2013: Schweikert Voted Against Increasing The National Flood Insurance Program's Borrowing Authority By $9.7 Billion To Cover Superstorm Sandy Claims. In 2013, Schweikert voted against a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "temporarily increase[d] the borrowing authority of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for carrying out the National Flood Insurance Program by $9.7 billion, to enable it to process nearly 115,000 claims from Superstorm Sandy." The vote was on a motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill; the House agreed to the motion by a vote of 354 to 67. The bill later passed the Senate and the president signed it into law. [House Vote 7, 1/4/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/3/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 41]
National Flood Insurance Program Was Expected To Hit Borrowing Cap Week After Vote, Leaving It Unable To Pay Claims. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The National Flood Insurance Program, which provides federal flood insurance to properties located in flood-prone areas where the community has agreed to institute floodplain management and land-use control measures that minimize the risk of flooding, is expected to run out of money to pay claims next week. The program's authority to borrow from the Treasury to pay claims was previously raised in response to several hurricanes in 2005 (including Katrina) and several times since." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/3/13]
Borrowing Limit Increased To Nearly $30.5 Billion, Increase Was Temporary And Expired At End Of Fiscal Year 2017; Increase Designated As Emergency Spending, Which Does Not Require An Offset. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Specifically, it sets the cap for borrowing to carry out the program at $30.425 billion, up from the current $20.725 billion level. This increased authority would expire Sept. 30, 2017. The bill designates the new borrowing authority as an emergency requirement for budgetary purposes." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/3/13]
Bill Was One Part Of Senate's Sandy Relief Package That Speaker Boehner Brought To The Floor Quickly After Public Pressure Stemming From His Decision Not To Bring Up Senate's Sandy Relief Bill During The 112th Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Just days before the the [sic] end of the 112th Congress, House leaders proposed consideration of the Senate bill in two tranches: a base bill of $27 billion to provide immediate relief, along with a separate vote on an additional $33 billion to provide longer-term recovery efforts and infrastructure improvements. Members of the New York and New Jersey delegations said they expected a vote on the measure, but after passage of the fiscal cliff deal just before midnight on Tuesday Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, closed off any additional votes for the 112th Congress. The Speaker's decision to not hold a vote on Sandy relief before the 112th Congress ended provoked an uproar from the delegations of storm-affected states and a strong rebuke from Christie. The Speaker quickly assured members that a new supplemental would be among the first pieces of business in the 113th Congress, and on Wednesday leaders announced plans to immediately bring up a measure to increase flood insurance program borrowing authority --- with a broader assistance measure to be considered the week of Jan. 14." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/3/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Appropriating $51 Billion For Hurricane Sandy Relief Efforts. In January 2013, Schweikert voted against passage of H.R. 152, a bill to appropriate $50.7 billion to assist the recovery efforts of the victims of Hurricane Sandy. The bill was designed to provide federal support to the northeastern states affected by Hurricane Sandy, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. Funds from the bill were dedicated to homeowner relief, business assistance, infrastructure reconstruction and aid to impacted local governments. According to the New York Times, "The $50.7 billion -- along with a nearly $10 billion aid package that Congress approved earlier this month -- seeks to provide for the huge needs that have arisen in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and other states since the hurricane struck in late October. The emergency aid measure would help homeowners whose homes have been damaged or destroyed, provide assistance to business owners who experienced losses as well as reinforce shorelines, repair subway and commuter rail systems, fix bridges and tunnels, and reimburse local governments for emergency expenditures." The bill passed by a vote of 241 to 180. The House then added the provisions of a separate bill, H.R. 219 that it had previously passed unanimously, and then sent the combined bill to the Senate, which agreed to the package without amendment. The package was then signed into law by President Obama on January 29, 2013. [House Vote 23, 1/15/13; New York Times, 1/16/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 152]
Republican Conservatives "Balked At The Size Of The Package" For Hurricane Sandy Relief Funds. According to the Asbury Park Press, "Historically, congressional votes on federal disaster have not been partisan or even controversial. But Republican conservatives have balked at the size of the package. The conservative Club for Growth had urged lawmakers to oppose the aid." [Asbury Park Press, 1/16/13]
