness could, however, be judged an explicit subsidy from general taxpayer funds, with federal budgetary
consequences.
40
Congressional Research Service
20
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
and the program does not generate sufficient premium income to cover flood insurance claims
and expenses and build a reserve fund for future catastrophic loss years.44 Consequently, while
the program typically generates a surplus in less-than-average-loss years, when faced with
insufficient funds to pay claims and expenses in catastrophic loss years, such as occurred in the
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in 2005, Midwest floods of 2008, Hurricane
Irene and Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, and Hurricane Sandy in 2012, the NFIP must resort to its
statutory authority to borrow from the Treasury to pay approved claims.45
Disaster Recovery Act of 2012 and the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013
The final general provision in Senate-passed H.R. 1’s homeland security title, Section 609, was
entitled the “Disaster Recovery Act of 2012” and included a number of legislative provisions that
are beyond the scope of this report to discuss at length. The Disaster Recovery Act of 2012
included a number of provisions that were similar to H.R. 219, the “Sandy Recovery
Improvement Act of 2013.” These provisions were not necessarily identical, but in general, the
provisions amended a number of disaster assistance programs authorized in the Stafford Act. For
a full discussion of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, passed as Division B of P.L.
113-2, see CRS Report R42991, Analysis of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, by
(name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted).
Provisions Unique to Senate-Passed H.R. 146
Senate-passed H.R. 1 also included a number of provisions not requested by the Administration
that were not included P.L. 113-2. Some of these mirrored proposed legislation in the 112th
Congress. These included
•
Section 602—Would have allowed the Administrator of FEMA, in consultation
with state, tribal, and local governments, to give greater weight to the effects of a
disaster on special populations in making determinations on Individual
Assistance;47
•
Section 603—Would have broadened eligibility of certain costs for
reimbursement under the Public Assistance program;
•
Section 604—Would have accelerated FEMA’s cost-share adjustment process for
Section 406 and 407 (generally Public Assistance and Debris Removal) of the
Stafford Act for Hurricane Sandy;
44
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-141) includes provisions to: (1) phase out longrunning premium subsidies for vacation homes, businesses, and repetitive loss properties (those that have made
repeated claims on the program); (2) direct FEMA to include catastrophic loss years when assessing flood risk in order
to set annual premium rates; and (3) establish a reserve fund to offset claims during catastrophic loss years.
45
For more on the NFIP, see CRS Report R42850, The National Flood Insurance Program: Status and Remaining
Issues for Congress, by (name redacted).
46
For information and support on these provisions of H.R. 1, please contact any of the following analysts: (name redac
ted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....; (name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....; and (name redacted),
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-.....
47
For details on this program, see CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by (name re
dacted).
Congressional Research Service
21
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
•
Section 605—Would have established a pilot program for the relocation of state
facilities from disaster-prone areas;
•
Section 606—Would have authorized construction of permanent flood-risk
reduction levees on land purchased with Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP) funds in West North Central States.48
•
Section 607—Would have directed the FEMA Administrator to re-evaluate
Community Disaster Loans (CDLs) issued to local governments in Louisiana and
Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina;
•
Section 608—Would have allowed Louisiana communities to request DHS
Inspector General audits of post-Gustav debris removal projects.
Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies49
P.L. 113-2 contained $1.44 billion for accounts within agencies typically funded by the Interior,
Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Both the President’s request and Senatepassed H.R. 1 (from the 112th Congress) had included slightly more—$1.45 billion for these
accounts. Of the total in the law, $829.2 million was for specified accounts of agencies within the
Department of the Interior (DOI), $0.2 million more than the President’s request of $829.0
million and $200.2 million more than the $629.0 million in Senate-passed H.R. 1. The law also
contained $607.7 million for certain accounts within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
$10.0 million less than the $617.7 million requested and $210.0 million less than the $817.7
million in Senate-passed H.R. 1. Finally, the total in the law, like the President’s request and
Senate-passed H.R. 1, contained $6.4 million for “related agencies,” namely the Forest Service
($4.4 million) and the Smithsonian Institution ($2.0 million).
At the account level, P.L. 113-2 included funding for 11 accounts within seven agencies/offices,
as had Senate-passed H.R. 1. The President’s request had contained funding for 10 accounts
within six agencies/offices, as reflected in Table 1. The law, President’s request, and Senatepassed H.R. 1 proposed the same level of funding for seven accounts. The differences were as
follows. The President sought $1.09 billion for three accounts, including $78 million for
Construction within the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The remaining $1.01 billion would
have been for “mitigation projects” through the Resource Management account within the FWS
($400.0 million) and the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account within EPA ($610.0
million). Together with mitigation funding requested for agencies funded through other
appropriations subcommittees, such funding was to be used for projects that would reduce the
risk or damage from future disasters, according to the President. Senate-passed H.R. 1 also
included $1.09 billion, but for four accounts as follows: FWS Construction ($78.0 million);
Historic Preservation Fund, within the National Park Service ($50.0 million); Departmental
Operations, within the Office of the Secretary of DOI ($150.0 million); and EPA STAG ($810.0
million). P.L. 113-2 provided slightly less—$1.08 billion—for the same four accounts: FWS
Construction ($68.2 million); NPS Historic Preservation Fund ($50.0 million); Departmental
Operations ($360.0 million); and EPA STAG ($600.0 million). Neither the law nor Senate-passed
H.R. 1 included funding for FWS Resource Management, while the Administration’s request did
not include funding for the Historic Preservation Fund or Departmental Operations.
48
49
Defined by the Census Bureau as Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Prepared by Carol Hardy-Vincent, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy, 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
22
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
The $600.0 million in P.L. 113-2 for EPA’s STAG account are allocated entirely for capitalization
grants for the State Revolving Fund (SRF) programs under the Clean Water Act (CWSRF), which
received $500.0 million and the Safe Drinking Water Act (DWSRF), which received $100.0
million. Similarly, all of the $810.0 million in Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have been allocated to
CWSRF ($700.0 million) and DWSRF ($110.0 million) capitalization grants. The Administration
had requested $600.0 million for clean water and drinking water SRF capitalization grants but did
not specify an allocation between the two, and $10.0 million for wetlands restoration and other
ecosystem enhancements. The Administration stated that legislative language would be needed to
target the $600.0 million for the SRF capitalization grants to the affected states for mitigation
projects. While no specific language accompanied the Administration’s request, P.L. 113-2
contained several terms and conditions for the EPA STAG account.
P.L. 113-2 included a requirement that the states use not less than 20% but not more than 30% of
the SRF capitalization grant funds to provide additional subsidization to SRF loan recipients in
the form of forgiveness of principal, negative interest loans, or grants, or any combination of
these. Senate-passed H.R. 1 had included a requirement that the states must use not less than 50%
of the capitalization grant funds for this purpose. Both the law and Senate-passed H.R. 1 also
required the SRF funds to be used only for “…eligible projects whose purpose is to reduce flood
damage risk and vulnerability or to enhance resiliency to rapid hydrologic change or a natural
disaster at treatment works…” or eligible facilities, and other eligible tasks necessary to further
such purposes.
Finally, SRF funds in the law are allocated entirely to states in EPA Region 2 for wastewater and
drinking water treatment works and facilities impacted by Hurricane Sandy, rather than allocated
according to the existing state-by-state allotment formula under the Clean Water Act for the
CWSRF or according to needs surveys under the Safe Drinking Act’s for the DWSRF. H.R. 1 as
passed by the Senate would have allocated CWSRF and DWSRF funds only to states that have
received a major disaster declaration for Hurricane Sandy under the Stafford Act. The President’s
request did not include a similarly explicit statement, but did indicate that funds for SRF grants
would be allocated to “affected states.”
Senate-passed H.R. 1 also would have waived the normal requirement that states provide a 20%
match for the SRF capitalization funds, and would have allowed states to use CWSRF funds for
purchase of land and easements necessary for siting of treatment works projects, which is
currently not an eligible activity under the Clean Water Act program. Neither of these provisions
was included in P.L. 113-2.
Two other accounts that received funding in P.L. 113-2 also contained specific terms and
conditions. One account is in the NPS, while the second is in the DOI, Office of the Secretary.
First, both the law and H.R. 1 similarly conditioned appropriations for the NPS Historic
Preservation Fund, which provides funds for restoring historic districts, sites, buildings, and
objects significant in American history and culture. They limited funding to expenses related to
the consequences of Hurricane Sandy, including costs to administer the program and costs to
states to ensure compliance with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. Section 106
requires federal agencies to consider the effects of projects they carry out, approve, or fund on
historic properties. They also stated that grants could be provided only in areas that have a major
disaster declaration under the Stafford Act, and that grant recipients would not be required to
provide a match for federal funding, which typically is required.
Congressional Research Service
23
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Second, the law and Senate-passed H.R. 1 contained differing provisions for the DOI Office of
the Secretary, Departmental Operations, regarding the purposes for which the funds are to be
used. The provision in H.R. 1 was broader. Under both the law and H.R. 1, for instance, DOI
bureaus and offices are to use funds for necessary expenses related to the consequences of
Hurricane Sandy, but under H.R. 1 they also could have been used for other activities related to
storms and natural disasters. Under both the law and H.R. 1, funds also are to be used for
increasing the capacity of coastal habitat and infrastructure to withstand storms, and for restoring
and rebuilding parks, refuges, and other public assets. However, the law specified that these
entities are to be national/federal. Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided for other uses of the
funds, namely protecting natural and cultural values, and assisting state, tribal, and local
governments. Other language in the law and H.R. 1 as passed the Senate was similar. In
particular, both measures authorized the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the funds to any
account in the Department, and required the Secretary to submit to the Appropriations
Committees a detailed spending plan for the funds within 60 days of enactment.
Finally, provisions of the law prohibited the use of funds for two different purposes. First, one
provision barred the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from using funds in
the bill to acquire land. Second, another provision prohibited FWS Construction funds from being
used to repair seawalls or buildings on islands in the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife
Refuge.
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
Related Agencies
The President’s request, Senate-passed H.R. 1, and P.L. 113-2 each called for supplemental
funding to be provided to several programs typically funded by the Labor, Health and Human
Services (HHS), Education, and Related Agencies’ appropriations bill (see Table 1). The majority
of these funds ($800 million) will go to HHS to support health, mental health, and social services
needs in affected states, including costs related to the construction and renovation of damaged
health, mental health, biomedical research, child care, and Head Start facilities. However, P.L.
113-2 included a different mechanism for providing these funds than did the President’s request.
The President proposed for these funds to be appropriated directly to three separate accounts,
while P.L. 113-2 appropriated the entire $800 million to one account and required that some of
these funds be transferred elsewhere. In addition to funding for HHS, the President’s request,
Senate-passed H.R. 1, and P.L. 113-2 each called for funds (of differing amounts) to the
Department of Labor to support dislocated workers. P.L. 113-2 provides $25 million for
employment services and job training for dislocated workers.
Department of Labor50
The President requested funds for the Training and Employment Services account within the
Employment and Training Administration of the Department of Labor. Specifically, the President
requested $50 million for the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Dislocated Worker (DW)
National Reserve to support National Emergency Grants (NEG). Funds from the NEG are used to
support employment and training activities, such as job search assistance and job training, for
50
Prepared by David Bradley, Specialist in Labor Economics, 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
24
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
workers dislocated from employment by major economic dislocations, including natural
disasters.51 Senate-passed H.R. 1 differed slightly in two ways from the President’s request. First,
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $50 million for the DW National Reserve, but would
not have specified that the funds were to be used solely for NEGs, which are funded out of the
National Reserve. Second, Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have allowed the Secretary of Labor to
transfer up to $3.5 million of the appropriated funds to any other DOL account for other
reconstruction and recovery needs related to Hurricane Sandy. P.L. 113-2 included $25 million for
the WIA DW National Reserve, did not specify that funds for the DW National Reserve are to be
used solely for NEG, and provided that the Secretary of Labor has authority to transfer up to $3.5
million of the appropriated funds to any other DOL account for other reconstruction and recovery
needs related to Hurricane Sandy.
Department of Health and Human Services52
The President’s request, Senate-passed H.R. 1, and P.L. 113-2 each called for $800 million in
supplemental disaster funding for HHS programs, for ultimate distribution as follows: $500
million to the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), $100 million to the Head Start program, and
$200 million to the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) for other HHS
programs. However, P.L. 113-2 used a different approach from the other two measures to
appropriate these funds. The request and Senate-passed H.R. 1 called for the $800 million to be
appropriated directly to the three separate HHS appropriations accounts. By contrast, P.L. 113-2
appropriated the full $800 million directly to one of the accounts (the PHSSEF), requiring the
HHS Secretary to transfer portions of these funds to the other programs and activities in amounts
largely consistent with the request: $500 million to the SSBG, $100 million to the Head Start
program, at least $5 million to the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and the remaining
$195 million to the HHS Secretary for other activities. In addition, in contrast to the request and
Senate-passed H.R. 1, P.L. 113-2 made the $800 million available through FY2015.53
As noted, the President’s request, Senate-passed H.R. 1, and P.L. 113-2 each used the PHSSEF to
fund all or part of HHS’s response efforts. The PHSSEF is an account managed by the HHS
Secretary and used by appropriations committees to fund certain emergency management
activities, and to provide one-time funds through emergency supplemental appropriations. It is
not authorized in law except through annual appropriations, and has no accompanying regulations
or guidance. PHSSEF funds are intended for transfer to HHS institutes, agencies, and offices to
carry out activities specified in appropriations laws. The President requested $200 million to the
PHSSEF for transfer to support a number of health-related activities throughout HHS, including
(1) National Institutes of Health (NIH) grantees for losses to their NIH-funded biomedical
research programs; (2) substance abuse and mental health programs; (3) environmental and public
health support; and (4) other activities the Secretary deems necessary for response and recovery
from storm-related damage. Senate-passed H.R. 1 largely followed this approach. P.L. 113-2
provided $800 million (the entire HHS amount) to the PHSSEF, for transfer as noted above,
51
For more information, see CRS Report R41135, The Workforce Investment Act and the One-Stop Delivery System, by
(name redacted).
52
Prepared by Karen Lynch, Specialist in Social Policy, 7-.... and (name redacted), Specialist in Public Health and
Epidemiology, 7-.....
53
The request did not specify when requested funds should be available. Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have made SSBG
funds available for two succeeding fiscal years; Head Start program funds available through FY2014; and PHSSEF
funds available until expended.
Congressional Research Service
25
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
specifying that of the $200 million for health-related activities, at least $5 million be transferred
to the HHS OIG, and the remaining $195 million to other accounts within HHS as determined by
the Secretary. The latter amount may be used, in unspecified amounts, for repair and rebuilding of
non-federal biomedical research facilities (presumably NIH grantees). PHSSEF funds may not be
used for costs that are reimbursable by FEMA or covered by insurance.
The President’s request and P.L. 113-2 both included $500 million for the SSBG at the HHS
Administration for Children and Families. The SSBG is a flexible source of funding used by
states to support a wide variety of social services, ranging from child care to special services for
the disabled.54 The request called for the $500 million to be directly appropriated to the SSBG,
while P.L. 113-2 called for these funds to be transferred to the SSBG from an $800 million
appropriation to the PHSSEF. Both the request and P.L. 113-2 included special language targeting
supplemental SSBG funds to states directly affected by Hurricane Sandy (i.e., waiving the
statutory allocation formula) and allowing states to use these funds for the provision of health
services (including mental health services), and costs of renovating, repairing, or rebuilding
health care facilities, child care facilities, and other social services facilities. In addition, P.L. 1132 included several other provisions applicable to the SSBG. For instance, the law gives states up
to three years to expend these funds, one year longer than the SSBG’s standard two-year
expenditure period. In addition, as with other funds in the PHSSEF appropriation, P.L. 113-2
allows SSBG funds to be used for obligations incurred prior to the bill’s enactment (provided
these costs align with purposes specified in the bill) and prohibits these funds from being used for
costs that are reimbursable by FEMA or covered by insurance. Senate-passed H.R. 1 included
similar (though not always identical) provisions, along with several others not enacted in P.L.
113-2. For instance, Senate-passed H.R. 1 included language allowing states to use up to 10% of
their allotments to supplement any other funds available for the costs of compensating employees
of health care providers for lost wages as a result of Hurricane Sandy and for supporting the
viability of health care providers whose facilities were substantially damaged. Senate-passed H.R.
1 also included language requiring states to follow certain federal regulations on establishing a
Notice of Federal Interest in real property, where applicable.
The President’s request and P.L. 113-2 both included $100 million for the Head Start program,
funded within the Children and Families Services Programs account at the HHS Administration
for Children and Families. The Head Start program provides comprehensive early childhood
development services to low-income children.55 The request called for the $100 million to be
directly appropriated to Head Start, while P.L. 113-2 called for these funds to be transferred to
Head Start out of the $800 million appropriation to the PHSSEF. The request specified that funds
would be made available to affected Head Start agencies for costs of renovating, repairing, or
rebuilding damaged facilities, as well as for certain services for affected children and families,
including costs of transporting children enrolled in now-closed centers to other Head Start
programs. P.L. 113-2 did not include any language about damaged Head Start facilities or affected
children. However, the overall PHSSEF appropriations language made it clear that these funds are
for disaster response and recovery in affected states. To this end, P.L. 113-2 included language
explicitly waiving the statutory Head Start allocation formula and clarifying that funds awarded
from this supplemental appropriation would not be considered part of a Head Start program’s
“base grant” in subsequent fiscal years. As with other funds in the PHSSEF appropriation, P.L.
54
For more information, see CRS Report 94-953, Social Services Block Grant: Background and Funding , by (name red
acted).
55
For more information, see CRS Report RL30952, Head Start: Background and Issues, by (name redacted).
Congressional Research Service
26
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
113-2 allowed Head Start funds to be used for obligations incurred prior to the bill’s enactment
(provided these costs align with purposes specified in the bill) and prohibits these funds from
being used for costs that are reimbursable by FEMA or covered by insurance. Senate-passed H.R.
1 included similar (though not always identical) provisions, along with several others not enacted
in P.L. 113-2. For instance, Senate-passed H.R. 1 included language specifying that these funds
could be used for costs of renovating, repairing, or rebuilding damaged facilities; costs of
supportive and mental health services for affected children and families; and costs of technical
assistance for affected Head Start centers. Senate-passed H.R. 1 also included a provision (not in
P.L. 113-2) that would have waived the program’s non-federal matching rules for these funds.
According to a press release on the draft Senate bill from the 112th Congress, these funds were
expected to support approximately 265 Head Start centers damaged by the hurricane.56
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
The Administration sought $259 million for military construction activities and the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) in its request for FY2013 supplemental appropriations for repair and
replacement of damaged equipment and facilities. The request sought $24 million for Army
National Guard military construction efforts to repair damaged facilities and utilities at Sea Girt
National Guard Training Center, and $236 million for the VA. The largest single project was a
$207 million request through the Major Construction account for renovation and repair of the
Manhattan VA Medical Center, which experienced severe flooding. This project would ordinarily
require congressional authorization to be funded.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 proposed $259 million for these accounts. P.L. 113-2 included $260 million
for these accounts, the only difference from the request being an additional $1 million for the
VA’s National Cemetery Administration to repair storm damage. Both pieces of legislation
included language to allow the Army National Guard Military Construction funding and the VA
Major Construction funding to be expended on otherwise unauthorized projects.57
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related
Agencies58
As requested by the President and proposed in Senate-passed H.R. 1, P.L. 113-2 provided over
$29 billion for accounts within agencies typically funded by the Transportation, HUD and Related
Agencies bill.
Department of Transportation59
The President’s request included $12.07 billion for accounts within the Department of
Transportation (DOT), as did Senate-passed H.R. 1. P.L. 113-2 included $13.07 billion for DOT
56
Senate Appropriations Committee, “Summary: Fiscal Year 2013 Disaster Assistance Supplemental,” press release,
December 12, 2012, http://www.appropriations.senate.gov, p. 7.
57
H.R. 1, EAS, p. 83, and H.R. 152, EH, p. 21.
58
Note that while Title 8 of H.R. 152 also included appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and Housing
and Urban Development, Section 1094 provides that Title 10 Chapter 9 shall apply in place of Title 8.
59
Prepared by D. Randy Peterman, Analyst in Transportation Policy, 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
27
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
accounts, $1 billion more than requested. In each case the vast majority of funding was for public
transit. While the request and Senate-passed H.R. 1 were similar in total funding, they differed in
funding allocation, and P.L. 113-2 differs from both, as shown in Table 1. Briefly, P.L. 113-2
provided (a) more funding for Amtrak than the President requested but less than Senate-passed
H.R. 1 provided, and (b) more funding for highway repair than either the President requested or
the Senate-passed H.R. 1 provided.
For transit assistance, the President requested a total of $11.7 billion, divided between repair and
mitigation funding. Both types of funding would go into the recently created Public
Transportation Emergency Relief Program (previously, some public transit emergency relief
funding could have been provided under the Stafford Act). The President requested $6.2 billion
for repairs and $5.5 billion for mitigation; the repair funding request specified that the funding
would be provided as a 90% federal match; that funding could also be transferred for use for
highway and bridge repairs at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation; that funding
should not supplant private insurance coverage, and that $3 million would go to the Department
of Transportation Inspector General for oversight.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have provided $10.78 billion, up to $5.38 billion of which could
have been transferred by the Secretary of Transportation to be used to mitigate damage to
highway and transit facilities from future disasters (which, by inference, assures that at least $5.4
billion is available for repairs). The President’s request would have allowed the repair money to
also be used for highway infrastructure, with no language concerning mitigation funding, while
the Senate bill reversed that, proposing to make the mitigation funding available for transfer to
highway projects, with no corresponding language for the repair funding. Also, as with the
Amtrak section, Senate-passed H.R. 1 did not include language addressing the issue of not
supplanting private insurance.
P.L. 113-2 provided $10.9 billion for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, $2
billion to be made available immediately and the remainder after the Federal Transit
Administration publishes interim regulations for the program. Of the total, the Secretary of
Transportation may transfer up to $5.383 billion to fund transportation projects to reduce the risk
of damage from future disasters in the areas impacted by Hurricane Sandy. The law also is silent
about the issue of not supplanting private insurance money.
For repairs to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) equipment, the President requested $30
million; Senate-passed H.R. 1 included the President’s requested funding level, as did P.L. 113-2.
This funding will be drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.
The President requested $308 million for highway repairs, and called for a portion of the funding
requested for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program to be available for highway
repairs in areas affected by Hurricane Sandy at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation.
P.L. 113-2 provided $2.022 billion, over six times the amount requested, and also allows a portion
of the funding provided for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program to be available
for highway (and other types of transportation) disaster mitigation projects. Senate-passed H.R. 1
would have provided $921 million for highway repair, and also allowed for funds to be made
available for mitigation projects.
The President requested $32 million for Amtrak, while Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have
provided $336 million. Amtrak has estimated that its property damage and business interruption
losses will be around $60 million; it has insurance to cover this, with a $10 million deductible,
Congressional Research Service
28
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
though it may be some time before the insurance claim can be settled. Amtrak has also identified
$276 million in mitigation and capacity-expanding activities for rail tunnels into New York City
that it would like to undertake. The President’s request included language providing that federal
funding should not be used to supplant insurance coverage for Amtrak’s damages. Senate-passed
H.R. 1 would have provided Amtrak the entire sum ($60 million for repairs and $276 million for
mitigation and improvements), with no language addressing the insurance issue. P.L. 113-2
provided $32 million for repairs and $86 million for recovery and resiliency projects in the
affected area, a total of $118 million, which is more than requested by the President but
considerably less than would have been provided by Senate-passed H.R. 1.
Some transit agencies have proposed that, instead of using emergency relief funding to simply
restore infrastructure to its pre-disaster condition by replacing equipment that may be antiquated,
they take this opportunity (and funding) to install equipment that makes their systems more
functional (such as, for example, increasing capacity) as well as more resilient in coping with
future emergencies. The new Federal Transit Administration Emergency Relief Program may
provide grantees this flexibility, as both Congress and recent administrations have provided
similar flexibility for the Federal Highway Administration Emergency Relief Program. Such an
approach may raise questions about how the costs of repairs that include system improvements
should be allocated between the federal Emergency Relief programs and state and local
governments.60
Housing and Urban Development61
During the last days of the 112th Congress the President requested, and the Senate-passed version
of H.R. 1 included, $17 billion in supplemental funding for HUD, all of which would have been
appropriated to the Community Development Fund (CDF), the account that funds the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. During the first weeks of the 113th Congress, the
House and Senate considered and passed H.R. 152, which included $16 billion for HUD, all
allocated to the CDF. The President signed the measure into law as P.L. 113-2 on January 29,
2013.
While P.L. 113-2 and the Administration’s request would have set aside CDBG funds for the
activities of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), P.L. 113-2 transferred $10 million for OIG
activities, significantly more than the $4 million requested by the Administration. A provision in
Senate-passed H.R. 1 also proposed transferring $10 million to fund OIG activities.
P.L. 113-2 did not include a proposed Administration request that would have set aside $2 billion
of the total CDBG disaster aid request for mitigation activities. The Senate-passed proposal also
included a proposed set-aside of $2 billion for mitigation activities. Consistent with the
Administration’s request, P.L. 113-2 included a $10 million set aside for salaries and expenses to
be used to fund technical assistance and cover the costs incurred by HUD’s Office of Community
Planning and Development (OCPD) in administering CDBG disaster funds. The Senate-passed
bill also recommended transferring $10 million to the OCPD for such activities. P.L. 113-2
allowed HUD to distribute CDBG disaster funds appropriated under the act to the most impacted
60
For additional background on this issue, see CRS Report R42804, Emergency Relief Program: Federal-Aid Highway
Assistance for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges, by (name redacted).
61
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Housing Policy, 7-...., and (name redacted), Analyst in Federalism and
Economic Development Policy, 7-.....
Congressional Research Service
29
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
and distressed areas affected by Hurricane Sandy and other eligible disaster events occurring
during calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013. A similar provision included in Senate-passed H.R. 1
recommended setting aside a specific amount—$500 million—in CDBG disaster funds to address
the unmet needs resulting from other (non-Hurricane Sandy) major disasters declared via the
Stafford Act that occurred during 2011 or 2012, or for small, economically distressed areas with a
disaster declared in 2011 or 2012.
P.L. 113-2 included several terms and conditions that vary from the rules governing the regular
CDBG program, but are consistent with language included in Senate-passed H.R. 1. These can be
grouped into three broad areas governing the submission and content of disaster plans, allocation
and use of funds, and waiver authority. P.L. 113-2:
•
directed HUD to promulgate regulations governing the distribution and use of
funds within 45 days after passage of this act, including establishing minimum
allocations for CDBG grantees;
•
required states and local government grantees to submit, and for HUD to
approve, disaster plans before CDBG disaster funds may be obligated;
•
required that a grantee’s disaster plans articulate how proposed activities will
support long-term recovery efforts;
•
required HUD to certify that state and local government grantee disaster plans
include adequate financial controls and procurement processes that would
prevent duplication of benefits; waste, fraud, and abuse; and encourage timely
expenditure of funds; and
•
directed HUD to allocate one-third of CDBG disaster appropriations provided in
the bill to states and local government grantees within 60 days after passage of
the bill.
P.L. 113-2 also established conditions and terms for the use of funds, including
•
allowing grantees to use up to 5% of their CDBG disaster grant allocation for
administrative expenses;
•
prohibiting grantees from contracting out the responsibility for administering the
CDBG disaster programs;
•
requiring grantees to include performance requirements and penalties when
eligible activities are undertaken through the use of contractors or procurement
services;
•
prohibiting disaster funds from being used for activities that are reimbursable by,
or made available by, FEMA or the Army Corps of Engineers;
•
requiring grantees to maintain a publicly accessible website identifying how all
grant funds are used, including information on contracting and procurement
processes; and
•
holding harmless a state or community’s regular CDBG allocation by ensuring
that the amount of such funds awarded to grantees would not be affected by
CDBG disaster-assistance allocations.
