When a state is overwhelmed by an emergency or disaster, the governor may request assistance from the federal government. Federal assistance is contingent on whether the President issues an emergency or major disaster declaration. Once the declaration has been issued, FEMA provides disaster relief through the use of the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). Contents of this report: (1) DRF; (2) Past and Present Authorities Related to the DRF: Public Laws Influencing the Administration of Disaster Relief; (3) How the DRF is Funded; (4) The Debate over Emergency Supplemental Appropriations; (5) Emergency Supplemental Appropriations: FY 1989 ¿ FY 2008; (6) Issues for Congress; (7) Concluding Policy Questions. Illus. A print on demand report.

The Robert T. Stafford Emergency Relief and Disaster Assistance Act authorizes the President to issue declarations for incidents ranging from destructive, large-scale disasters to more routine, less damaging events. Declarations trigger federal assistance in the forms of various response and recovery programs under the Stafford Act to state, local, and tribal governments. The Federal Emergency Management Agencys (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) is the primary funding source for disaster response and recovery. This book discusses the declaration process and the types of declarations that can be issued. It also describes the various components of the DRF, including what authorities have shaped it over the years; how FEMA determines the amount of the appropriation requested to Congress (pertaining to the DRF); and how emergency supplemental appropriations are requested. Information is also provided on funds appropriated in supplemental appropriations legislation to agencies other than the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

This publication discusses the recent history of offsetting rescissions in paying for supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). As Congress has debated the growing size of the budget deficit and national debt in recent years, efforts have intensified to control spending and offset the costs of legislation. In 1995, 2011, and again in 2012, the question of offsetting disaster relief spending emerged in congressional debate. In 2011, a series of disasters threatened to deplete the DRF, which is the primary source of assistance to state and local governments as well as individuals in the wake of disasters. Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast of the United States on October 29, 2012. The storm caused tens of billions of dollars in damage along the coast. As damage estimates became public in the weeks after the storm, calls for supplemental appropriations to help pay for recovery efforts were met with calls for offsets from some quarters. Traditionally, supplemental disaster relief funding has been treated as emergency spending, not counted against discretionary budget caps, and not requiring an offset. However, supplemental spending packages have at times carried rescissions that have offset, to one degree or another, their budgetary impact. In some instances, the supplemental spending packages have contained both appropriations for the DRF and offsetting rescissions. This publication examines the use of offsets in connection with supplemental funding for the DRF since FY1990, reviewing three specific incidences where bills that had an impact on the level of funding available in the DRF were fully offset, and points out a number of issues Congress may wish to consider in this debate. Since FY1990, there has only been one case in which supplemental funding for the DRF was completely offset by rescissions.

This book examines the evolution of federal disaster relief policy, assesses problems with current policy, and provides an understanding of the issues likely to be involved in future deliberations about federal policy. While examining its formulation, May describes this policy making in two different political environments: the charged atmosphere immediately following the catastrophe and, secondly, the calm between catastrophes. Local, state, and federal government conflicts are illustrated in a case study of Mount St. Helens; intergovernmental partnerships in this arena are discussed in relation to other relief efforts. May stresses the political implications of disaster relief in his analysis of the electoral benefits and influence politicians derive from their attempts to influence federal disaster relief efforts. Finally he addresses the economic considerations and future directions for federal disaster relief policy. Three distinct policy approaches and their tradeoffs provide an overview of the options for future policy making.