Getty Images

In the last Congress, the fight over federal disaster relief for Hurricane Sandy victims was ugly, divisive, and for quite a while, unresolved -- Republican opposition was so widespread, the last Congress ended before an aid package could be approved. It eventually passed in late January, but even then, most GOP lawmakers balked at the emergency funding.

Will we see a replay of the same fight when it comes to helping Oklahoma? Probably not.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) took the first step towards creating a controversy on Monday, arguing just hours after the tornado's destruction that he expects any additional federal aid to be financed by spending cuts elsewhere. By late yesterday, however, his was a minority view.

The two-year-old conservative desire to fully pay for disaster relief by cutting spending elsewhere is hitting bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill, with senior Republicans saying it's more important to get aid to victims of the deadly tornado that wreaked havoc in Oklahoma on Monday.

After GOP-on-GOP warfare dominated the congressional response to Hurricane Sandy, several top House and Senate Republicans were emphatic Tuesday that they won't insist on corresponding budget cuts if Congress needs to move quickly on Oklahoma.

Many prominent Republicans sounded downright Democratic yesterday. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who opposed Sandy relief, said, "Finding some way to offset is not the priority. Meeting the known and immediate needs as quickly as possible is the priority." House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) added, "I really don't think disasters of this type should be offset. We have an obligation to help those people. We'll worry about our budgetary items back here, but the aid has to be there."

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said, "I think they should get every penny they need. I've been through this. We can do the political games later on, the important thing is to get them the aid as quickly as they need it and not to make a political issue out of it." Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) added, "[A]t the end of the day my objective here is to make sure the people here get the help they need in a timely fashion."

It's worth emphasizing that there may not be a fight over disaster relief because a congressional bill may ultimately be unnecessary -- FEMA has not yet exhausted its reserves.

But if a funding bill is necessary, there appears to be little appetite for another political fight like the last one.

Here's hoping we'll see a return to traditional American norms when it comes to post-disaster aid. For generations, Congress didn't fight over offsets in the wake of a crisis, it simply moved to help American communities in their time of need. That changed after Republicans took control of the House in 2010, but given GOP reactions yesterday, we may be seeing the first signs that the party is rethinking the utility of its posture.

We talked earlier about Oklahoma's junior senator, Republican Tom Coburn (R), announcing last night that he will only support federal disaster relief -- for his own constituents -- if it's financed by comparable spending cuts elsewhere. But what about Oklahoma's senior senator?

Republican Sen. James Inhofe, like Coburn, has opposed emergency aid in the recent past, including voting against a relief package for victims of Hurricane Sandy. This morning, however, the conservative senator said that was "totally different."

In the wake of the devastating tornado in an Oklahoma City suburb, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) rejected comparisons between federal aid for this disaster and the Hurricane Sandy relief package he voted against.

That was a "totally different" situation, Inhofe told MSNBC, arguing that the Sandy aid was filled with pork. There were "things in the Virgin Islands. They were fixing roads there and putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C. Everybody was getting in and exploiting the tragedy that took place. That won't happen in Oklahoma."

Inhofe didn't specify his intentions, exactly, but I took his comments to mean he'd consider supporting relief for his constituents, even if the costs are not offset, so long as the aid bill doesn't include expenditures unrelated to Oklahoma. In other words, at least at first blush, it seems to me Inhofe is not on board with Coburn's position.

Of course, all of this speculation is premature -- we don't yet know when there will be a disaster-relief bill, what will be in it, how much it'll cost, etc. -- but it appears the political fight got underway just five hours after disaster struck.

Associated Press

As of this morning, at least 51 people, including 20 children, are dead in the suburbs of Oklahoma City, following one of the deadliest tornadoes in U.S. history. Rescue teams worked through the night, especially in the devastated city of Moore, and local officials fear the death toll may yet rise significantly. [Update: as of this afternoon, the death toll had been revised down to 24, not 51.]

