.

Randy Hultgren One of the 'Sandy 67'

Randy Hultgren votes against Huricane Sandy relief.

After voting "NO" in the previous Congress to solve the US Government Fiscal Cliff problem, Illinois Republican Congressman, Randy Hultgren, was one of only 67 members of the House of Representatives who voted against $9.7 billion in Hurricane Sandy relief funding Friday.

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2013/h/7

The measure passed unanimously through the Senate, but Hultgren was one of 67 members of the House of Representatives voted "no" to assisting people who were left powerless or homeless by a hurricane in November.

While Hultgren cited his concern for "families" in voting against tax cuts for 98% of Americans, he turned his back on the families of New Jersey devastated by the natural disaster of Hurricane Sandy.

Hurricane Sandy devastated portions of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States.  Sandy was a Category-2 storm at its peak intensity, becoming the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, with winds spanning 1,100 miles. Preliminary estimates of losses due to damage and business interruption are estimated at $65.6 billion, making it the second-costliest Atlantic hurricane, behind only Hurricane Katrina. 

Another congressman on the list is Paul Ryan, failed vice presidential nominee. The list also includes Mo Brooks, Ted Yoho, Ron DeSantis, Steven Palazzo and John Fleming from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Mississippi, all of which are states that received much-needed federal aid following Hurricane Katrina, the only hurricane in American history that was more costly than Sandy.

All other Illinois representatives voted for the hurricane relief measure.

While it took Congress more than two months to approve any federal aid for Sandy victims, it took just 10 days after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Frank Craig January 05, 2013 at 08:31 PM
Shameful behavior by Hultgren
McCloud January 06, 2013 at 11:56 AM
Nice hatchet job, no mention in your article about why. Isn't that what real jounalists do, report on the who, what, where and why? I'm guessing not when you are just a political hack. It appears the bill was once again laden with pork, and the hasty need to pass the bill as quickily as they can in the name of virtue wins the day. And the debt grows larger. Disgusting job Mr Walsh.
Change IL-14 January 07, 2013 at 01:43 AM
Please let Congressman Hultgren know how you feel about gun control ... before the Congress votes!!! http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/petition-for-restriction-of-weapon-ownership/
Say it isn't so January 07, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Ten years operating expense for Amtrack was included......
McCloud January 09, 2013 at 01:28 AM
"“Your two senators packed this with pork. They had the opportunity to have a $27 to $30 billion dollar legit relief packages, packed it with pork, then dared us not to vote for it.” So now that Obama has saved us from the fiscal cliff, the expected revenue from it will just about pay for this bill. With the media on your side, cutting the budget is looked at as a crazy Tea Party issue.
Joe Calomino January 19, 2013 at 04:09 PM
Thank you Randy for doing the right thing! Maybe one day the Huffington Post Patch writers will obtain real facts. Let's take a look at some of the outrageous PORK in this bill: 1. Federal Highway Administration – Federal-Aid Highways Emergency Relief Programs: $2.022 billion is made available with a variety of sub-limitations. Funding is limited to $100 million total but available to the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Additionally, funding is not limited to Sandy-affected states – any state that qualifies for the program is eligible to receive funds.
Joe Calomino January 19, 2013 at 04:10 PM
PORK Cont. 2. Various NOAA projects that have nothing to do with Sandy recovery (these programs should arguably go through the normal appropriations process): (1) $8,500,000 for improvements to weather forecasting equipment and supercomputer infrastructure; (2) $13,000,000 to accelerate the National Weather Service ground readiness project; (3) $111,000,000 for a weather satellite data mitigation gap reserve fund 3. Community Development Fund (Community Development Block Grants) – $16 billion is made available for disasters over the last several years (it’s being reported that this would make 47 states eligible): “restoration of infrastructure and housing, and economic revitalization in the most impacted and distressed areas resulting from a major disaster declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.) due to Hurricane Sandy and other eligible events in calendar years 2011, 2012, and 2013…”
Joe Calomino January 19, 2013 at 04:11 PM
4. The bill contains $3.459 billion in forward-looking Army Corps projects on the Eastern Seaboard that do not qualify as disaster or emergency spending. 5. CBO estimates that 93 percent of the funds in the bill will be spent in FY14 or later. 70 percent of the bill will be spent in FY15 or later. To give you some contrast, the Rogers Amendment, which was much cleaner and more focused, spent 50 percent of its funds in FY13 and FY14. Among the extraneous projects funded in the Frelinghuysen amendment, which passed, are $188 million for an Amtrak extension project with no clear link to Hurricane Sandy’s devastation, $135 million to help the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration improve weather forecasting, and $50 million in tree-planting subsidies. Whether or not these unrelated spending initiatives are worthwhile, they should be subjected to the normal budget process, not included as part of a disaster relief bill that is being hurried through Congress.
John Walsh January 19, 2013 at 05:41 PM
Just so you know, Joe...Hultgren voted for those ftunds this week. http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2013/h/21
McCloud January 19, 2013 at 07:25 PM
So what does your next smear job entail? Good thing we are saved from the fiscal cliff, all that expected revenue can just about cover this bill. Now that the economy is growing leaps and bounds from federal stimulus, we should have that 17 trillion dollar debt covered.
McCloud January 19, 2013 at 08:15 PM
Never mind, my bad. I forgot that guys like you would rather smear someone with a headline and no substance, without having to answer or be accountable for what you write. You should be in line soon to work for one of the big three networks.
John Walsh January 20, 2013 at 12:13 AM
Show me where I said anything that was not true. If the congressman wanted to explain his position...there's nothing on his official web site -> http://hultgren.house.gov/ There's nothing on the congressman's facebook page -> https://www.facebook.com/RepHultgren It's not my job to seek out the congressman's explaination for his vote, when he avoids public communication. Ever hear the phrase "actions speak louder than words"? In the 112th Congress, Hultgren voted for two Budgets labled by the Catholic Bishops as failing to meet certain “moral criteria”.
McCloud January 20, 2013 at 01:58 AM
You just don't get it do ya? Well, I think you do. The fact that Hultgren folded and voted for more pork in a bill designed to help hurricane victims is disappointing to me, and should be for the rest of us Americans. And yes, it is your job to explain his vote, that is, if you are to write a headline like this with the intention of smearing him. Ever hear the phrase debt to GDP ratio?
Joe Calomino January 22, 2013 at 06:49 PM
Mr. Walsh, Hultgren voted for the Mulvaney amendment that would have provided one-for-one spending offsets to the Rogers base bill. It did not contain any pork. The Mulvaney amendment failed. As a consequence, Hultgren voted against the Rogers base bill, which contained the pork I outlined. Rogers passed and became the base legislation. The Frelinghuysen amendment added extra un-offset spending to the bill. Hultgren voted for several spend cutting amendments to Frehlinghuysen, most of which failed. Once Frehlinghuysen amended Rogers, Hultgren voted against that as well.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something