PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Oct 11, 2017
Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act of 2017
This bill provides $36.5 billion in FY2018 emergency supplemental appropriations to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the Interior for relief and recovery efforts in response to recent hurricanes and wildfires.
For FEMA, the bill provides: (1) $18.67 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, of which up to $4.9 billion may be transferred to the Community Disaster Loan Program for direct loans to assist local governments in providing essential services as a result of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, or Maria; and (2) $16 billion in debt relief for the National Flood Insurance Program.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
The bill also provides $576.5 million to the Forest Service and Interior for wildfire suppression activities.
USDA may use up to $1.27 billion of funds previously provided for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the food stamp program) contingency reserve to provide a grant to Puerto Rico for disaster nutrition assistance in response to the presidentially declared major disasters and emergencies.
The bill designates the funds as emergency requirements. (Emergency spending is exempt from discretionary spending limits and other budget enforcement rules.)
People & committees
Rep. Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [R-NJ-11] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Appropriations, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4008 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4008 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4008 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4008 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.