Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Congressional research reportAug 31, 2017

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster

Supplemental

,name redacted,, Coordinator

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy

,name redacted,

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy

Updated August 31, 2017

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R44937

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

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 major disaster declarations for 12 states plus the

District of Columbia. The Obama 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 during the first month of 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 Obama

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 summary report analyzes the Obama 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 P.L. 113-2.

This report is primarily for reference purposes. The material in it is intended to provide context

to help the reader better understand how the disaster relief bill that passed in the wake of

Hurricane Sandy moved through Congress at what funding it ultimately contained. The report

does not track obligation of funds or discuss ongoing recovery efforts.

Enacted funding levels in the report represent funding prior to the sequestration of March 2013,

as how sequestration would be implemented was not clear at the time P.L. 113-2 was enacted.

For details concerning the legislative provisions requested by the Obama Administration, as well

as those included in Senate-amended H.R. 1, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental

Funding for Disaster Relief. Division B of P.L. 113-2, which amended 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

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Contents

Overview and Legislative History ................................................................................................... 1

112th Congress ........................................................................................................................... 1

113th Congress ........................................................................................................................... 1

Comparison of Supplemental Request and Legislative Response ................................................... 2

Disaster Relief and Emergency Funding Under the Budget Control Act ............................... 10

Offsetting Disaster Relief .........................................................................................................11

Is the “Sandy Supplemental” Just for Hurricane Sandy? ........................................................ 12

Comparing Past or Future Disasters to Hurricane Sandy ........................................................ 17

Tables

Table 1. FY2013 Disaster Supplemental Request and Congressional Action ................................. 4

Table 2. Appropriations in P.L. 113-2 Provided Without Uniform Language Restricting

Their Use to “Necessary Expenses Related to the Consequences of Hurricane Sandy.” ........... 13

Contacts

Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Overview and Legislative History

In late October 2012, Hurricane Sandy impacted a wide swath of the East Coast of the United

States. President Obama had, as of January 31, 2013, declared major disasters for 12 states plus

the District of Columbia under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). The Obama 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.

The Administration’s proposal included $47.44 billion in funding for a range of disaster

assistance, and $12.97 billion specifically for mitigation of damage from potential future storms

and flooding. Budget authority of $55 billion was requested as emergency funding, while $5.4

billion was requested as disaster relief under the Budget Control Act (BCA).

112th Congress

On December 17, 2012, S.Amdt. 3338, entitled the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013, was

introduced as an amendment to H.R. 1 of the 112th Congress. This bill was a continuing resolution

that had previously passed the House of Representatives, and served as the Senate legislative

vehicle for disaster relief supplemental appropriations. On December 19, the amendment was

withdrawn and S.Amdt. 3395, with the same title and overall cost, was offered in its place.

This legislation would have provided $60.41 billion in supplemental appropriations for disaster

assistance, as well as a suite of legislative provisions that included reforms to disaster assistance

authorities. The Senate amendment did not explicitly separate all its mitigation provisions from

other relief appropriations, although it did reference some funding as being for mitigation. Budget

authority of $55 billion in the legislation was designated as emergency funding, while $5.379

billion in funding for the Disaster Relief Fund would have been designated as being for disaster

relief under the BCA. A budget point of order was upheld against part of the legislation, removing

the emergency designation from $3.461 billion of construction funding for the Army Corps of

Engineers. The Senate made several changes to the amendment (which was passed by voice

vote), and then passed the supplemental appropriations legislation 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 Obama Administration’s request did become law during 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 2013.1

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 Obama Administration’s request. The President signed it into law as

P.L. 113-1 on January 6, 2013.

1 For more information, see CRS Report R42037, SBA Surety Bond Guarantee Program, by (name redacted)

Congressional Research Service

R44937 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

H.R. 152, which included another portion of the Obama Administration’s supplemental request,

was introduced on January 4, 2013, and an amendment was filed that same day that included

additional portions. The House Appropriations Committee described H.R. 152 as including $17

billion “to meet immediate and critical needs,” and described 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.2

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.

Comparison of Supplemental Request and

Legislative Response3

Table 1 below outlines the Obama 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 Obama Administration’s request is shown by appropriations subcommittee in Table 1.

Unlike in the Administration’s request, no distinction is made in this table between requested

mitigation funding and recovery funding. A breakdown of the Administration’s request that

illuminates the Administration’s separate request for mitigation funding is included in CRS

Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief.

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 Obama

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.

Note that all funding levels in the enacted column show the resources provided by P.L. 113-2:

those resources were ultimately reduced by the sequestration required on March 1, 2013, under

the provisions of the BCA, as amended. That sequestration required the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) to implement across-the-board spending cuts at the account and program

level to achieve equal budget reductions from both defense and nondefense funding, under terms

2 The analysis in this report of the House position is based on those texts from the House Rules Committee website.

3 For details concerning the legislative provisions requested by the Administration, as well as those included in Senate-

amended H.R. 1, see CRS Report R42869, FY2013 Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief.

Congressional Research Service

R44937 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

specified in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA),4 as

amended by the BCA. The amount and implementation of those reductions was unclear at the

time P.L. 113-2 was enacted.

4 Title II of P.L. 99-177, 2 U.S.C. 900-922.

Congressional Research Service

R44937 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED

Table 1. FY2013 Disaster Supplemental Request and Congressional Action

By appropriations subcommittee, amounts in millions of dollars of budget authority

Subcommittee / Bureau

Account/ Program

President’s

Request

112th Congress

113th Congress

Senate-passed

H.R. 1

P.L. 113-2

(H.R. 152)

Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Farm Service Agency

Emergency Conservation Program

25.09

Farm Service Agency

Emergency Forest Restoration Programa

58.855

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Emergency Watershed Protection Programb

180

125.055

180

Food and Nutrition Service

Commodity Assistance Program

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

Federal Bureau of Investigation

Salaries and Expenses

10.02

Drug Enforcement Agency

Salaries and Expenses

Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and

Explosives

Salaries and Expenses

0.23

Federal Prison System

Buildings and Facilities

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

CRS-4

Subcommittee / Bureau

Account/ Program

President’s

Request

112th Congress

113th Congress

Senate-passed

H.R. 1

P.L. 113-2

(H.R. 152)

Payment to LSC

Operations and Maintenance

Operations and Maintenance, Army

5.37

Operations and Maintenance

Operations and Maintenance, Navy

41.2

40.015

Operations and Maintenance

Operations and Maintenance, Air Force

8.5

Operations and Maintenance

Operations and Maintenance, Army National Guard

3.165

Operations and Maintenance

Operations and Maintenance, Air National Guard

5.775

Procurement

Procurement of Ammunition, Army

1.31

Revolving and Management Funds

Defense Working Capital Funds

24.2

Investigations

Construction

3,829

3,461

Operations and Maintenance

899

821

Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies

592

1,008

Salaries and Expenses

Office of the Inspector General

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

Subcommittee / Bureau

Account/ Program

Disaster Loan Program Account

President’s

Request

750

112th Congress

113th Congress

Senate-passed

H.R. 1

P.L. 113-2

(H.R. 152)

760

779

Homeland Security

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Customs and Border Protection

Salaries and Expenses

2.402

1.667

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Salaries and Expenses

0.855

Coast Guard

Operating Expenses

66.844

Coast Guard

Acquisition, Construction and Improvements

207.389

274.233

Secret Service

Salaries and Expenses

0.3

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Disaster Relief Fund

11,500

11,484.735

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program

300

Science and Technology

RDAO

3.249

Domestic Nuclear Detection Office

Systems Acquisition

3.869

Office of the Inspector General

(by transfer)

