The well known expression “politics stop at the water’s edge” does not seem to apply to Americans for Prosperity’s response to disaster relief in recent years.

During Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and the resulting floods, the water’s edge caused billions of dollars of damage in the Northeast, yet AFP played politics with critical relief for the thousands of people impacted by the storm, opposing multiple proposals for Hurricane Sandy relief in the aftermath of the storm, citing a lack of offsets for the expenditures to aid victims. “Unless the legislation is fully offset with other spending reductions, I urge you to vote NO on the Hurricane Sandy disaster-aid supplemental,” wrote AFP’s director of policy in a message to lawmakers in January 2013.

What’s more, AFP vociferously opposed an amendment to the Hurricane Sandy supplemental appropriations bill that aimed to provide $33 billion in funding to protect key infrastructure against future disasters, again railing on the need for offsets. The group claimed it was “simply wrong” for lawmakers to consider funding for these long-term projects within the “emergency” relief package.

AFP Opposed Hurricane Sandy Supplemental Appropriations Bill.According to AFP’s scorecard website, AFP took a “No” position on the Senate’s 2013 vote on approving the Hurricane Sandy supplemental appropriations bill. According to AFP’s scorecard, “This legislation included an additional $50 billion beyond the basic support for Hurricane Sandy victims. None of the spending was offset with other reductions and many of the projects were unrelated to the storm.” The vote was 2013 Senate vote 4. [AFP Scorecard website, Viewed 5/12/14]

• AFP Urged Senators To Oppose Bill, Arguing That, Because Its Spending Was Not Offset By Other Spending Cuts, It Would Be Used For Many Non-Sandy Related Projects.According to a January 2013 letter from AFP’s Directory of Policy James Valvo to members of the U.S. Senate, “On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I urge you to oppose the Hurricane Sandy disaster-aid supplemental, H.R. 152. The bill has serious policy and procedural problems. Unless the legislation is fully offset with other spending reductions, I urge you to vote NO on the Hurricane Sandy disaster-aid supplemental, H.R. 152. Americans for Prosperity will include this vote in our congressional scorecard. Due to its dubious ‘emergency’ designation, the $50.5 billion package includes tens of billions in spending that won’t count toward the discretionary spending caps established in the Budget Control Act. This creates an incentive for members to load the legislation with their pet spending projects, many of which are unrelated to Hurricane Sandy relief. This process not only mocks the spending caps but undermines the rationale for the relief bill in the first place. These projects should be considered in separate legislation and they should count toward the spending caps. […] Unless the legislation is fully offset with other spending reductions, I urge you to vote NO on the Hurricane Sandy disaster-aid supplemental, H.R. 152. Americans for Prosperity will include this vote in our congressional scorecard” (underlining and emphasis omitted). [Valvo Letter to Senators, 1/28/13]

AFP Argued Bill Contained $13 Billion In Potentially Worthwhile, But Not Immediately Required, Projects.According to a January 2013 letter from AFP’s Directory of Policy James Valvo to members of the U.S. Senate, “Also included in the bill is nearly $13 billion in mitigation projects to “reduce the risk from future disasters.” While these projects may be worthwhile, they are not related to providing immediate relief for Hurricane Sandy victims and should be considered separately in the normal appropriations process.” [Valvo Letter to Senators, 1/28/13]

AFP Opposed Providing $33 Billion For Post-Sandy Rebuilding And Future Prevention Projects Without Offsetting Spending Reductions.According to AFP’s scorecard website, AFP took a “No” position on the House’s 2013 vote on Rep. Rick Frelinghuysen’s (R-NJ) amendment to the Hurricane Sandy supplemental appropriations bill, which AFP described as “provid[ing] $33 billion in funding for long-term projects, including repairs to federal buildings, coastlines and subway tunnels to protect against future disasters. Most of the funding in this amendment is not directly related to providing immediate relief for those affected by Hurricane Sandy.” The vote was 2013 House vote 22. [AFP Scorecard website, Viewed 5/12/14]

• Amendment Included Provisions Adding $6.1 Billion For FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, $5.5 Billion For Transit, And $420 Billion For The Small Business Administration.According to Congressional Quarterly, “The Frelinghuysen amendment adds nearly $33.7 billion to the [House Appropriations Committee chairman Hal] Rogers substitute for both near-term and long-term projects to address damage from Superstorm Sandy. […] The amendment provides increases as follows: an additional $12.1 billion for HUD community development activities; $6.1 billion more for the FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund; an additional $5.5 billion for transit support; $4 billion more for Army Corps of Engineers projects; an additional $700 million for social services programs; $549 million more to help repair national parks, lands and facilities, and $360 million for Interior Department operations; an additional $420 million for SBA activities; $130 million more for Coast Guard acquisition and construction; an additional $86 million for Amtrak and $15 million more for the FAA equipment; and an additional $88 million for various Defense Department construction and operational needs.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/13]

• Amendment Added New Funding For Federal-Aid Highways, EPA Clean Water Treatment Activities, NOAA Weather Research, And Agriculture Conservation.According to Congressional Quarterly, “It provides funding for certain activities that would receive no funds in the Rogers substitute, including $2 billion for repair to federal-aid highways; $608 million for EPA activities, including clean water treatment facilities; $476 million for weather research and coastal states grants by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; $218 million for Agriculture Department conservation activities; $21 million for Justice Department facilities and $1 million for the Legal Services Corporation; $25 million for the Labor Department; $15 million to repair NASA facilities; $7 million for the General Services Administration (GSA); and $2 million to the Smithsonian Institution.” [Congressional Quarterly, 1/11/13]

• AFP Argued That The Amendment Funded “Long-Term” Projects That They Said Were Unrelated To Immediate Relief For Sandy Victims, And Did So Without Requiring Other Spending Cuts To Offset Those Projects’ Cost. According a January 2013 letter from AFP’s Director of Policy James Valvo to members of the U.S. House, “On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I urge you to oppose the Frelinghuysen amendment to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 (H.R.152). Like the Sandy relief bill that passed the Senate earlier this month (H.R.1), this amendment has serious flaws. […] This amendment provides $33 billion in funding for long-term projects, including repairs to federal buildings, coastlines and subway tunnels to protect against future disasters. Most of the funding in this amendment is not directly related to providing immediate relief for those affected by Hurricane Sandy. While these projects may be worthwhile, they are not an emergency and thus should go through the normal appropriations process, not rushed through as part of an emergency supplemental bill. What’s worse, because of its ‘emergency’ designation, spending in this bill will not count toward the FY2013 discretionary spending cap set forth in the Budget Control Act. This spending is also not offset with other spending reductions. It’s simply wrong for our elected representatives to talk tough on spending, cut a deal to issue more debt, and then slip unrelated spending into an emergency vehicle to avoid the statutory caps. In order to respect the spending limits put forth in the BCA, this amendment should include offsetting spending reductions. Unless the amendment is fully offset with other spending reductions, I urge you to vote NO on the Frelinghuysen amendment to the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (H.R.152). Americans for Prosperity will include this vote in our congressional scorecard” (underlining and emphasis omitted). [Valvo letter to House members, 1/14/13]