Congressional Research Service
30
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
P.L. 113-2 did not include two provisions that were included in Senate-passed H.R. 1.
Specifically, P.L. 113-2 did not include provisions removing the $250,000 ceiling on the amount
of CDBG disaster funds that may be used to meet the non-federal cost share of a disaster-related
project funded by the Army Corps of Engineers; or limiting disaster recovery assistance to forprofit entities to businesses that meet the Small Business Administration’s definition of small
business and to public utilities.
Finally, P.L. 113-2 granted HUD broad authority to waive or establish alternative program
requirements, except for provisions governing fair labor standards, fair housing, civil rights, and
environmental review. However, P.L. 113-2 included two exceptions related to environmental
review requirements. Specifically, it allowed CDBG disaster fund grantees who use their funding
to meet certain FEMA matching requirements to adopt, without public review, environmental
reviews performed by other federal agencies. In cases where a grantee has already performed an
environmental review or the activity or project is excluded from an environmental review, P.L.
113-2 explicitly allowed for the expedited release of funds. The law also allowed HUD to reduce,
from 70% to 50%, the percentage of funds that must be targeted to activities benefiting low and
moderate income (LMI) persons, and allows HUD to reduce the LMI-targeting requirement
below 50% only if the grantee can demonstrate a compelling need. Similar provisions were
included in Senate-passed H.R. 1.
The President also requested legislative language for one HUD account for which funds were not
sought: the tenant-based rental assistance account, which funds the Section 8 Housing Choice
Voucher program. Specifically, the President requested that Congress “hold harmless” program
administrators (public housing authorities, or PHAs) affected by the disaster when allocating
FY2013 voucher renewal and administrative fee funding provided through the regular annual
appropriations process. The President requested that disaster-affected PHAs be funded no lower
than their FY2012 funding levels. P.L. 113-2, like Senate-passed H.R. 1, included similar
language. It provided the Secretary the authority to make adjustments to PHAs’ funding levels to
“avoid significant adverse funding impacts that would otherwise result from the disaster,” at a
PHA’s request and provision of supporting documentation.
Additional legislative provisions in the THUD section of Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have (1)
required DOT and HUD to submit implementation plans within 45 days of enactment and
biannually thereafter and (2) required DOT and HUD to notify the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations not less than three full business days before the announcement that a project,
state, or locality has been selected to receive a grant award totaling $500,000 or more. P.L. 113-2
included similar provisions, except that the threshold for notifying the congressional
appropriations committees about individual grants was raised to $1 million.
General Legislative Provisions
While the Administration indicated a need for legislative language on a number of issues, no draft
texts of proposed language was circulated publicly.
There are four general provisions that apply to the appropriations provided in P.L. 113-2. Three of
these were generally administrative in nature, as were two of the nine included in Senate-passed
H.R. 1—provisions traditionally carried in supplemental appropriations bills with emergency
funding.
Congressional Research Service
31
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Internal Control Plans62
The President’s request included a proposal to require the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to direct federal agencies to submit internal control plans for the programs receiving
supplemental appropriations.63 The President’s request stated that the internal control plans
should contain enhanced grant management protocols, including quarterly program and financial
monitoring, timely submission of single audit reports and grants closeout, and improper payments
testing and reporting.
Existing statutory and regulatory provisions, and OMB guidance, already address these grants
management practices, so it is unclear what enhancement of grant management protocols might
entail.64 Additionally, the President’s request did not include specific provisions for additional
resources for federal agencies to implement grants oversight, such as supplemental funds for
federal agency inspector general offices or an increase in the allowable management and
administration percentage for individual grant programs. The Administration’s request also did
not identify which programs would be affected by the enhanced protocols.
In the 112th Congress, Senate-passed H.R. 1 included a provision that would have required OMB
to issue guidance to federal agencies to develop internal control plans for funds provided by the
bill.65 The bill also included funding for oversight of supplemental funding and certain
management and administration activities, however the amounts were provided at the program
level and not all programs received additional funding for these activities.66 P.L. 113-2 requires
federal agencies to submit internal control plans to OMB, GAO, agency Inspectors General, and
House and Senate Appropriations Committees for all supplemental funding provided therein; and
directs GAO to develop the template for the internal control plans.67
Improper Payments
The President’s request did not specifically address improper payments, but included a provision
to ensure the integrity of federal spending. Both P.L. 113-2 and Senate-passed H.R. 1 included a
62
Prepared by Natalie M. Keegan, Analyst in American Federalism and Emergency Management Policy,
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-.....
63
Internal controls are measures that the federal agency takes to ensure that the federal agency and grant recipients are
in compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and OMB circulars. Internal control standards seek to ensure that
the use of funds comply with applicable laws, that assets are appropriately protected against waste, fraud, and abuse,
and that federal agencies have efficient and effective financial and program administration systems that allow for
appropriate accountability of funds.
64
For example, there are statutory provisions for single audit reporting are contained in the Single Audit Act of 1984
(P.L. 98-502), as amended, and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations. Examples of statutory provisions for improper payments can be found in the Improper Payments Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-300). Examples of internal control provisions can be found in the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity
Act of 1982, as codified in 31 U.S.C. 3512, with OMB guidance contained in Circular A-123, Managements
Responsibility for Internal Controls.
65
112th Congress, H.R. 1, section 1103(a).
66
Examples of funding provided for oversight of grant funds include $1 million for the Environmental Protection
Agency’s State and Tribal Assistance Grants for management and oversight, and an allowance for a percentage (less
than 1%) of funds provided to the Federal Transit Administration’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program
and the Federal Railroad Administration’s National Railroad Passenger Corporation grant to be used for management
and oversight.
67
H.R. 152, EH, section 904(a)(1) and 904(a)(2).
Congressional Research Service
32
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
provision68 that designated all programs and activities funded through the legislation as
“susceptible to significant improper payments” under the provisions of the Improper Payments
Information Act of 2002 (IPIA).69 This designation requires federal agencies to estimate the
annual amount of improper payments made under the program and submit the estimates to
Congress annually. Additionally, for programs that have estimated improper payments that exceed
$10 million, the federal agency is required to develop a report that identifies the causes and
corrective actions the agency will take to reduce the improper payments.70 Several programs that
receive funding under the bill are not currently identified as “susceptible to significant improper
payments.” This provision, therefore, increases the administrative burden on agencies and grant
recipients. No specific appropriations to fund compliance with this provision were requested or
included.
Two provisions were added to Senate-passed H.R. 1 through the floor amendment process that
sought to prohibit payments from funds provided in the bills. One provision would have
prohibited payments to individuals who were deceased at the time funds were made available,71
and another would have prohibited payments to an individual or entity using funds provided
under the bill if the individual or entity had a pending “seriously delinquent tax debt.”72 In regards
to the tax provision, it was unclear how agencies would have implemented this provision, as there
is some question regarding federal agencies’ ability to access IRS tax records to screen disaster
recipients prior to providing federal disaster assistance. Neither the President’s request nor P.L.