National Flood Insurance Fundc

9,700

General Provisions for this title

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Resource Management

400

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Construction

68.2

National Park Service

Historic Preservation Fund

National Park Service

Construction

348

Bureau of Safety and Environmental

Enforcement

Oil Spill Research

CRS-6

Subcommittee / Bureau

Departmental Operations

Account/ Program

Office of the Secretary

President’s

Request

112th Congress

113th Congress

Senate-passed

H.R. 1

P.L. 113-2

(H.R. 152)

150

360

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Environmental Programs and Management

0.725

Hazardous Substance Superfund

Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund

610

810

600

State and Tribal Assistance Grants

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (FOREST SERVICE)

Forest Service

Capital Improvement and Maintenance

4.4

Salaries and Expenses

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

500f

Administration for Children and Families

Children and Families Services Programs

100

100f

Departmental Management

Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund

200

195f

Office of the Inspector General

(by transfer)

24.235

24.2

24.235

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE (MILITARY CONSTRUCTION)

Military Construction

CRS-7

Military Construction, Army National Guard

Subcommittee / Bureau

Account/ Program

President’s

Request

112th Congress

113th Congress

Senate-passed

H.R. 1

P.L. 113-2

(H.R. 152)

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Health Administration

Medical Services

Veterans Health Administration

Medical Facilities

1.1

2.1

0.531

0.5

0.531

National Cemetery Administration

Departmental Administration

IT Systems

Departmental Administration

Construction, Major Projects

207

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Facilities and Equipment

Federal Highway Administration

Emergency Relief Program

308

921

2,022

Federal Railroad Administration

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

336

118

Federal Transit Administration

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program

11,700

10,777

10,894

Office of the Inspector General

(by transfer)

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)

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. Funding levels are in millions of

dollars of budget authority.

Notes: Enacted funding levels are pre-sequestration.

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.

CRS-8

CRS-9

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.

Transfer authority is provided to other Coast Guard accounts from Coast Guard Acquisition, Construction and Improvements.

The House derives these funds from unobligated balances, therefore they do not add to the bill’s budgetary score, according to CBO.

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.

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Disaster Relief and Emergency Funding Under the Budget

Control Act

The Budget Control Act (BCA)5 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,6 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.7

This disaster relief allowable adjustment for FY2013 was $11.8 billion. Under the continuing

resolution signed into law on September 28, 2012 (P.L. 112-175), the amount of disaster relief (as

defined under the BCA) that would be provided if the resolution were extended for the full fiscal

year was $6.4 billion. This was the first time under the BCA that in the wake of a major disaster

more relief funding was sought than could be accommodated under the allowable adjustment.

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 Disaster Relief

Fund (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 for disaster relief under the

BCA, with all but $3,461 million (for Army Corps of Engineers construction activities)8 of the

remaining funding in the bill designated as emergency funding.

P.L. 113-2 contained $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.9

5 P.L. 112-25.

6 The BCA also specifically defined “disaster relief” as being federal government assistance provided pursuant to a

major disaster declared under the Stafford Act.

7 For a more extensive discussion of this structure, see CRS Report R42352, An Examination of Federal Disaster Relief

Under the Budget Control Act.

8 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.

9 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 was

$2 million lower due to conversion of some unobligated balances of budget authority to emergency funding in the bill.

Congressional Research Service

R44937 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Offsetting Disaster Relief

One potential method for accommodating disaster response and recovery costs beyond the

allowable adjustment for disaster relief would be offsetting the additional spending through

rescissions or other means that would reduce the net budgetary scoring of the bill.

Traditionally, supplemental funding for the DRF has been treated as emergency spending—it was

not counted against discretionary budget caps, nor was an offset required. However, supplemental

spending packages have at times carried rescissions or transfers that have offset, to one degree or

another, the budgetary impact of other forms of disaster assistance that could be defined as

“disaster relief” under the BCA.

