Objecting to future disaster mitigations is also kind of a head scratcher to me.
The objection was treating non-emergency funding for future disasters and future projects as emergency funding for Hurricane Sandy. Those agencies have normal ways to get funding which does not involve sneaking in money into an emergency aid bill.
If they want money for future disaster-mitigation projects then they should have acted honestly and created a request for that with the normal way they get funding, not try to sneak it into the hurricane sandy emergency relief.
The thing is, it isn't an emergency relief bill, it's a disaster recovery bill. The hint is in the name.
Well, that's incorrect.
https://www.afscme.org/issues/congressional-scorecards/doc2/Scorecard-Senate-201408.pdf
https://www.texasgopvote.com/comment/33581While I sympathize with the victims of Hurricane Sandy, Congress has already authorized $9.7 billion in emergency funding. But the $50 billion bill considered today includes additional spending far beyond emergency funds for Hurricane Sandy victims. Emergency spending bills should not be a vehicle for pet projects or even important programs. Those types of spending requests should be considered separately.
https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal13-1634-93328-2627902Almost two weeks after the House action, the Senate voted to pass the disaster bill, even though rifts remained over spending offsets and complaints about the designation of emergency spending in the bill to avoid budget caps.
Here is a quote that is more specific:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/6/1/1303536/-AR-Sen-Mark-Pryor-D-Slams-Tom-Cotton-R-For-Votes-Against-Disaster-AidCotton Voted Against $50 Billion Disaster Supplemental Providing Emergency Aid to Communities Hit By Hurricane Sandy. In 2013, Cotton voted for passage of the bill that would provide about $50.5 billion for communities hit by Superstorm Sandy. Nearly all funding would be designated as emergency spending exempt from discretionary caps, except for $5.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund. As amended, the bill would include about $11.5 billion for FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund, $10.9 billion for transit systems, $16 billion for Department of Housing and Urban Development community development programs, $5.4 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, $708 million for repairs to national parks, wildlife refuges and facilities, $234 million for Veterans Affairs medical activities and construction projects, $274 million for Coast Guard projects and $520 million for Small Business Administration disaster loans. The bill passed by a vote of 241-180. [CQ; HR 152, Vote #23, 1/15/13]
All was designated as emergency funding except for 5.4 billion into the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund.
The article also outlines specific reasons for why congressmen voted against the bill:
Cotton Argued That Much Of The Funding In The Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill Was Not Going To Natural Disaster Relief. When asked about his vote against the Sandy Disaster Relief Bill, Cotton responded: “’A lot of that money was not going to natural disaster relief. A lot of that money was to go to municipalities that were underinsured,’ Cotton said. He pointed out the amount of money requested was excessive. He said $60 billion is 12 times the budget Arkansas has to work within a year.” [The Courier, 2/18/13]
Cotton: “I Don’t Think Arkansas Needs To Bail Out The Northeast.” When asked about his vote against the Sandy Disaster Relief Bill, Cotton responded: “‘I don’t think Arkansas needs to bail out the Northeast,’ Cotton asserted. He told the audience many of the proposed relief programs were larded up by New York politicians. They were using this opportunity as a grab bag for politicians’ wish lists and for funding repairs to infrastructure that had nothing to do with weather damage.” [The Courier, 2/18/13]
The above article is actually criticizing Cotton for voting against spending bills. It is doing the same thing Rama Set is doing, criticizing anyone who is fiscally responsible as evil for opposing a spending bill. From the article:
COTTON EVEN VOTED TO ELIMINATE FUNDING FOR IMPROVED EXTREME WEATHER WARNINGS AND FORECASTING
This is a rather poor way to argue, to say the least. As if there is no such thing as improper spending. Oddly, this article quotes various reasons why Cotton opposed spending bills. Most attack articles don't bother to quote the opposition at all.