Ordinarily, so soon after a disaster of this magnitude, discussions about political agendas and ideologies are put on hold, which is why it came as a surprise when one of Oklahoma's U.S. senators staked out a far-right position on federal disaster relief just five hours after the storm hit.

The tornado damage near Oklahoma City is still being assessed and the death toll is expected to rise, but already Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., says he will insist that any federal disaster aid be paid for with cuts elsewhere.

CQ Roll Call reporter Jennifer Scholtes wrote for CQ.com Monday evening that Coburn said he would "absolutely" demand offsets for any federal aid that Congress provides.

Coburn added, Scholtes wrote, that it is too early to guess at a damage toll but that he knows for certain he will fight to make sure disaster funding that the federal government contributes is paid for.

I've seen many note overnight that Coburn is at least consistent -- there are plenty of politicians who've balked at disaster-relief funds when there's a devastating storm, only to change their minds when their constituents are among the casualties. Coburn, however, has routinely questioned emergency funding for everyone, and apparently wants to apply the same standards to his own home state.

But while consistently is welcome, it doesn't change the questions about unnecessary callousness.

For many years, federal disaster relief was effectively automatic -- there was bipartisan support for quickly responding to American communities in their time of need. It was a reflection of who we are as a people -- when disaster strikes, we're there for the people in affected areas, regardless of politics.

But in recent years, many Republican lawmakers have decided to change the standards. Under the new approach, they'll consider emergency resources, but only if Democrats agree to cut a comparable amount from the budget elsewhere. There's no real economic rationale for this, but for much of the right, the ideological rationale is sufficient.

As for what the recovery price tag may be in Oklahoma, it's far too soon to say. Ideally, it wouldn't matter.

Associated Press

Officials are still coming to terms with the scope of the disaster in West, Texas, where a fertilizer plant exploded last week, leaving at least 14 dead. And while investigators still search for clues as to what caused the disaster, Texan lawmakers in Washington are looking for disaster aid to bolster the devastated community.

Had these same officials not opposed post-Sandy relief, their position might not seem so jarring.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz lambasted the Sandy Aid package, voting against the measure in January.... However, in Washington Thursday, Cruz said that he was "working to ensure that all available resources are marshaled to deal with the horrific loss of life and suffering that we've seen" after an explosion at a fertilizer plant in Texas leveled the plant and nearby houses and business. [...]

Rep. Bill Flores, who represents West, also voted against the Sandy relief package but is now requesting federal aid for the disaster in his home district. Flores said Thursday that members of Congress with whom he has been in touch have pledged assistance.

After Flores voted against the Sandy aid package, he justified his vote by saying the package was "too large" and did "more than meet the immediate needs of Sandy victims."

In fairness, Cruz didn't explicitly say he wants federal emergency assistance, but the right-wing senator said he's working to get "all available resources," which would presumably include federal aid.

I will, of course, look forward to Cruz and Flores explaining why federal emergency aid in New Jersey and New York was unwarranted, while federal emergency aid in West, Texas, is fair.

Associated Press

When it comes to humanitarian responses to famines, one would like to think efficacy and common sense play a key role. As Jonathan Zasloff and Kevin Drum noted yesterday, that's generally not the case.

In Ethiopia, for example, it would make sense, logistically, to "find some farmer or group of farmers in other parts of the country, or in neighboring countries, buy their food and get it to the stricken area." But that's not how the current system works -- federal relief agencies are required to prioritize food purchase from within the United States, then ship it, which needlessly delays the response. And when responding to a famine, time matters.

So, the Obama administration wants to overhaul the system to make it faster and more efficient. That might sound like a no-brainer, but as is nearly always the case in Washington, change isn't easy.

An Obama administration plan to change the way the United States distributes its international food aid has touched off an intense lobbying campaign by a coalition of shipping companies, agribusiness and charitable groups who say the change will harm the nation's economy and hamper efforts to fight global hunger.

