In wake of Hurricane Ian’s destruction, elements in Washington are gathering the ingredients to cook up a monster “emergency” spending package. While additional disaster spending is likely necessary, too often lawmakers use these “supplemental” spending packages to tack on greed with the need. Seen as must-pass, they attract all kinds of extraneous and even harmful spending. Lawmakers returning to Washington after the election must guard against this.

We feel compelled to remind folks that there are times when emergency spending is appropriate. 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 also often avoid the transparency and Congressional oversight faced by programs funded by the regular budget.

Currently there is strong demand for “emergency” spending on multiple fronts, meaning a lame duck package could be a doozy. Senator Rubio (R-FL) has requested $33 billion in response to Hurricane Ian.  The history of supplementals shows this is just a starting point. Not only because estimates of Ian’s destruction are still rolling in, but like a hurricane over warm waters, the longer a spending supplemental is debated, the greater it grows in size and strength. Right now, the biggest-ticket items looking to attach themselves to an Ian package include losses from other natural disasters, continued spending in support of Ukraine, and additional spending on COVID-19 response (or preparation for this winter).

When contemplating a supplemental spending package, lawmakers need to first ensure emergency spending on natural disaster losses is in fact needed. Agricultural losses in Florida are likely to be high. A high percentage of those losses are also already covered by existing federal programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Tree Assistance Program will cover up to 65 percent of the cost of replanting commercial fruit trees and up to 50 percent of the cost of rehabilitating trees, bushes, and vines. The Livestock Indemnity Program will pay $829 per cow lost, plus varying amounts for lost calves, bulls, and other livestock. In addition, Florida farmers purchased more than 15,00 federal crop insurance policies in 2022, covering everything from avocados to wheat. Taxpayer-subsidized policies in Florida cover 2.9 million acres and 56 million trees, totaling $4.8 billion in liability ($2.5 billion just for oranges and orange trees). The thing with these programs is checks will go out the door without an act of Congress. Natural disasters in the agriculture sector are not “unforeseen.” That’s why farm bill programs were created to assist producers in the event of a disaster such as Hurricane Ian. Lawmakers must ensure “emergency” ag assistance is not used to duplicate payments or bail out farm businesses that chose to roll the dice by not buying federally subsidized crop insurance.

Supplementals also attract excess in physical recovery. Lawmakers must guard against unhelpful infrastructure – like large structural flood and storm defenses that encourage redevelopment in harm’s way. There will likely be efforts to completely abandon non-federal cost share. But local jurisdictions and states need to shoulder some financial responsibility for their rebuilding. Also, having some “skin in the game” helps ensure that they are truly necessary and likely effective projects for the community.

And there’s always the need to guard against opportunism. Ever since Super Storm Sandy, supplemental spending debates are on a rinse and repeat cycle. Disaster strikes a state, elected officials request aid, then pundits and opposition politicians point out past instances when those other representatives voiced concerns with previous disaster spending. It’s a political gotcha moment used to score some points and steamroll any call for scrutiny of the supplemental bill at hand. We get it. But the fact is supplementals often contain essential spending AND a dose of waste. That’s true from Super Storm Sandy through today.

We were here for Super Storm Sandy and that package had plenty of spending that failed the emergency test. The ATF received $230,000 to replace three cars, even though the Department of Justice had 40,000 other cars in its fleet. Surely they could have carpooled until the next budget cycle. The Army received $5.37 million in “emergency” O&M funds to repair buildings affected by Sandy. That was equivalent to 0.01 percent of the Army’s regular FY2012 O&M appropriation. With that kind of budget a couple of Sergeant’s rummaging through the couch cushions could come up with $5.37 million rather than resorting to “emergency” spending. The list goes on. $86 million for Amtrak upgrades (not repair) in the Northeast Corridor. $2 billion for road construction in non-Sandy affected areas. $500 million for the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge waterways explicitly earmarked to non-Sandy affected areas. When adopted in January 2013, the $60 billion “Super Storm Sandy” supplemental contained billions of dollars for items that should have been paid for in the regular budget process, not added to the deficit as “emergency” spending.

And it’s been this way ever since. Far too 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, fiscally responsible, and ensure the spending fosters increased resilience, not dependence on Federal subsidies. One benefit of Congress’s delay in finalizing the FY2023 budget – we’re on a Continuing Resolution through December 16—is it’s not too late to take care of some of these unanticipated needs in the regular budget.