Republican Conservatives Hoped To Distribute Hurricane Sandy Relief Funds Incrementally Instead Of Through One Package, And Criticized "Vague Language" That Might Allow Relief Funds To Be Spent Elsewhere. According to the Bergen County Record, "Few conservatives argue that the federal government shouldn't provide some recovery aid in the wake of the Oct. 29 superstorm, which devastated much of the Jersey Shore and flooded the boroughs of Moonachie and Little Ferry, as well as causing extensive damage in New York City, particularly on Staten Island. But some say the money should be distributed in smaller amounts as needed, and that the current bill contains vague language that would allow spending elsewhere. 'We need to do this in a more incremental approach so we actually know what we need,' said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based group Taxpayers for Common Sense." [Bergen County Record, 1/15/13]
Republican Conservatives Hoped To Offset Portion Of Hurricane Sandy Relief Funds With 1.6% Across-The-Board Spending Cut To Discretionary Spending, Despite Longstanding Tradition Of Avoiding Offsets In Disaster Relief. According to the Bergen County Record, "The House will consider 13 amendments to the bill today, 10 of them proposed by Republicans. Conservative Reps. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., Tom McClintock, R-Calif., Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., offered an amendment to offset the $17 billion in the base bill with a 1.6 percent across-the-board spending cut for all discretionary appropriations for 2013. 'I believe we can provide that relief while finding ways to pay for it, rather than adding to the nation's ballooning deficit,' Mulvaney said. Congress historically does not offset disaster relief with spending cuts, and lawmakers from states hit by Sandy are outraged by proposals to do so now. The White House, in a statement Monday, urged the House to steer clear of requiring offsets." [Bergen County Record, 1/15/13]
Conservative Club For Growth Urged Congress To Oppose Larger Hurricane Sandy Relief Package. According to the Asbury Park Press, "Historically, congressional votes on federal disaster have not been partisan or even controversial. But Republican conservatives have balked at the size of the package. The conservative Club for Growth had urged lawmakers to oppose the aid." [Asbury Park Press, 1/16/13]
Club For Growth Criticized Hurricane Sandy Relief Package As Bills That "Aren't Paid For, Have Little Oversight And Are Stuffed With Pork." According to the Bergen County Record, "The Club for Growth, a conservative group, urged lawmakers Monday to oppose both Sandy aid measures. 'Congress shouldn't keep passing massive 'emergency' relief bills that aren't paid for, have little oversight and are stuffed with pork,' the club said in a statement." [Bergen County Record, 1/15/13]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against Adding $33.7 Billion In Funding For Hurricane Sandy Relief Efforts. In January 2013, Schweikert voted against an amendment designed to appropriate funding for Hurricane Sandy relief. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would "add $33.7 billion for long-term recovery and mitigation spending to address damage from Superstorm Sandy. The total includes $12.2 billion for Department of Housing and Urban Development community development activities; $6.1 billion for Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund; $5.5 billion for transit support; $4 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects; $700 million for social services programs; and $474 million for repairs to national parks, wildlife refuges and facilities. It also includes an additional $2 billion to repair federal-aid highways." The underlying legislation was a disaster supplemental bill. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 228 to 192 and then passed the underlying legislation. The House then added the provisions of a separate bill, H.R. 219 that it had previously passed unanimously, and then sent the combined bill to the Senate, which agreed to the package without amendment. The package was then signed into law by President Obama on January 29, 2013. [House Vote 22, 1/15/13; New York Times, 1/16/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 6; Congressional Actions, H.R. 152]
2013: Schweikert Voted Against A $17 Billion Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill. In January 2013, Schweikert voted against a substitute amendment providing funding for Sandy relief. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The House adopted the $17 billion tranche in a 327-91 vote as a Rogers substitute amendment to the base bill (HR 152), which he also sponsored. The amendment is largely identical to the underlying measure and was meant to give members a chance to vote on the unamended legislation. The Rogers measure would meet the immediate needs of communities damaged by the storm providing $5.4 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund and $5.4 billion for transit systems in New York and New Jersey. It also outlines $3.9 billion for community programs within the Department of Housing and Urban Development and $1.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers." The vote was on the substitute amendment. The House agreed to the amendment by a vote of 327 to 91. The House later adopted another amendment adding almost $34 billion in additional funding and later passed that bill. The House then added the provisions of a separate bill, H.R. 219 that it had previously passed unanimously, and then sent the combined bill to the Senate, which agreed to the package without amendment. The package was then signed into law by President Obama on January 29, 2013. [House Vote 15, 1/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/15/13; New York Times, 1/16/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 3; Congressional Actions, H.R. 152]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Offset $17 Billion In Emergency Superstorm Sandy Relief With Across The Board Discretionary Spending Cuts. In January 2013, Schweikert voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would have "offset the $17 billion in emergency relief and recovery funding [in the underlying legislation] with a 1.63 percent across-the-board cut to all discretionary spending for fiscal 2013. The [underlying legislation] [would have] provide[d] $17 billion to address immediate needs relating to damage sustained from Superstorm Sandy." The vote was on agreeing to the amendment, which the House rejected by a vote of 162 to 258. [House Vote 14, 1/15/13; Congressional Quarterly, 1/15/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 4; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 3; Congressional Actions, H.R. 152]
House Passed $50 Billion Sandy Aid Bill Without Offsets After Mulvaney's Amendment Failed. According to Asbury Park Press, "The House passed a $50.7 billion disaster relief bill for victims of superstorm Sandy on Tuesday, 78 days after the storm began pounding the Northeast. Lawmakers voted 241-180 to approve the final bill, which includes $17 billion in emergency spending and another $33.7 billion in an amendment from Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J. 'People are hurting,' Frelinghuysen told lawmakers on the House floor. 'The suffering and damage are real and their needs are great.'" [Asbury Park Press, 1/16/13]
Republicans In House Had Been Criticized For Failing To Act On Sandy Aid Bill At End Of 2012. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The political circumstances, with House Republicans taking enormous criticism for not addressing a Senate-passed bill in the last hours of the 112th Congress, took the wide-ranging Sandy recovery package (HR 152) outside the spending battles now consuming Congress. Democratic advocates for a robust response were joined not only by Republicans from affected states but also by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who is considered a likely presidential contender in 2016. Angered by delays in securing money for long-term recovery work, Christie and fellow Republicans, most vocally Peter T. King of New York, quickly displayed a rift in the GOP, with Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, taking the brunt of their anger." [Congressional Quarterly, 1/16/13]
Mulvaney Called Vote A "Procedural Win" For Efforts To Require Offsetting Cuts To Balance Future Disaster Spending. According to Congressional Quarterly, "[Rep. Mick] Mulvaney [R-SC], too, takes something positive from the debate over his amendment -- even if his bid fell on a 162-258 vote. 'This was a procedural win,' he told reporters, 'and I think it only helps the speaker in the long run.' The debate over that measure, and support that included Blue Dog stalwart Jim Cooper of Tennessee, will have Mulvaney prepared for future disaster funding measures if federal budgets are not set up for the relief. 'Even opponents of my amendment recognized that this amendment was not about denying assistance to anyone in need,' he said. 'I hope that we will use this experience to be even better stewards of taxpayer dollars going forward.'" [Congressional Quarterly, 1/16/13]
Amendment's Supporters Said That While Disaster Relief Was Necessary, The Nation's Debt Level Required That The Relief Funds Be Offset With Equivalent Spending Cuts Elsewhere. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) said, "We've mismanaged our own finances to the point where we are now no longer capable of taking care of our own. Think about that for a second. In the United States of America, we do not have enough money to take care of our own citizens who need it. There's no rainy day fund. There's no savings. What ability we had to borrow money we blew through several years ago with trillion dollar deficits. We don't have enough money saved up to take care of our own people, and that's wrong. It's absolutely wrong. It is important to me that this money goes to the folks who need it very badly. It's so important to me that I think we should pay for it. I think we should be willing, as a body, to come together and say, Look, there are things that we do not need this year, things that we can do without this year so that the people in New York and New Jersey and Connecticut and the other States who so badly need the money can have it, without us having to go hat-in-hand to other nations of this world and say, Would you please lend us money so that we can take care of our folks who need it so badly?" [Congressional Record, 1/15/13]
Opponents Said Across-The-Board Cuts Were The Wrong Way To Cut Spending. According to the Congressional Record, Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY) said, "It would make indiscriminate across-the-board cuts, it would create a $2.1 billion shortfall in military pay, take $529 million from military health care and $1.4 billion support for our troops in Afghanistan. Even before the Mulvaney amendment, the Joint Chiefs of Staff say we are on the brink of creating a hollow force. It would also cut care for wounded warriors after they come home, reducing veterans' medical services by more than $800 million. And here at home the amendment would eliminate $650 million in funds to repair, rebuild, and expand highways and bridges. It would cut more than 139,000 low-income pregnant women, infants and young children from the WIC program. It would take $500 million from the National Institutes of Health for research and cures for diseases like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer's. On many occasions, Democrats and Republicans came together to meet these urgent needs caused by major disasters in all parts of the Nation. We didn't say we must first cut support for armed forces and veterans and reduce investments in research. Let's not do that now." [Congressional Record, 1/15/13]
Opponents Also Said Congress Had Not Required Massive Offsets In Previous Emergency Spending Bills. According to the Congressional Record, House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) said, "Finally, this amendment goes against the precedent of previous emergency supplementals, which did not contain these extreme offsets." [Congressional Record, 1/15/13]