Proponents of the plan, however, say it would enable the United States to feed about 17 million more people each year, while helping to fight poverty by buying the crops of farmers in poor countries.

On the one hand, we have arguments from the Obama administration -- we can have faster, life-saving responses if we buy food closer to the affected areas. It will also save taxpayer money, since shipping food around the globe is more expensive than moving food within a country or from a neighboring country.

On the other hand, the change would mean less money for American agribusinesses and shipping companies.

It's also worth noting that the Bush/Cheney administration proposed a similar change in 2007, but it stalled in the face of opposition from "agribusiness, shipping and charitable groups."

We'll see soon enough whether Obama has more success.

Getty Images

It's taken far longer than it should have, but federal aid for areas affected by Hurricane Sandy is finally on the way.

The Senate Monday night passed a $50.5 billion emergency spending bill to aid people in New York and New Jersey who are trying to rebuild their homes and businesses after last October's devastation from super-storm Sandy.

The vote was 62 to 36, with 60 votes needed for passage.

The vote came nearly two weeks after the House approved an identical measure, and sends the bill to the White House for President Obama's signature.

But before we move on, it's worth pausing to note the partisan split on Sandy relief -- in the Senate, 36 Senate Republicans, including members representing coastal states like Florida, Texas, Alabama, and the Carolinas, voted against the federal aid. Or put another way, 80% of Senate Republicans opposed post-Sandy relief.

In the House, we saw roughly the same outcome -- 78% of House Republicans voted against the emergency assistance.

What we're seeing, in other words, is a fundamental shift in how GOP policymakers respond to communities struggling after a natural disaster.

For generations, these votes were not politicized or considered particularly controversial -- Americans could count on their elected representatives to step up if a natural disaster struck. It wasn't partisan and it wasn't ideological; this is just what the country did. It was a reflection of who we are.

And those days are over. As the Sandy votes demonstrate, it is now effectively the standard position of congressional Republicans to reject disaster relief unless the funding is offset by other spending cuts. So long, compassionate conservatism, we hardly knew you.

Getty Images

The post-Sandy disaster relief is long overdue, but the victims and affected areas can take some solace in knowing that help is on the way.

After fierce lobbying by political leaders in states across the Northeast, the House of Representatives on Tuesday night approved a long-awaited $50.7 billion emergency bill to provide help to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

The aid package passed 241 to 180, with 49 Republicans joining 192 Democrats. The Senate is expected to pass the measure, and President Obama has expressed support for it.

That's certainly good news for communities that are still struggling two months after the storm slammed East coast. But stepping back and looking at the larger political context, yesterday's developments in the House may reverberate for a while.

Note, for example, that while the aid package passed the chamber with relative ease, 179 House Republicans opposed Sandy disaster relief. For a party that's often perceived as callous towards those who need assistance, more concerned with tax breaks for millionaires than anything else, the roll call only reinforces the worst suspicions of today's GOP.

But there's also the so-called "Hastert Rule" to consider. Under this non-binding Republican guideline, House Speaker John Boehner is only supposed to bring bills to the floor that most of his own caucus supports -- measures, in other words, are supposed to enjoy a majority of the majority. The idea is, Republicans shouldn't even consider bills if they're dependent on Democratic votes to pass.

And while this "Hastert Rule" has generally been taken quite seriously in GOP circles, it's suddenly looking rather shaky. Boehner ignored the tenet when passing the bipartisan fiscal agreement two weeks ago, and he ignored it again last night to pass Sandy aid.

It's too soon to know for sure whether these were isolated incidents, which just happened to fall two weeks apart, and the Speaker intends to honor the rule for the rest of the Congress, or whether the "Hastert Rule" has suddenly lost its significance. But if it's the latter, it has the potential to be a game-changer in the 113th Congress.

Remember, the conventional wisdom suggests policymaking over the next two years will be nearly impossible because of the radicalized House Republican caucus. Sensible, popular measures may be able to get a few dozen House GOP votes, but most Republican representatives will always be inclined to kill every meaningful bill.