Of the 59 bills passed with supplemental appropriations from 1990 to the end of 2012, 6 were

fully offset by rescissions. Only one of those actually provided net additional resources for the

DRF—the Emergency Supplemental and Rescissions for Antiterrorism and Oklahoma City

Disaster, 1995 (P.L. 104-19). In other cases, the DRF was used as an offset for disaster assistance

provided through other federal entities.10

Offsetting the Obama Administration’s supplemental request in the wake of Hurricane Sandy,

however, would have been complicated by two key factors. First, as the federal government was

operating under a continuing resolution, there was no baseline appropriation in the current fiscal

year from which to offset. It is also worth noting the scale of the offset that would have been

required: had the request been an FY2012 annual appropriations bill, it would have been the

fourth largest of the group. The budget authority sought in the request exceeded the size of the

three smallest appropriations bills from that year combined—even if none of the nearly $13

billion in the Administration’s mitigation request were counted.

The Obama Administration’s request, Senate-passed H.R. 1, and P.L. 113-2 did not include

offsets, and the Administration’s request letter and Statement of Administration Policy on H.R.

152 specifically stated the Administration’s position that the funding could and should be

provided without offset.11 However, an amendment was offered in the House to offset $17 billion

of disaster assistance from H.R. 152 by making an across-the-board cut of 1.63% to FY2013

discretionary spending. This amendment did not pass by a vote of 162-258.12 A Senate

amendment to offset the entire cost of H.R. 152 through reducing the caps on discretionary

spending through FY2021 also was not agreed to by a vote of 35-62.13

When the Senate struck the emergency designation for Army Corps of Engineers construction

activities, it allowed $3,461 million of Senate-passed H.R. 1 to count against the FY2013

discretionary budget caps. P.L. 113-2 gave the same treatment to the $3,461 million it provides

for Army Corps of Engineers construction. This means that $3,461 million in discretionary

budget authority that would have been available to resolve the FY2013 regular appropriations

legislation has been expended, and the final resolution of the FY2013 appropriations process had

to accommodate that reality to avoid violating the budget caps.14

10 A fuller discussion of this issue can be found in CRS Report R42458, Offsets, Supplemental Appropriations, and the

Disaster Relief Fund: FY1990-FY2013.

11 Letter from Jeffrey D. Zients, Deputy Director for Management, to the Honorable John Boehner, Speaker of the

House of Representatives, December 7, 2012, p. 2, and OMB, “Statement of Administration Policy: Disaster Relief

Appropriations Act, 2013—H.R. 152,” January 14, 2013.

12 H.Amdt. 4 to H.R. 152 (Roll No.14), January 15, 2013.

13 S.Amdt. 4 to H.R. 152 (Record Vote Number 3), January 28, 2013.

14 An unrelated provision has the effect reducing discretionary spending by $2 million in FY2013, so the net

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

R44937 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Is the “Sandy Supplemental” Just for Hurricane Sandy?

It is not common practice to have a supplemental appropriations bill focus on a single event to the

exclusion of all other purposes, despite the practice of colloquially naming supplemental

appropriations legislation for a particular event or problem that has drawn public attention.

Appropriations for the FEMA’s DRF are regularly obligated to relief and recovery efforts from

multiple disasters across many fiscal years, regardless of the legislative vehicle that provided

them.

More than 80% of the individual appropriations in P.L. 113-2 had uniform explicit language

accompanying them that specified the funding provided was “for necessary expenses related to

the consequences of Hurricane Sandy.” Of the ten appropriations which did not carry that specific

language, seven of them (including the three largest appropriations in the act) were either for

disaster relief-specific programs or carried language limiting the usage of the entire appropriation

provided to disaster relief and recovery activities. All instances of funding in P.L. 113-2 not

covered by the uniform controlling language are shown in Table 2, along with explanatory notes.

In cases where controlling language accompanied the appropriation it is highlighted with bold

type.

(...continued)

accommodation required was $3,459 million.

Congressional Research Service

R44937 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED

Table 2. Appropriations in P.L. 113-2 Provided Without Uniform Language Restricting Their Use to “Necessary Expenses

Related to the Consequences of Hurricane Sandy.”