113-2 included these provisions.
Trigger to De-Obligate Unexpended Grant Funding
The President’s request recommended the withdrawal of grant funds awarded through certain
programs if funds were not expended within 24 months of the award. It was unclear exactly
which federal grant programs, and what types of grant awards, were the intended objects of this
proposal.
Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have directed agencies to identify (for application of the trigger)
grants funded through the legislation where funds should have been expended within the 24month period following the federal agency obligation of funding. The bill would also have
required the Director of OMB to issue guidance establishing the methods federal agencies would
use to identify grant awards affected by the trigger. Recipients of identified grants would have
had to expend funds in the 24-month period following the award. The federal agency would have
had to de-obligate any funds remaining unexpended after the 24-month period. Federal agency
heads could have requested a waiver of the 24-month expenditure requirement after consultation
with the Director of OMB to discuss exceptional circumstances that might justify an extension. It
is unclear whether the Senate provision would have required the director to approve the waiver,
and what “consultation” might have entailed. Additionally, in the absence of specific language
68
H.R. 152, EH, section 904(b).
P.L. 107-300, Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended by P.L. 111-204, Improper Payments
Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010.
70
31 U.S.C. 3321.
71
H.R. 1, EAS, 112th Congress, Sec. 1109. Funeral costs were exempted from this provision, though funeral costs are
traditionally funded under the “other needs assistance” provisions of the Stafford Act and are provided to the surviving
family member rather than to the deceased individual (42 U.S.C. 5174).
72
112th Congress, H.R. 1, as amended, section 1108.
69
Congressional Research Service
33
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
establishing a time frame for the waiver process, grant recipients could have faced uncertainty
about whether they could have continued expending funds once the 24-month period had elapsed.
This could have resulted in disaster recovery activities coming to a halt while federal agencies
debate approval of the waiver.
P.L. 113-2 contains a provision requiring grant recipients to expend funds within the 24-month
period following the federal agency obligation of funds for the grant award unless the OMB
Director waives the requirement. If the requirement is waived, the OMB Director must submit
written justification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Grant recipients that
receive a waiver are required to return any funds remaining unexpended after 24 months to the
awarding federal agency.73
Planning for and Projecting Future Vulnerabilities and Risks74
The Administration’s request proposed that federal agencies
work in partnership with State, local, and tribal officials to develop mutually agreed upon
assessments of future risks and vulnerabilities facing the region, including extreme weather,
sea level rise, and coastal flooding and incorporate these into their recovery planning and
implementation.75
While Congress did not address these specific factors in P.L. 113-2, the language of the request
was reflected in the text of Section 1104 of Senate-passed H.R. 1. For example, Section 1104(a)
of Senate-passed H.R. 1 would have directed federal agencies, in partnership with state, tribal,
and local governments to “inform plans for response, recovery, and rebuilding to reduce
vulnerabilities from and build long-term resiliency to future extreme weather events, sea level
rise, and coastal flooding” (italics added). Further, the provision stated that with respect to
“repairing, rebuilding, or restoring infrastructure and restoring land, project sponsors shall
consider, where appropriate, the increased risks and vulnerabilities associated with future
extreme weather events, sea level rise and coastal flooding” (italics added). Section 1104(b)
would also have made available funds under the legislation for the coordinated development of
“regional projections and assessments of future risks” to help improve the plans required under
1104(a). In general, the impact of this full provision would have depended on how the relevant
federal agencies interpreted and implemented the directive to inform their plans, and how
recipient project sponsors interpreted and implemented the directive to consider these increased
risks. It is possible, for example, that a requirement, or choice, to take into account the risks
delineated in the provision could have resulted in the need for new flood hazard maps that reflect
new flood insurance zones based on the future impact of extreme weather events, sea level rise,
and coastal flooding; and also possibly new floodplain management standards requiring
communities under the NFIP that reflect new land-use planning and construction standards in
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA). Also by example, in interpreting and implementing this
provision, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers could have adjusted their plans for the level of flood
protection needed along the eastern seaboard.
73
H.R. 152, as amended, Section 904(c).
Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, 7-.....
75
Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, second
page of Appendix: Detailed Estimates of Necessary Federal Resources.
74
Congressional Research Service
34
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Mitigation of Future Power Outages76
Section 1105 of Senate-passed H.R. 1 as amended would have required the Secretary of HUD, as
the chair of the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force,77 to issue guidelines on how recipients
of federal funds for reconstruction should “to the greatest extent practicable ... maximize the
utilization of technologies designed to mitigate future power outages, continue delivery of vital
services and maintain the flow of power to facilities critical to public health, safety and welfare.”
These guidelines could have been issued in a number of ways, ranging from policy guidance to
enforceable regulations. Depending on the scope of the guidelines and whether recipients were
required to follow them, the guidelines could have impacted the expenditure of funds for a
number of programs. For example, recipients may have been more likely to invest funds received
from FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program or HUD’s Community Development Block
Grant program in technologies that would mitigate power outages, such as backup generators.
The Administration’s proposal did not specifically request this provision, but it was arguably
consistent with the Administration’s emphasis on using funding to mitigate future damages. No
similar provision was included in P.L. 113-2.
Embassy Security78
Section 1107 of Senate passed H.R. 1 would have authorized the Department of State to transfer
up to about $1 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funds, previously appropriated
in FY2012 for operations in Iraq, for increased security at U.S. embassies and other overseas
posts identified in the Department’s security review after the Benghazi attack. These unobligated
funds are no longer needed because of reduced operations in Iraq, according to Senator Mikulski.
CBO had determined that the amendment had no outlay scoring impact, but the legislation did
require the Department of State to follow congressional notification requirements prior to using
the funds. P.L. 113-2 carried no such provision, and it was not included in the Administration’s
formal request.
76
Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy, 7-.....
The Secretary of HUD was designated as the chair in Executive Order 13632, “Establishing the Hurricane Sandy
Rebuilding Task Force,” 77 Federal Register 74341, December 14, 2012, https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/
2012/12/14/2012-30310/establishing-the-hurricane-sandy-rebuilding-task-force.
78
Prepared by (name redacted), Specialist in Foreign Policy, 7-.....
77
Congressional Research Service
35
Table 2. Selected CRS Experts by Supplemental Request
Agency
Department of
Agriculture
Department of
Commerce
Department of
Defense
Bureau
Account
Farm Service Agency
Emergency
Conservation
Program
Commodity Credit
Corporation Fund
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Watershed and Flood
Prevention
Operations
Food and Nutrition
Service
Commodity
Assistance Program
National
Oceanographic and
Atmospheric
Administration
Operations and
Maintenance
Revolving and
Management Funds
Operations, Research
and Facilities
Procurement,
Acquisition, and
Construction
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
CRS Report R42854, Emergency
Assistance for Agricultural Land
Rehabilitation
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
CRS Report R42353, Domestic Food
Assistance: Summary of Programs
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7....
