Search

The article discusses the U.S. Congressional Research Service report which provides selected sources for tracking COVID-19 relief and assistance spending. It mentions as mandated by an Office of Management and Budget memorandum, federal agencies must include specific COVID-19 spending in their reporting for the database.

The article provides an overview and issues related to the U.S. Disaster Relief Fund which is managed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. It mentions about factors in changing appropriations levels such as incident frequency and severity, programmatic changes in disaster relief, and changes in the budget process.

The article offers information on the U.S. based tax extenders along with details on the temporary tax provisions. The topics addressed include details on use of the temporary tax provisions to provide relief during times of economic weakness or following a natural disaster and information on the cost of extending expired tax provisions.

The article reports that education-related federal disaster appropriations and temporary provisions administered by the U.S. Department of Education following various natural disasters. Following the Gulf Coast hurricanes, funding to support elementary and secondary schools affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita was provided through three public laws including P.L. 109-148, P.L. 109-234 and P.L. 110-28.

The article offers information on disaster assistance in the form of loans provided by Small Business Administration (SBA). It mentions that the loans taken by small business must also be returned to federal government. The criteria for such loans that can be borrowed by individuals, businesses, and nonprofit organizations in disaster regions. Information on types of disaster loans including home disaster loans, business physical disaster loans, economic injury disaster loans is offered,

The article offers information on the funding and appropriation of U.S.Small Business Administration (SBA) that supports small businesses. It mentions the funding trend of SBA since financial year 2000 including account transfers, rescission, and sequestration . The article also states the spending categories of SBA including disaster assistance, business loan credit subsidies and salaries and expenses.

This report is part of a suite of reports that discuss appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for FY2016. It specifically discusses appropriations for the components of DHS included in the third title of the homeland security appropriations bill--the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), the Office of Health Affairs (OHA), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Collectively, Congress has labeled these components in the appropriations act in recent years as "Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery." The report provides an overview of the Administration's FY2016 request for Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, and the appropriations proposed by Congress in response, and those enacted thus far. Rather than limiting the scope of its review to the third title, the report includes information on provisions throughout the proposed bill and report that directly affect these functions. Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery is the second largest of the four titles that carry the bulk of the funding in the bill. The Administration requested $6,222 million for these components in FY2016, $267 million more than was provided for FY2015. These three components made up 15.0% of the Administration's $41.4 billion request for the department in net discretionary budget authority, and the proposed additional funding was 15.5% of the total net increase requested. Most of the proposed net discretionary increase was for NPPD ($157 million, or 10.5% more than last year) and its work in cybersecurity and communications. The Administration also requested an additional $6.7 billion not reflected above for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in disaster relief funding, as defined by the Budget Control Act (BCA, P.L. 112-25). Senate-reported S. 1619 would have provided the components included in this title $6,291 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $69 million (1.1%) more than requested, and $336 million (5.6%) more than was provided in FY2015. The Senate-reported bill also included the requested disaster relief funding. House-reported H.R. 3128 would have provided the components included in this title $6,122 million in net discretionary budget authority. This would have been $100 million (1.6%) less than requested, and $167 million (2.8%) more than was provided in FY2015. Like the Senate-reported bill, the House-reported bill also included the requested disaster relief funding. On December 18, 2015, the President signed into law P.L. 114-113, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Division F of which was the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2016. The act included $6,353 million for these components in FY2016, $398 million (6.8%) more that was provided for FY2015, and $131 million (2.1%) more than was requested. Additional information on the broader subject of FY2016 funding for the department can be found in CRS Report R44053, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2016, as well as links to analytical overviews and details regarding appropriations for other components. This report will be updated if supplemental appropriations are provided for any of these components throughout the FY2016 appropriations process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a forecast for the Disaster Relief allowable adjustment under the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) for the period FY2017-FY2021. It mentions that the under the status quo, the disaster relief allowable adjustment will continue to be available through FY2021, after which the limitations on discretionary spending under the BCA expire.

The article reports on the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011 which established a set of limits on federal spending. The Act introduced a set of mechanisms to adjust those limits to accommodate special categories of spending that has special priority. The Act presented a new approach to paying for disaster relief under a limited allowable adjustment to pay for the congressionally designated costs of major disasters under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.

The article looks at disaster preparedness, response and recovery as a U.S. homeland security policy issue facing the 113th Congress. Provisions on disaster relief spending have been included by Congress when it passed the Budget Control Act (BCA). The concern over the impact of sequestration on disaster relief funding is addressed. Also discussed is the creation of the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy (HSRS) in response to the disaster in 2012.

