This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Sept. 2, 2011 - WASHINGTON - A "perfect storm" of disasters and budget woes is high-pressuring Congress to confront hard choices on how to replenish the federal government's rapidly dwindling disaster emergency fund at a time of troubling deficits.
That debate is likely to have an impact on the pace of future tornado-recovery projects in Missouri. It focuses on whether to add to the deficit by bolstering the fund, which has dipped below the $1 billion level considered to be a minimum, or diverting money to the relief fund by making deep cuts in other government programs.
After the Federal Emergency Management Agency shifted last Friday into an "immediate needs" mode to make emergency funds available to East Coast states struck by Hurricane Irene, Missouri's U.S. senators cried foul. And Gov. Jay Nixon sent a letter Thursday demanding that FEMA list every Missouri disaster-recovery project that will be affected by the changes. The shift was made, in part by delaying or diverting funds from certain recovery projects elsewhere.
"If FEMA can't fulfill its promise to our state because we have other disasters, that's unacceptable," said U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., "and we need to take a serious look at how our disaster response policies are funded and implemented."
Even though Missourians already have received more than $77 million in federal grants and loans so far this year, the damage from tornadoes in Joplin and the St. Louis area and flooding along both the Missouri and lower Mississippi rivers have led to heavy demands for recovery aid. The federal grants were made available after the three "major disaster" and two federal emergency declarations in the state.
In previous years, Congress would simply add supplemental funding to replenish FEMA's disaster relief fund. But this week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., signaled that any extra money would have to be diverted from other federal programs. "We're going to find the money" for disaster relief, Cantor said, but added that Republicans would "make sure that there are savings elsewhere" to offset the cost.
Cantor's comment sparked criticism from White House spokesman Jay Carney, who said Tuesday that the government's priority "has to be responding to the disaster and then helping those regions and states recover." Cantor's demand for offset cuts found sympathy with many other House Republicans who are deficit hawks.
And contrarian Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Tex., went considerably further, saying on Fox News Sunday that FEMA is an example of how government has created a culture of dependency. "We conditioned people that FEMA will take care of us and everything will be OK," Paul said. "You try to make the programs work the best you can, but you can't just keep saying, 'Oh, they need money.' Well, we are out of money. This country is bankrupt."
Not even taking into account the billions in damages caused by Hurricane Irene, federal officials estimated that FEMA would need an additional $5 billion to pay for disaster relief in response to this spring and summer's tornadoes, flooding and severe storms. White House budget director Jacob Lew, in a letter sent to congressional leaders Thursday evening, said that there is "no question" that "additional funds will be required to assist the thousands of Americans affected by Hurricane Irene, on top of the $5.2 billion identified under current law to properly fund known disaster needs" for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
The White House has not yet asked Congress for additional FEMA money for this month -- the final month of the current fiscal year. But officials say the Obama administration is monitoring the situation, with FEMA's disaster relief fund falling well below $800 million. Lew said, however, that under a provision of the debt-ceiling deal approved last month, Congress could in theory appropriate more than $11 billion in disaster aid in the new fiscal year without finding offsetting budget cuts, as demanded by Cantor and some other Republicans.
Fema Downplays Impact on Missouri Recovery
Even though Missouri has received a relatively large infusion of disaster funding so far this year, Nixon demanded in a letter sent Thursday to FEMA Director Craig Fugate that the agency clarify which projects might be delayed or otherwise affected by the diversion of federal resources.
The letter (PDF) asked FEMA to identify:
- The disaster response, recovery and rebuilding projects in Missouri that will be immediately affected by FEMA's funding restrictions; and
- Which Missouri response, recovery and rebuilding projects will be delayed, and which project will not be impacted by the funding changes.
Noting that "Missouri communities are counting on significant support from the federal government ... to fund their disaster recovery and rebuilding efforts," Nixon wrote that the state needs "certainty and clarity about the federal resources that will be available."
The state's U.S. senators also weighed in this week, with Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., saying that "FEMA should be prepared for all types of disasters and have the resources to respond rapidly and stay until the work is done, and until the community is made whole again." Blunt said, "Recovery from hurricane damage on the East Coast must not come at the expense of Missouri's rebuilding efforts."
But Fugate, in an appearance this week in the White House press room, downplayed the impact on ongoing disaster recovery efforts in Missouri and elsewhere. "We said we went to 'immediate needs' funding, and a lot of people thought, well, the people that had been impacted by the tornadoes and floods, we're going to take that money away from them," Fugate explained.
He said tornado or flood survivors who were eligible for help will still receive payments, and debris-clearing projects that already had been approved would proceed.
"The only thing that we have postponed is new projects that are permanent work that had not been started when we go into immediate needs funding," said Fugate. "And that is to ensure that we still have funds to do this response, continue to meet the needs of the survivors of the previous disasters, while supporting the initial response to Hurricane Irene."
Asked specifically if Blunt's criticism was inaccurate, Fugate hedged a bit, telling reporters that "for the individuals that we're helping, for the cleanup, and for the emergency costs, we're continuing that. But for any projects that have not come in for approval, we're not going to be able to fund those as this point. We're going to postpone those. They're still eligible, but we won't be able to start new permanent work such as permanent construction repairing damages from those tornadoes."
