{
  "id": "R42458",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R42458",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 453103,
      "date": "2016-05-31",
      "retrieved": "2016-11-28T22:09:49.217777",
      "title": "Offsets, Supplemental Appropriations, and the Disaster Relief Fund: FY1990-FY2013",
      "summary": "This report discusses the history of the use of offsetting rescissions to pay for supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency\u2019s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) from FY1990 through FY2013. \nAs Congress debated the growing size of the budget deficit and national debt, efforts intensified to control spending and offset the costs of legislation. Several times between FY1990 and FY2013, the question of offsetting disaster relief spending became a focus of congressional debate. \nUsually, in the time reviewed, supplemental disaster relief funding was treated as emergency spending. This designation exempted it from counting against discretionary budget caps, and from needing an offset. However, supplemental spending measures at times have carried rescissions that have offset, to one degree or another, their budgetary impact. In some instances, supplemental spending measures have contained both appropriations for the DRF and offsetting rescissions, but without a specific link between the two.\nWith the passage of the Budget Control Act (BCA), a new mechanism was created that altered the congressional pattern of funding the DRF in part through supplemental appropriations. The BCA included an \u201callowable adjustment\u201d for the federal costs of major disasters declared under the Stafford Act, which generally resulted in larger appropriations for the DRF in annual appropriations bills, and a reduced reliance on supplemental appropriations. When Hurricane Sandy struck in 2012, calls for supplemental appropriations to help pay for recovery efforts (the cost of which exceeded the size of the allowable adjustment) were met with calls for offsets from some quarters. Congress ultimately chose to provide supplemental appropriations, including funding for the DRF, with a combination of the allowable adjustment and emergency funding. Several billion dollars of appropriations under consideration for mitigation projects had their emergency designation struck on a point of order, and therefore those appropriations counted against discretionary spending limits.\nIn past debates over whether supplemental funding for the DRF should be offset, Congress discussed past precedents. Through independent research, CRS identified three specific incidences from FY1990 through FY2013 where bills that had an impact on the level of funding available in the DRF were fully offset, but only one case in which CRS can authoritatively state that supplemental funding for the DRF was completely offset by rescissions.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42458",
          "sha1": "64f4f5a6039b47c5fdebb04c1259c29ab9ab08ff",
          "filename": "files/20160531_R42458_64f4f5a6039b47c5fdebb04c1259c29ab9ab08ff.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42458",
          "sha1": "d15badcf3e0a7cf8842e519601c30022b8c12ec0",
          "filename": "files/20160531_R42458_d15badcf3e0a7cf8842e519601c30022b8c12ec0.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 415166,
      "date": "2012-12-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T23:47:13.901007",
      "title": "Offsets, Supplemental Appropriations, and the Disaster Relief Fund: FY1990-FY2013",
      "summary": "This report discusses the recent history of offsetting rescissions in paying for supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency\u2019s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). \nAs 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.\nHurricane 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. On December 7, 2012, the Administration released a request for $60.4 billion in supplemental appropriations in connection with Hurricane Sandy, including $11.5 billion for the DRF.  The preamble to the request opposed offsetting the cost of the legislation.\nTraditionally, 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.\nThis report 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.\nSince FY1990, there has only been one case in which supplemental funding for the DRF was completely offset by rescissions.\nThis report will be updated as events warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R42458",
          "sha1": "57273546e69b1e14407bc3085376c4aa4e49b956",
          "filename": "files/20121210_R42458_57273546e69b1e14407bc3085376c4aa4e49b956.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R42458",
          "sha1": "5e92f4f485d8ea93775386533b9bc4e48dcd50ab",
          "filename": "files/20121210_R42458_5e92f4f485d8ea93775386533b9bc4e48dcd50ab.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc227752/",
      "id": "R42458_2012Dec04",
      "date": "2012-12-04",
      "retrieved": "2013-11-05T18:07:05",
      "title": "Offsets, Supplemental Appropriations, and the Disaster Relief Fund: FY1990-FY2013",
      "summary": "Report that discusses the recent history of offsetting rescissions in paying for supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20121204_R42458_e1d71791e430e4a2a0f17ffbdca31231a658351c.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20121204_R42458_e1d71791e430e4a2a0f17ffbdca31231a658351c.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Disaster relief -- U.S.",
          "name": "Disaster relief -- U.S."
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Emergency management",
          "name": "Emergency management"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Budgets",
          "name": "Budgets"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Federal budgets",
          "name": "Federal budgets"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc86620/",
      "id": "R42458_2012Mar29",
      "date": "2012-03-29",
      "retrieved": "2012-06-15T10:07:48",
      "title": "Offsets, Supplemental Appropriations, and the Disaster Relief Fund: FY1990-FY2012",
      "summary": "This report discusses the recent history of offsetting rescissions in paying for supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20120329_R42458_5f95362350778160cb56c7e767fdb87373e22511.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20120329_R42458_5f95362350778160cb56c7e767fdb87373e22511.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Disaster relief",
          "name": "Disaster relief"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Emergency management",
          "name": "Emergency management"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Budgets",
          "name": "Budgets"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Foreign Affairs"
  ]
}