Other Sandy-specific controlling language, when present, is in bold type

Department /

Agency

Department of

Commerce

CRS-13

Appropriation

Citation

Legislative Language

Notes

National

Oceanographic

and Atmospheric

Administration;

Operations,

Research, and

Facilities

127 Stat. 19

For an additional amount for ‘‘Operations, Research, and Facilities’’,

$290,000,000 (reduced by $150,000,000) to remain available until September

30, 2014, as follows:

(1) $50,000,000 for mapping, charting, geodesy services and marine

debris surveys for coastal States impacted by Hurricane Sandy;

(2) $7,000,000 to repair and replace ocean observing and coastal

monitoring assets damaged by Hurricane Sandy;

(3) $3,000,000 to provide technical assistance to support State

assessments of coastal impacts of Hurricane Sandy;

(4) $25,000,000 to improve weather forecasting and hurricane intensity

forecasting capabilities, to include data assimilation from ocean observing

platforms and satellites;

(5) $50,000,000 for laboratories and cooperative institutes research activities

associated with sustained observations weather research programs, and ocean

and coastal research; and

(6) $5,000,000 for necessary expenses related to fishery disasters during

calendar year 2012 that were declared by the Secretary of Commerce as a

direct result of impacts from Hurricane Sandy:

This funding in (4) and (5)

supported disaster

preparedness capabilities

beyond the explicit scope of

Hurricane Sandy.

National

Oceanographic

and Atmospheric

Administration;

Procurement,

Acquisition and

Construction

127 Stat. 19

For an additional amount for ‘‘Procurement, Acquisition and Construction’’,

$186,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2015, as follows:

(1) $9,000,000 to repair National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) facilities damaged by Hurricane Sandy;

(2) $44,500,000 for repairs and upgrades to NOAA hurricane reconnaissance

aircraft;

(3) $8,500,000 for improvements to weather forecasting equipment and

supercomputer infrastructure;

(4) $13,000,000 to accelerate the National Weather Service ground readiness

project; and

(5) $111,000,000 for a weather satellite data mitigation gap reserve fund:

This funding supported disaster

preparedness capabilities

beyond the explicit scope of

Hurricane Sandy.

Department /

Agency

Appropriation

Citation

Legislative Language

Notes

Small Business

Administration

Disaster Loans

Program

Account

127 Stat. 27

For an additional amount for ‘‘Disaster Loans Program Account’’ for the cost

of direct loans authorized by section 7(b) of the Small Business Act,

$520,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That such costs,

including the cost of modifying such loans, shall be defined in section 502 of

the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: Provided further, That in addition, for

administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan program authorized by

section 7(b) of the Small Business Act, an additional $260,000,000 to remain

available until expended, of which $250,000,000 is for direct administrative

expenses of loan making and servicing to carry out the direct loan program,

which may be transferred to and merged with the appropriations for Salaries

and Expenses, and of which $10,000,000 is for indirect administrative expenses

for the direct loan program, which may to be transferred to and merged with

appropriations for Salaries and Expenses: …

While the SBA’s technical

assistance grants provided in

the legislation were restricted

to businesses recovering from

Hurricane Sandy, the availability

of small business disaster loans

was not restricted by this

legislation. However, the

program itself is specifically tied

to disaster assistance.

Department of

Homeland

Security

Federal

Emergency

Management

Agency; Disaster

Relief Fund

127 Stat. 28

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Disaster Relief Fund’’ in carrying out the

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

5121 et seq.), $11,487,735,000, to remain available until expended: Provided ,

That of the total amount provided, $5,379,000,000 shall be for major disasters

declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.): Provided further, That the amount in

the preceding proviso is designated by the Congress as being for disaster relief

pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(D) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency

Deficit Control Act of 1985: Provided further, That of the total amount

provided, $6,108,735,000 is designated by the Congress as being for an

emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 which shall be for major

disasters declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and

Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.): Provided further…

DRF appropriations are

generally not restricted by

incident. The usage of these

funds is controlled by the

Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency

Assistance Act (P.L. 100-707;

the Stafford Act), the

authorizing statute for the DRF.

