Congress is back for its last gasp before the end of the year. High on the agenda is an “emergency” supplemental spending bill to address unmet needs from recent natural disasters. While there are times when emergency spending is appropriate, consideration of a supplemental spending bill in a lame duck Congress comes with risks. As possibly the last train to leave the Capitol Hill station, it can attract all kinds of spending and policies that special interests want to hitch a ride. Even with their eyes on the exits, lawmakers must remain focused to keep a natural disaster supplemental from becoming a fiscal disaster.

Members of Congress returning from their pre-election recess were greeted with a nearly $100 billion emergency spending request from the President. In his November 18 letter, the President identifies $98.6 billion in “emergency” spending needs in response to natural disasters ranging from last year’s wildfires in Maui to the recent devastation wrought by hurricanes Helene and Milton.

It’s important to note there are times when emergency spending is appropriate. The federal government budgets for disasters in certain areas. FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) receives an annual appropriation tied to recent spending on natural disasters. The Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund provides a base level of funding for federal firefighting efforts. But an above average fire year or one where multiple large hurricanes make landfall can quickly drain these accounts. Throw in truly historic disasters, like the floods in Western North Carolina, and unbudgeted emergency spending is justified.

But this isn’t the wild wild west. There are actual rules surrounding what constitutes an emergency.

The Office of Management and Budget developed a definition of an emergency in 1991 that has been kicked around for years and included in several budget resolutions. To truly be considered an emergency, something must be: necessary (not merely beneficial); sudden; urgent; unforeseen; and not permanent. An issue or program that falls short of just one of these five criteria is not a budgetary emergency. It may be important or be seen by some as critical but is not an “emergency” in the budgetary sense.

This distinction is important because emergency spending isn’t typically offset with spending cuts or revenue increases; it’s simply added to the deficit. Programs created to dispense “emergency” funds often avoid the transparency and Congressional oversight faced by programs funded through the regular budget process. Administrations also often have broad discretion in implementing emergency funds, meaning they, rather than Congress, decide many rules around qualification, payment limits, or any conditions (such as requirements to buy insurance or rebuild infrastructure to a higher standard) tied to the aid. As these packages come together quickly and, in the current case, in the last few weeks of a Congress, they can easily go off the rails.

The present request has elements that stretch the idea of emergency. The President seeks $733,000,000 to procure three new “hurricane hunter” aircraft. NOAA already has aircraft operating. These funds would replace those planes when they are decommissioned. In 2030. Hardly sudden. There is also $21,000,0000,000 sought for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to compensate farmers and ranchers with “uncovered losses.” Federally subsidized crop insurance is already on pace to payout $17.5 billion this crop year and billions more is expected from other farm bill disaster programs. So, just as with previous “emergency” farm subsidies, most of the payments will actually go to people who are covered by crop insurance, thus bumping up their coverage to a higher level than they’d chosen.

Finally, the sheer size of the request bears scrutiny. This request covers disasters in calendar years 2024 and 2023. In fact, the president originally requested emergency funds back in October 2023 and expanded that request in June after the Key Bridge collapse. The price tag then was $23 billion.

Too often, much of the spending in emergency supplementals is not emergency and should be done in the context of the regular budget process. Lawmakers need to keep any supplemental focused on need and fiscally responsible. The pressure to aid communities in need and to wrap up a lame duck Congress are strong. Taxpayers can’t afford for lawmakers to avoid scrutinizing the emergency supplemental request. Congress needs to finish its job.