Got a Roku, Apple TV, Amazon Fire TV or Android TV? Get PIX11 content there now!

House could vote Tuesday on $51B Sandy relief package

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

Sandy evacuees may soon be tossed out of area hotelsWASHINGTON (CNN) — On Tuesday, the House could vote on $51 billion in federal relief for states affected by Superstorm Sandy.

The debate over the Superstorm Sandy aid package, a $17-billion bill with an additional $34 billion amendment, has exposed divisions within the Republican Party and a fight over the “pork.”

The Conservative Club For Growth has announced it will penalize any lawmaker who votes for the package because they say it includes wasteful spending. This morning Congressman Mick Mulvaney (R-SC) joins “Starting Point” to discuss his plans not to vote for the measure.

Mulvaney, who serves as a member on both the Budget Committee and Joint Economic Committee, says his difficulty with the Sandy Aid bill is “that it is not paid for.” He adds, “We’re borrowing this additional money to do this and I just think that’s wrong. I’m hoping we can figure out a way today during the amendment process to find savings elsewhere to pay for this without adding to the debt.”

Mulvaney adds he would encourage his colleague Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) to “consider the fact that in 1989 and even as late as Katrina several years ago the debt was much much smaller.” Mulvaney says in 1989 the debt was approximately around two to three trillion dollars but it is currently five or six times larger than that today. He adds, “we simply cannot continue what we’ve done in the past. That’s how we arrived where we are.”

Mulvaney says, “The days of being able to say ‘ok let’s borrow money from China to do this or let’s borrow money from China to do that have come and gone.’” He says the question is not whether or not the Sandy disaster relief bill is going to be tackled today but whether or not it means enough to lawmakers to say that we are going to pay for it “because if we don’t what we’re essentially saying is our children are going to pay for it.”