Federal

Emergency

Management

Agency; Disaster

Assistance Direct

Loan Program

127 Stat. 29

For an additional amount for ‘‘Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program

Account’’ for the cost of direct loans, $300,000,000, to remain available until

expended, as authorized by section 417 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster

Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5184), of which up to

$4,000,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the direct loan

program: Provided, That such costs, including the cost of modifying such loans,

shall be as defined in section 502 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

Provided further, That these funds are available to subsidize gross obligations

for the principal amount of direct loans not to exceed $400,000,000: …

No restrictions on communities

otherwise eligible for direct

loans under the Community

Disaster Loan Program, funded

through this account.

CRS-14

Department /

Agency

Appropriation

Citation

Legislative Language

Notes

Environmental

Protection

Agency

State and Tribal

Assistance

Grants

127 Stat. 31

For an additional amount for ‘‘State and Tribal Assistance Grants’’,

$600,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which $500,000,000 shall

be for capitalization grants for the Clean Water State Revolving Funds under

title VI of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and of which

$100,000,000 shall be for capitalization grants under section 1452 of the Safe

Drinking Water Act: Provided, That notwithstanding section 604(a) of

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and section 1452(a)(1)(D)

of the Safe Drinking Water Act, funds appropriated herein shall be

provided to States in EPA Region 2 for wastewater and drinking

water treatment works and facilities impacted by Hurricane Sandy:

This construction was

necessary to use the program

without using its typical formula

for distributing funds

nationwide, but in the end

creates a virtually identical

restriction—although Region 2

does not exactly conform to

the full areas with Stafford Act

declared disasters due to

Hurricane Sandy, the last words

ensure the funds are targeted

to Sandy-damaged works and

facilities.

Department of

Transportation

Federal Highway

Administration

Emergency Relief

Program

127 Stat. 35

For an additional amount for the ‘‘Emergency Relief Program’’ as authorized

under section 125 of title 23, United States Code, $2,022,000,000, to remain

available until expended: Provided, That the obligations for projects under this

section resulting from a single natural disaster or a single catastrophic failure in

a State shall not exceed $100,000,000, and the total obligations for projects

under this section in any fiscal year in the Virgin Islands, Guam, American

Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands shall not

exceed $20,000,000: Provided further, That notwithstanding the

preceding proviso, the Secretary of Transportation may obligate

more than $100,000,000, but not more than $500,000,000, for a

single natural disaster event in a State for emergency relief projects

arising from damage caused in calendar year 2012 by Hurricane

Sandy:

Aid to states not impacted by

Hurricane Sandy seemed to be

capped at $100 million per

“natural disaster or … single

catastrophic failure in a State,”

while the Department could

have approved a single project

in each state for Sandy-related

emergency relief of up to $500

million.

Grants to the

National Railroad

Passenger

Corporation

127 Stat. 35

For an additional amount for ‘‘Grants to the National Railroad Passenger

Corporation’’ for the Secretary of Transportation to make capital and debt

service grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation to advance

capital projects that address Northeast Corridor infrastructure

recovery and resiliency in the affected areas, $86,000,000, to remain

available until expended:

This limiting structure was not

identical to the “consequences”

structure as it allowed for

“infrastructure recovery and

resiliency” capital projects, but

had a similar effect in terms of

limiting the geographic range of

availability.

CRS-15

Department /

Agency

Appropriation

Citation

Legislative Language

Notes

Department of

Transportation

(continued)

Public

Transportation

Emergency Relief

Program

127 Stat 3536

For the ‘‘Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program’’ as authorized

under section 5324 of title 49, United States Code, $10,900,000,000, to

remain available until expended, for recovery and relief efforts in the

areas most affected by Hurricane Sandy.… That of the funds provided

under this heading, the Secretary of Transportation may transfer up to

$5,383,000,000 to the appropriate agencies to fund programs authorized

under titles 23 and 49, United States Code, in order to carry out projects

related to reducing risk of damage from future disasters in areas

impacted by Hurricane Sandy.

