Lots of people have been expecting Monday’s devastating tornado in Oklahoma to provoke yet another congressional debate over disaster funding. It may not happen, at least right away: It depends on how expensive the relief and rebuilding effort gets, and how quickly. But the issue of how to pay for disaster relief remains very contentious—and is already forcing Oklahoma’s two Republican senators to reckon with their own views on the virtues of austerity.

In 2011, as part of the debt-ceiling deal, Congress and the president agreed to create a disaster contingency fund—in effect, to put some money aside so that the federal government could dole it out, quickly, in case of a hurricane, earthquake, and so on. The fund grows by a preset formula, based on the cost of previous disasters. And it hasn’t always been enough, because natural disasters have been more expensive—thanks to population growth, settlement along the coasts, and, maybe, climate change. (Dave Weigel of Slate and Brad Plumer of the Washington Post gave the full backstory on this a few months ago.)

By the time Hurricane Sandy hit, in late 2012, earlier disasters had depleted the fund. Getting relief to the stricken Northeast meant appropriating new money, and that sparked the memorable debate over whether Congress needed to find offsetting cuts to pay for relief funds in the Northeast. Among those conservatives making the case for offsets were Oklahoma senators Tom Coburn and James Inhofe.

Already reporters have been asking those two whether they’ve changed their minds, now that their state is the one that needs relief. Coburn, to his credit, hasn’t wavered: Appropriating more money for Oklahoma would require offsetting cuts, he said, just like appropriating more money for New York and New Jersey did. Inhofe, however, said on MSNBC that the two situations “are totally different.” The reason? Because this bill wouldn’t have the pork projects that the Sandy relief bill did. It’s not clear how exactly Inhofe plans to keep a new bill free of pork.

The question may be irrelevant, at least for the moment. Speaking on Tuesday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that the fund actually has enough money right now. But the fund could run out in the coming weeks, and if it doesn’t, it seems quite possible (some would say likely) it will run out later this year, much as it did last year. So it’s worth pondering: Is disaster relief getting enough funding? Like every other agency affected by the Budget Control Act and sequestration, FEMA funding has fallen. Matt Vasilogambros of the Atlantic explains: