Quantcast

Tuesday, July 22, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 8 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

House approves $9.7B in Sandy flood aid

By Andrew Miga

Associated Press

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 11:53 a.m. HST, Jan 04, 2013


WASHINGTON » The House has overwhelmingly approved $9.7 billion to pay flood insurance claims for the many home and business owners flooded out by Superstorm Sandy. The vote came more than two months after the storm hit and days after Northeast Republicans erupted over House Speaker John Boehner's decision to delay an earlier vote.

Today's 354-67 vote sends the bill to the Senate, which expects to pass the bill later in the day. All of the no votes were cast by Republicans.

The bill gives more borrowing authority to the National Flood Insurance Program to pay about 115,000 pending claims.

Northeast lawmakers say the money is urgently needed for victims of one of the worst storms ever to strike the region. Boehner set today's vote after sparking controversy with a decision to delay House action on a broader Sandy aid package.







 Print   Email   Comment | View 8 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(8)
You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
Charliegrunt wrote:
Why has no mention been made of Boehner's earlier comment that they could not pass the original bill because of the amount of "pork" that had nothing to do with Sandy in it? Some unbiased reporting would be nice. I'm NOT meaning only the Star-Advertiser.
on January 4,2013 | 06:33AM
busterb wrote:
Maybe because the bill was passed. The event has nothing to do with previous comments as less then 20% of the House, including anyone who actually listens to Boehner, voted against it. For that matter why didn't the SA mention he cried again yesterday in front of everyone? Why? Because it has nothing to do with a bill passing.
on January 4,2013 | 06:54AM
hawaiikone wrote:
“The United States Senate passed a bill that would have provided some of the much needed money, but it also provided funds for overseas embassies, new federal vehicles, last year’s tsunami in Japan, improvements to the Kennedy Space Center and fisheries in places as far from the east coast as Alaska,” Rather than automatically approving the the House has provided immediate funds for storm related relief. My only problem with all this is that they should have acted quicker. But thankfully they at least put the brakes on a lot of other things that had no business being included, but as usual, they are labeled the bad guys.
on January 4,2013 | 07:03AM
busterb wrote:
Interesting Forbes article: What, you may ask, do these states far from New York and New Jersey have in common? Each is not only a red state, but each of these states are represented by two Republican senators—with the exception of Louisiana with its one GOP senator. And what happens when you buy off seven Republican senators with a package of goodies under the guise of storm relief supposedly meant to benefit two blue states? You get yourself a filibuster proof piece of legislation. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2013/01/03/pork-holding-up-senate-sandy-relief-bill-funneled-into-the-troughs-of-gop-deficit-hawks-you-betcha/ So who is at fault here for the pork?
on January 4,2013 | 07:43AM
hawaiikone wrote:
Another interesting story indeed. The flowchart is questionable though. Could the targeted porkers really think the 60B would get through the House? Probably not. I believe 33 senators said nay, but I can't verify if that bunch included the republicans in question. Looks like the last minute pork stuffing might actually have been setting up Boehner for a no win situation. Filibustering an unpassable relief bill would be unnecessary, so it really appears this writer simply did what biased writers often do, and little more. We'll see how the remaining 50B does next week, but I bet some Alaskan fisheries might be disappointed.
on January 4,2013 | 02:07PM
HD36 wrote:
So, even though the government is broke, people from Hawaii are going to have to pay for someone who had a vacation mansion in NJ. Why can't NY issue municipal bonds to fund releif? Why didn't these people who have beach front homes buy any flood insurance? I think alot of the smart ones know that if anything happens the Fed will bail them out at the expense of everyone.
on January 4,2013 | 08:05AM
busterb wrote:
The gov't was broke when Pearl Harbor was bombed too. They didn't turn their back on us. That's why they call us a nation. It is kinda funny though that Loud Mouth Palin isn't commenting on this... OH! The Alaskan fisheries (where her family makes their money from salmon fishing) is getting $150M of the Sandy money. SO that's how you shut her mouth, stick a wad of cash in there.
on January 4,2013 | 08:37AM
Pacej001 wrote:
In 1941 the debt compared to annual GDP was 45%. Today, right now, our debt to GDP is just over 100%. We weren't anywhere close to broke in 1941. Now, with over $60trillion (current debt included) in unfunded Federal liabilities, we're so far beyond "broke" that we need to come up with a new word for how bad our fiscal outlook is.
on January 4,2013 | 09:50AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Breaking News