Again, this limiting structure

was not identical to the

“consequences” structure, but

had a similar effect in terms of

limiting the geographic range of

availability.

Department of

Housing and

Urban

Development

Community

Development

Block Grants

127 Stat 36

For an additional amount for ‘‘Community Development Fund’’,

$16,000,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2017, for necessary

expenses related to disaster relief, long-term recovery, restoration of

infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted

and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

5121 et seq.) due to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible events in

calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013, for activities authorized under title I

of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5301 et

seq.):

This expressly allowed the

appropriated funds to be

expended for a variety of

expenses related to all major

disasters declared in calendar

years 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Source: CRS analysis of P.L. 113-2.

CRS-16

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Comparing Past or Future Disasters to Hurricane Sandy15

As Congress debated the provision of supplemental funding in the wake of Hurricane Sandy,

some commentators compared the scope and magnitude of Hurricane Sandy to past disasters.

Generally, comparisons were drawn to other major disasters in recent memory, including

Hurricane Irene of 2011 because of the similarities in geographic region impacted, and

Hurricanes Katrina of 2005 and Andrew of 1992 because of their scope and magnitude of

damage. Some comparisons spoke to the loss of life, others to the disruption of daily activities of

citizens, and other to the relative impacts on the local and regional economies.16 While these

comparisons helped provide a level of perspective on the scale of devastation, it is important to

note that all disasters, and especially disasters of the magnitude of Hurricane Sandy, are produced

by a set of unique circumstances that result in an equally unique set of needs for assistance from

the federal government.

Two major concepts may be useful to keep in mind when comparing the need for federal

assistance following disasters. First, because of the principles of federalism in emergency

management—that the federal government generally provides assistance to supplement the work

of state, tribal, and local governments only after they become overwhelmed and only at their

request—the varying capabilities of a state/tribal/local government can change the types and

scope of assistance provided by the federal government. This issue was discussed by former

Administrator of FEMA, Craig Fugate, in testimony on Hurricane Sandy. In reference to the

denial of an application for one form of disaster assistance (individual assistance), Fugate

explained that decisions to provide federal assistance are based not upon the need of any

particular individual, but upon the need of the state as a whole and whether the state is capable of

addressing that need without federal assistance.17

Second, the relative levels of federal assistance required for each disaster depend on the

proportional impact to various sectors of the community. For example, a particular disaster may

destroy one community’s business district and overwhelm the ability of the state to respond to

that impact, while another may significantly damage the majority of the community’s public

facilities. In the first disaster, the assistance from the federal government may be noteworthy for

the relatively large amount of loan assistance provided by the Small Business Administration,

while the second disaster may be noteworthy for the relatively large amount of assistance

provided through the FEMA’s Public Assistance (PA) program.

Some additional disaster-specific factors that may inhibit the comparability of disasters include:



The comparative density and socioeconomic status of the impacted populations;

The percentage of properties and private/public losses that were insured, and the

adequacy of the insurance coverage; and

The number of jurisdictions impacted by the disasters, and whether these

jurisdictions span multiple states requiring greater federal coordination of the

response and recovery effort.

15 Prepared by Jared Brown, Analyst in Emergency Management Policy.

16 For a description of how economic damage is difficult to evaluate in particular, see

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/12/what-are-the-costs-of-superstorm-sandy.html.

17 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, A Review of the Preparedness, Response to

and Recovery from Hurricane Sandy, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., November 4, 2012.

Congressional Research Service

R44937 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED

Congressional Action on the FY2013 Disaster Supplemental

Author Contact Information

(name redacted), Coor dinator

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland

Security Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

(name redacted)

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland

Security Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov

, 7-....

R44937 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED

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

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.