After a disaster, when a region turns its attention to rebuilding, one of the greatest challenges to moving forward may involve how to properly manage debris generated by the event. Options include typical methods of waste management—landfilling, recycling, or burning. The challenge after a major disaster (e.g., a building or bridge collapse, or a flood, hurricane, or earthquake) is in managing significantly greater amounts of debris often left in the wake of such an event. Debris after a disaster may include waste soils and sediments, vegetation (trees, limbs, shrubs), municipal solid waste (common household garbage, personal belongings), construction and demolition debris (in some instances, entire residential structures and all their contents), vehicles (cars, trucks, boats), food waste, so-called white goods (refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners), and household hazardous waste (cleaning agents, pesticides, pool chemicals). Each type of waste may contain or be contaminated with certain toxic or hazardous constituents. In the short term, removal of debris is necessary to facilitate the recovery of a geographic area. In the long term, the methods by which these wastes are to be managed require proper consideration to ensure that their management (by landfilling, for example) will not pose future threats to human health or the environment. After a presidentially declared disaster, federal funding or direct assistance in response to the disaster may be available to a state or local government. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) may provide funding through its Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program for debris removal operations that eliminate immediate threats to lives, public health, and safety, or eliminate immediate threats of significant damage to improved public or private property. The federal share of funding to the affected area will be stated in the disaster declaration, but will be no less than 75%. The funding will be available for response activities in a designated geographic area for a specific period of time. In addition to funding, if the state or local government does not have the capability to respond to the disaster, it may request direct federal assistance from FEMA. Federal agencies most likely to assist with debris removal operations are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Activities they may perform include right-of-way clearance, curbside waste pickup, private property debris removal, property demolition, assistance with contaminated debris management, and collection of household hazardous waste. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Administration requested $64.0 billion in FY2010 supplemental appropriations: • $5.1 billion to replenish the U.S. Disaster Relief Fund administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); • $33 billion for the Department of Defense (DOD) primarily for deploying 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan and $4.5 billion in war-related foreign aid to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan; • $2.8 billion for Haiti earthquake-related reconstruction and foreign aid; • $243 million for activities related to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill; • $13.4 billion to compensate veterans exposed to Agent Orange; • $600 million for border security; and • $3.4 billion to settle two federal cases: trust claims of American Indians (Cobell) and $1.2 billion to pay for discrimination claims of 70,000 black farmers (Pigford II) case. On March 23, 2010, the House passed H.R. 4899, the Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act with $5.1 billion to replenish FEMA's Disaster Assistance Fund, and $600 million for a Labor Department summer jobs program. Including $600 million in rescissions, this bill required $5.1 billion in new appropriations. (Rescissions cancel previously appropriated budget authority which then offsets the amount of new budget authority-BA -that needs to be appropriated.) On May 26, 2010, the House Appropriations Committee (HAC) Democratic majority proposed a draft billwith $85.7 billion in funding, including $31 billion in additional domestic spending primarily to prevent layoffs of teachers, law enforcement personnel and firefighters and add more funds for Pell grants. Reflecting $900 million in rescissions, this bill would have required $84.8 billion in new BA. The May 27 markup of that bill was cancelled. On May 27, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 4899 by a vote of 67-28, with $59.6 billion in funding for disaster assistance, war funding, Haiti relief, and VA benefits, but with no additional domestic spending, and without the $4 billion for the two court cases, which were in H.R. 4213, the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act of 2010. With rescissions, the Senate version required $59.4 billion in new budget authority. On June 30, 2010, the House Democratic majority leadership posted another draft with $75.3 billion in spending for disaster assistance, war funding, Haiti relief, VA benefits, and $14 billion in additional domestic spending, primarily to prevent teacher layoffs and provide more Pell Grants. With $11.7 billion in rescissions, that bill would require $63.7 billion in new BA. House floor action is expected before the July 4 recess. The Defense Department, the State Department, FEMA, and the court plaintiffs have all cited funding deadlines in May and June, but there may be flexibility in these dates. On June 16, Secretary of Defense Gates called for passage of the supplemental before the July 4 recess. Relying on all available funding, DOD may cover its war costs until at least the end of July. Responding to concerns that the Coast Guard would run out of money for its oil spill response activities by mid-June, the House and Senate passed S. 3473 making up to $1 billion available. FEMA has $952 million available for disasters because it has only paid claims for urgent needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the aftermath of a major disaster, communities may need to rebuild, replace, or possibly even relocate a multitude of structures. When recovery activities take place on such a potentially large scale, compliance with any of a number of local, state, and federal laws or regulations may apply. For example, when older buildings must be repaired or demolished, provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) may need to be considered. If rebuilding will take place in a floodplain, provisions of Executive Order 11988 on Floodplain Management may apply. When federal agencies make decisions, such as funding applicant-proposed actions, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.) applies. For example, when federal funding is provided for disaster-related activities, applicants for those funds may be required to assess the environmental impacts of their proposed action. As commonly implemented, NEPA’s environmental review requirements are used as a vehicle to identify any other environmental requirements that may apply to a project as well. This use of NEPA as an “umbrella” statute can lead to confusion. For example, before an applicant can commit or expend funds under the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the applicant must complete an environmental review of the project. A required element of that review is the applicant’s certification that compliance criteria applicable to historic preservation, floodplain management, endangered species, air quality, and farmland protection have been considered. This review is required not only to meet NEPA obligations, but also to ensure that the project being funded does not violate applicable environmental law. From the applicant’s perspective, this may blur the distinction between what is required under NEPA and what is required under separate compliance requirements identified within the context of the NEPA process. For many federal actions undertaken in response to emergencies or major disasters, NEPA’s environmental review requirements are exempted under provisions of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act). (The Stafford Act does not, however, exempt such projects from other applicable environmental requirements.) In the past, some Members of Congress have been interested in the NEPA process as it applies to disasterrelated projects. This interest has been driven, in part, by federal grant applicants who have been confused about both their role in the NEPA process and what the law requires. To address issues associated with the NEPA process, this report discusses NEPA as it applies to projects for which federal funding to recover from or prepare for a disaster has been requested by local, tribal, or state grant applicants. Specifically, the report provides an overview of the NEPA process as it applies to such projects, identifies the types of projects (categorized by federal funding source) likely to require environmental review, and delineates the types of projects for which no or minimal environmental review is required (i.e., those for which statutory or regulatory exemptions apply) and those likely to require more in-depth review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The article discusses what if sandy emergency funding is counted in the Disaster Relief allowable adjustment under the U.S. Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) . It discusses what would be allowable adjustment look like if all the disaster assistance provided in FY2013 had been included in that year's disaster relief total. It explains the effect of including Sandy-related supplemental disaster assistance designated as emergency spending in the allowable adjustment calculation.

A report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service which examines the budget of the U.S. for international humanitarian assistance is presented. The sources of the emergency humanitarian assistance funds and their appropriations are discussed. Concerns of the administration of President George W. Bush that the funding would decline are noted.

The budget reconciliation process is one of the chief tools used by Congress during the past quarter-century to implement major changes in budget policy. Following a brief overview of the budget reconciliation process and the current budget policy context, this report provides information on the consideration of budget reconciliation legislation in 2005, during the first session of the 109th Congress. Reconciliation is a two-stage process. First, reconciliation instructions are included in the budget resolution, directing the appropriate committees to develop legislation achieving the desired budgetary outcomes. The second step involves consideration of the resultant reconciliation legislation by the House and Senate under expedited procedures. Consideration of the FY2006 budget resolution, H.Con.Res. 95, began in the House and Senate in March and came to a conclusion on April 28, 2005, with the House and Senate approving the conference report on the measure. The FY2006 budget resolution included reconciliation instructions expected to lead to the development of three different reconciliation measures: (1) an omnibus spending bill, involving recommendations from eight House and eight Senate committees, that would reduce mandatory outlays by about $35 billion over FY2006-FY2010; (2) a revenue bill that would reduce revenues by $70 billion over the same period; and (3) a bill that would increase the limit on the public debt by $781 billion. The omnibus spending bill would be reported, without any substantive revision, by the Budget Committees, while the revenue and debt-limit bills would be reported by the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees. Following a surge in spending for relief and reconstruction efforts associated with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Republican leaders in the House and Senate announced plans to achieve additional savings in mandatory outlays through the reconciliation process, and to pursue additional savings in annual appropriations acts and through other means. By informal agreement, the schedule for the beginning of reconciliation actions was delayed from September into late October in order to accommodate the need to address hurricane-related relief legislation and to achieve offsets for some of the additional spending. The Senate Budget Committee reported the spending reconciliation bill, S. 1932 (the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005) on October 27 and began its consideration on October 31. According to cost estimates prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, the eight Senate committees met or exceeded their reconciliation instructions, with net outlay savings of $39.114 billion over FY2006FY2010. The House Budget Committee is schedule to meet on the spending reconciliation bill on November 3. According to CBO, the reconciliation submissions of the eight instructed House committees achieve outlay savings of $53.929 billion over five years, which exceeds by about $4 billion the revised level of savings requested by the House leadership. This report will be developed as developments warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]