CRS Report R42440, Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies:
FY2013 Appropriations
Harry Upton, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Operations and
Maintenance, Army
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Operations and
Maintenance, Navy
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Working Capital
Fund, Navy
Investigations
Corps of Engineers Civil Works
Construction
Operations and Maintenance
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
CRS-36
CRS Report R42841, Army Corps
Supplemental Appropriations: Recent
History, Trends, and Policy Issues
Nicole Carter, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Charles Stern, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Agency
Bureau
General Services
Administration
Federal Buildings Fund
Account
Salaries and Expenses
Small Business
Administration
Office of the Inspector General
Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund
Disaster Loan Program Account
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
CRS Report R42730, Financial Services
and General Government: FY2013
Appropriations
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
CRS Report R42037, SBA Surety Bond
Guarantee Program
CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster
Loan Program: Overview and Possible
Issues for Congress
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Bruce Lindsay, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Operating Expenses
Coast Guard
Acquisition,
Construction and
Improvements
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
CRS Report R40708, Disaster Relief
Funding and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations
Disaster Relief Fund
Department of
Homeland Security
FEMA
CRS-37
CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford
Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential
Declarations, Eligible Activities, and
Funding, by (name redacted)
Bruce Lindsay, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Disaster Assistance
Direct Loan Program
CRS Report R42527, FEMA’s
Community Disaster Loan Program:
History, Analysis, and Issues for Congress
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
National Flood
Insurance Fund
CRS Report R42850, The National
Flood Insurance Program: Status and
Remaining Issues for Congress
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Agency
Department of the
Interior
Bureau
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Account
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
CRS Report R42466, Fish and Wildlife
Service: FY2013 Appropriations and Policy
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
CRS Report R42757, National Park
Service: Recent Appropriations Trends
Carol Hardy-Vincent, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
CRS Report R42520, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA): Appropriations
for FY2013
Rob Esworthy, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Training and
Employment Services
CRS Report R41135, The Workforce
Investment Act and the One-Stop Delivery
System
David Bradley, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Social Services Block
Grant
CRS Report 94-953, Social Services
Block Grant: Background and Funding
Children and Families
Services Programs
CRS Report RL30952, Head Start:
Background and Issues
Resource
Management
Construction
National Park Service
Construction
Environmental Programs and Management
Environmental
Protection Agency
Hazardous Substance Superfund
LUST Trust Fund
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Department of Labor
Department of Health
and Human Services
Employment and
Training
Administration
Administration for
Children and Families
Departmental
Management
Public Health and
Social Services
Emergency Fund
Department of
Defense
Military Construction
Military Construction,
Army National Guard
Department of
Veterans’ Affairs
Departmental
Administration
Construction, Major
Projects
CRS-38
Karen Lynch, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Sarah Lister, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
CRS Report R42586, Military
Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies: FY2013 Appropriations
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Sidath Panangala, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Agency
Department of
Transportation
Department of
Housing and Urban
Development
CRS-39
Bureau
Account
Background Report
Analyst, E-mail, and Phone
Federal Aviation
Administration
Facilities and
Equipment
CRS Report R42781, Federal Civil
Aviation Programs: An Overview
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Federal Highway
Administration
Emergency Relief
Program
CRS Report R42804, Emergency Relief
Program: Federal-Aid Highway Assistance
for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges
Robert Kirk, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Federal Railroad
Administration
Operating Subsidy
Grants to NRPC
CRS Report RL33492, Amtrak: Budget
and Reauthorization
D. Randall Peterman, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Federal Transit
Administration
Public Transportation
Emergency Relief
Program
CRS Report R42706, Federal Public
Transportation Program: An Overview
William Mallett, /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Public and Indian
Housing Programs
Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
Community Planning
and Development
Community
Development Fund
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
CRS Report R41754, Community
Development Block Grants: Funding
Issues in the 112th Congress and Recent
Funding History
(name redacted), /redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Appendix. Summary of the Administration’s
Request
The Administration’s proposal included $47.44 billion in funding for response and recovery, and
$12.97 billion specifically for mitigation of damage from potential future storms and flooding.
This division is not typical of recent supplemental requests, and does not conform to either
traditional definitions of “recovery and repair” versus “mitigation” or the recent patterns for
funding mitigation.
Of note, there are four accounts that have funding requests for both “repair and recovery” and
“mitigation,” and five accounts where the request for mitigation was the only request.79 The
Administration also requested that the mitigation portion include legislative provisions that would
allow monies to be flexibly transferred between programs.
In reading the mitigation portion of the Administration’s request, it is useful to understand how
the Administration may be defining “recovery and repair” and “mitigation.” Using definitions
drawn from Presidential Policy Directive 8 (PPD-8), “recovery” refers to
those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by an incident to recover
effectively, including, but not limited to, rebuilding infrastructure systems; providing
adequate interim and long-term housing for survivors; restoring health, social, and
community services; promoting economic development; and restoring natural and cultural
resources.
In the same Directive, the Administration noted that “mitigation” refers to
those capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of
disasters. Mitigation capabilities include, but are not limited to, community-wide risk
reduction projects; efforts to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and key resource
lifelines; risk reduction for specific vulnerabilities from natural hazards or acts of terrorism;
and initiatives to reduce future risks after a disaster has occurred.80
If one relies on these definitions, the key difference between recovery funding and mitigation
funding may be that the mitigation funding will be explicitly directed to “initiatives to reduce
future risk after a disaster has occurred.” However, some of the activities outlined in the
Administration’s proposal as “mitigation” appeared to be orientated towards “recovery and
repair,” and vice versa. For example, the Administration proposed $400 million in mitigation
funding for the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Resource Management account that would be used,
among other purposes, for “restoring and enhancing natural systems on State, local and private
lands.”81 Further, the Administration’s proposal for mitigation funds did not include at least one
79
The accounts receiving requests for both “recovery and repair” and “mitigation” are: Dept. of Agriculture’s
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations; NOAA’s Operations, Research and Facilities; Federal Transit
Administration’s Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program; and HUD’s Community Development Fund.
80
Office of Management and Budget, Hurricane Sandy Funding Needs, Washington, DC, December 7, 2012, p. 69.
81
White House, Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness, Washington, DC, March 30, 2011, p.6,
http://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness.
Congressional Research Service
40
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
noteworthy program most traditionally linked with hazard mitigation, that being FEMA’s Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which is funded through the Disaster Relief Fund.82
When Congress considered supplemental funding for Hurricane Sandy, it did not follow the
Administration’s format for providing a distinction between funding for “mitigation” and the
funding for “repair and recovery.” In Senate-passed H.R. 1 there was no distinct chapter or title
that separately funded accounts for mitigation. As H.R. 152 worked its way through the House on
its way to enactment, $17.1 billion was identified by the House Appropriations Committee as
being for “immediate needs.” An amendment provided $33 billion in additional funds, but the
distinction between the “immediate needs” and other assistance was not clearly split between
“repair and recovery” and “mitigation. Provisions in H.R. 152 as it passed the House included
“mitigation” as part of the purpose of the funds, without separating that purpose from recovery.83
In another circumstance, provisions in Senate-passed H.R. 1 specifically identified subset of
funds from the total appropriation to an account that may be used exclusively for “mitigation.”84
In addition, Sections 1104 and 1105 of Senate-passed H.R. 1, which were general provisions
applying to all funds in the legislation, would have encouraged funds provided in the bill to be
used in a manner that mitigates future risks.