Missourians Got More Than $77 Million
How much FEMA aid have Missourians received so far? As of this week, Missourians affected by this year's tornadoes, flooding and severe storms -- from Joplin to St. Louis -- had received $77.5 million in approved disaster grants and loans, according to FEMA and the U.S. Small Business Administration.
"Although the registration period for assistance to individuals closed Aug. 26, FEMA continues to work with disaster survivors and remains active in Missouri, helping residents along the road to recovery," said the agency's federal coordinating officer, Libby Turner, in a statement.
About $20 million of the federal aid was granted for housing assistance, $13.8 million for "other needs" related to the disasters and about $50,000 for disaster-related unemployment aid. In addition, the SBA approved $43 million in low-interest disaster loans to homeowners, renters, businesses and nonprofit organizations to fund repair or rebuilding efforts and cover the cost of replacing lost or disaster-damaged property.
FEMA's public assistance program obligated about $871,000 in designated counties for emergency protective measures and the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged facilities that were owned by the public or eligible nonprofit groups. Nearly 10,000 Missouri survivors have visited 27 different Disaster Recovery Centers and the Multi-Agency Resource Centers that served residents of 25 counties, and nearly half of them (4,700) got advice from FEMA "mitigation specialists" on rebuilding and community outreach.
At the height of the disaster recovery, 83 FEMA field specialists traveled door-to-door in disaster areas to speak with residents in their homes and at community meetings to identify disaster-related needs and distribute information.
In Joplin, FEMA has approved $53.4 million in disaster grants and loans to tornado survivors. More than $19 million in disaster assistance has been approved by FEMA to help with housing and other needs, and the SBA has approved more than $34 million in low-interest disaster loans. As of this week, 522 Joplin families had moved into temporary housing units provided by FEMA at mobile home sites. And 7,288 disaster survivors visited the disaster recovery centers in Joplin.
FEMA also obligated more than $154 million to other federal agencies to help in Joplin's recovery, including the removal of 1.5 million cubic yards of debris by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which also provided assistance to schools, fire stations and St. John's Regional Medical Center.
Will Fema Be Tied Up in the Budget Battle?
While most lawmakers support FEMA, this fall's battle over the budget deficit may affect its funding.
Congress appropriates money for disasters through the budget of the Homeland Security department, which includes FEMA. Earlier this year, FEMA had projected a possible $3 billion shortfall unless congressional appropriators increased the $1.8 billion that President Barack Obama proposed for the disaster relief fund for the fiscal year that starts on Oct. 1.
During the summer, the House approved a spending bill with an extra $1 billion for the FEMA disaster fund, but the Senate has not yet acted, and such appropriations bills are subject to intense scrutiny this month as Congress tries to reach deficit-reduction goals.
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told Politico this week that "it's too early to determine what the overall [disaster] costs will be and how they will be paid for." House Republican budget experts were looking for potential "offset" cuts to make room for replenishing the FEMA fund.
A related issue may be whether the Obama administration has made FEMA's funding problems worse by declaring too many federal disasters, which makes funding available.
This year, the White House already has issued 68 "major disaster" declarations as well as 23 lesser "emergency declarations" and 94 "fire management" declarations. If that trend continues -- and the hurricane season started with a bang with Irene's wrath last week -- the 2011 total is on a pace to exceed last year's record of 81 "major disaster" declarations.
And pressure increased this week from other states struck by Irene, as well as states hit by previous storms, for additional disaster declarations. For example, the Illinois congressional delegation, led by U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin, a Democrat, and Mark Kirk, a Republican, asked Obama this week to issue a major disaster declaration to provide relief to three Illinois counties, Carroll, Jo Daviess and Stephenson, hit by severe storms and flooding in late July.
As the Beacon reported in May, the annual number of disaster declaration has been rising since 2005, the year FEMA came under fire for lackluster relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the Gulf Coast, causing $81 billion in damage.
At a Senate hearing in July, some lawmakers expressed concerns that FEMA's emergency fund was being drained by the expense of the disaster declarations.
FEMA Deputy Administrator Richard Serino told senators that the cost of the federal response has been temporarily draining the agency's disaster relief fund, which normally is not allowed to dip below $1 billion. Asked what happens when the fund shrinks too far, Serino said FEMA has the option of "de-obligating" some long-term FEMA funding from previous disasters.
If necessary, FEMA would then appeal to a cash-strapped Congress for emergency supplemental money. And, Serino said, FEMA would shift to an "immediate needs funding" approach that would "leave the money in place [in the fund] for life-saving issues... We'll put on hold funding some other, long-term projects."
This week, Fugate, who has been given generally high marks for his leadership of FEMA, said the agency shifted to the "immediate needs" funding mode because "there was too much unknown about Irene, and looking at how many states were going to be impacted, we knew ... we were going to get close to the point where we would have to look at immediate needs funding at some point."
He added:
"Our goal was to continue to be able to respond to the open disasters and maintain enough reserves for any new disasters until we get into the next fiscal year .... We wanted to make sure we had enough money available to continue supporting thesurvivors from the past disasters, as well as start the response to Irene."