Requested funding levels are provided by appropriations account in Table A-1, below. It provides
a summary and brief analysis of the Administration’s budget request. A series of columns notes
the agency, bureau, and account for which appropriations were requested. The table then notes
how much the Administration sought as funds needed for recovery and repair of damage, as
opposed to mitigation of future disaster impacts, and a total of the two categories. The table then
notes what percentage that request is of the overall total sought. Finally the table includes a quick
assessment of whether the appropriation is intended to pay for damaged federal government
property or provide other disaster assistance. These final categories on potential recipients are not
mutually exclusive at the account level. Requests for appropriations of $10 million or less are
combined in a single line for the sake of brevity—as the table indicates, these 30 items represent
less than 0.2% of the total request. They can be found in the more complete accounting of the
request, and the Senate legislative response to date, in Table 1.
82
The Administration does request $11.5 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) in the “recovery and repair”
section of the request, of which some to be determined amount will be used for HMGP. The amount of assistance
provided through HMGP is set through a statutory formula per disaster declaration. For more on this program, see CRS
Report R40471, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program: Overview and Issues, by (name redacted).
83
For example, see the designation of $336 million in budget authority for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
in Chapter 10.
84
For example, see the designation of $2 billion in budget authority for the Community Development Fund in Chapter
10.
Congressional Research Service
41
Table A-1. Survey of FY2013 Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Request
millions of dollars in budget authority
Recipient of Appropriation
Agency
Bureau
Request
Account
Response
and
Recovery
Mitigation
Recipient Type
Total
% of
Total
Request
Federal
Damage
Recovery
Other
Assistance
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Department of
Agriculture
Farm Service Agency
Emergency Conservation
Program
15.00
15.00
0.02%
No
Yes
Farm Service Agency
Commodity Credit
Corporation Fund
23.00
23.00
0.04%
No
Yes
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Watershed and Flood
Prevention Operations
30.00
150.00
180.00
0.30%
No
Yes
33.00
360.00
393.00
0.65%
Yes
Yes
100.00
100.00
0.17%
No
Yes
Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Department of
Commerce
National
Oceanographic and
Atmospheric
Administration
Operations, Research and
Facilities
National
Oceanographic and
Atmospheric
Administration
Procurement,
Acquisition, and
Construction
Defense Subcommittee
Department of
Defense
CRS-42
Operations and
Maintenance
Operations and
Maintenance, Navy
41.20
41.20
0.07%
Yes
No
Revolving and
Management Funds
Working Capital Fund,
Navy
24.20
24.20
0.04%
Yes
No
Recipient of Appropriation
Agency
Bureau
Request
Account
Response
and
Recovery
Mitigation
Recipient Type
Total
% of
Total
Request
Federal
Damage
Recovery
Other
Assistance
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Army Corps of
Engineers - Civil
Works
Investigations
30.00
30.00
0.05%
No
Yes
Construction
3,820.00
3,820.00
6.32%
No
Yes
Operations and Maintenance
899.00
899.00
1.49%
Yes
Yes
Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies
592.00
592.00
0.98%
No
Yes
50.00
50.00
0.08%
No
Yes
0.00
0.00%
No
Yes
750.00
750.00
1.24%
No
Yes
Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee
Salaries and Expenses
Small Business
Administration
Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund
Disaster Loan Program Account
Homeland Security Subcommittee
Department of
Homeland
Security
Coast Guard
Operating Expenses
66.84
66.84
0.11%
Yes
No
Coast Guard
Acquisition, Construction
and Improvements
207.39
207.39
0.34%
Yes
No
FEMA
Disaster Relief Fund
11,500.00
11,500.00
19.04%
Yes
Yes
FEMA
Disaster Assistance
Direct Loan Program
300.00
300.00
0.50%
No
Yes
FEMA
National Flood Insurance
Fund
9,700.00
9,700.00
16.06%
No
Yes
400.00
0.66%
No
Yes
Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Department of
the Interior
CRS-43
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Resource Management
400.00
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Construction
78.00
78.00
0.13%
Yes
No
National Park Service
Construction
348.00
348.00
0.58%
Yes
No
Recipient of Appropriation
Agency
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Bureau
Request
Account
Response
and
Recovery
State and Tribal Assistance Grants
Mitigation
610.00
Recipient Type
Total
% of
Total
Request
Federal
Damage
Recovery
Other
Assistance
610.00
1.01%
No
Yes
Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee
Department of
Labor
Department of
Health and
Human Services
Employment and
Training
Administration
Training and Employment
Services
50.00
50.00
0.08%
No
Yes
Administration for
Children and Families
Social Services Block
Grant
500.00
500.00
0.83%
No
Yes
Administration for
Children and Families
Children and Families
Services Programs
100.00
100.00
0.17%
No
Yes
Departmental
Management
Public Health and Social
Services Emergency Fund
200.00
200.00
0.33%
No
Yes
Military Construction, Army National Guard
24.24
24.24
0.04%
Yes
No
Veterans Health
Administration
Medical Services
21.00
21.00
0.03%
Yes
No
Departmental
Administration
Construction, Major
Projects
207.00
207.00
0.34%
Yes
No
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies
Department of
Defense—
Military
Construction
Department of
Veterans’ Affairs
CRS-44
Recipient of Appropriation
Agency
Bureau
Request
Account
Response
and
Recovery
Mitigation
Recipient Type
Total
% of
Total
Request
Federal
Damage
Recovery
Other
Assistance
Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies
Department of
Transportation
Department of
Housing and
Urban
Development
Federal Aviation
Administration
Facilities and Equipment
30.00
30.00
0.05%
Yes
No
Federal Highway
Administration
Emergency Relief
Program
308.00
308.00
0.51%
No
Yes
Federal Railroad
Administration
Operating Subsidy Grants
to NRPC
32.00
32.00
0.05%
No
Yes
Federal Transit
Administration
Public Transportation
Emergency Relief
Program
11,700.00
19.37%
No
Yes
Public and Indian
Housing Programs
Tenant-Based Rental
Assistance
N/A
N/A
No
Yes
Community Planning
and Development
Community
Development Fund
17,000.00
28.14%
No
Yes
108.80
0.18%
60,408.67
100.00%
6,200.00
15,000.00
5,500.00
2,000.00
Requests for Appropriations of $10 Million or Less
30 Individual requests of $10 million or less
108.80
TOTAL
47,438.67
12,970.00
88.07
19.73
Source: CRS analysis of the FY2013 Supplemental Appropriations Request, as transmitted in a letter from Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management, to The
Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, December 7, 2012.
CRS-45
FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief
Author Contact Information
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
(name redacted), Coordinator
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
46
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.