But if the "Hastert Rule" no longer matters -- or more accurately, if it matters far less than it did last year -- this dramatically affects the prospects of all kinds of bills, including votes on the debt ceiling, gun violence, and immigration.

I don't want to raise hopes too high, but if Boehner is prepared to start governing with a combination of votes from both parties, Congress may be almost functional in 2013 and 2014.

Associated Press

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.)

Though it took far longer than it should have, Congress approved $9.7 billion on Friday for the National Flood Insurance Program, giving a boost to victims of Hurricane Sandy. In all, only 67 lawmakers opposed the relief, and in this case, all 67 were Republicans, who opposed the spending under pressure from far-right lobbying groups like the Club for Growth.

Of the 67 opponents of the bill, failed vice presidential hopeful Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) was easily the highest-profile member of the bunch, but TPM flagged another lawmaker whose vote against the emergency aid was even more striking.

Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), whose Mississippi district is situated on the Gulf Coast, was one of 67 Republicans on Friday to vote against a $9.7 billion relief package to victims of Hurricane Sandy.

Mississippi's Fourth Congressional District, which Palazzo has represented since 2011, includes the city of Biloxi, one of the most heavily damaged communities in the region by Hurricane Katrina. Congress quickly passed an initial $10.5 billion relief package in the immediate aftermath of Katrina in September of 2005.

Making matters slightly worse, Palazzo, about four months ago, stressed the importance of federal disaster relief for his district in the wake of Hurricane Isaac.

"Some of the counties in the fourth congressional district have been the hardest hit by Isaac," Palazzo said in late August. "This determination comes as good news to our local communities who are dealing with the effects of the storm. We cannot thank the governor's office and FEMA enough for their continued support."

Hmm. It sounds an awful lot like the Mississippi congressman loves federal disaster relief, but only if it directly benefits Mississippi.

Asked for an explanation, the Republican's office issued a statement.

"Congressman Palazzo fully supports a Sandy relief package that includes spending offsets. On the heels of a fiscal cliff deal that added $4 trillion to our existing $16 trillion national debt, we must ensure that disaster relief is paid for. He also hopes we will be able to have a much-needed national discussion on disaster relief reform in the coming days."

First, mandating "offsets" in the wake of a natural disaster is a new development, that didn't apply when it was Palazzo's district that was slammed. Second, the bipartisan fiscal agreement does not "add $4 trillion" to the debt.

And third, it's interesting how "disaster relief reform" is needed when New Jersey is hit, but not when it was Mississippi that needed a hand.

Following up on a piece from this morning, the House Republican leadership's decision not to hold a vote on Hurricane Sandy relief aid continues to draw widespread condemnations, and this afternoon, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) didn't hold back.

For those who can't watch clips online, Christie said, among other things, "There's only one group to blame for the continued suffering of these innocent victims: the House majority, and their Speaker, John Boehner." The governor added that House Republicans acted with "callous indifference" to the people of New Jersey, and called Congress' inaction "disgraceful."

Christie also noted that he called the Speaker's office four times last night, and in each instance, he was unable to speak to Boehner directly. As for why House Republicans failed to act, the governor blamed the "toxic internal politics of the House majority."

It's worth noting, of course, that Christie is hardly alone. President Obama issued a statement calling for immediate House action: "When tragedy strikes, Americans come together to support those in need. I urge Republicans in the House of Representatives to do the same, bring this important request to a vote today, and pass it without delay for our fellow Americans."

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), meanwhile, said on Fox News, "[A]nyone from New York and New Jersey who contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their mind because what they did last night to put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans was an absolute disgrace."

Pretty much every politician in New York and New Jersey are making similar comments today.

For his part, Boehner has said he's willing to push an aid package for Sandy victims in the new Congress, though the legislative process will have to start from scratch.

Late Friday, the Senate approved a $60.4 billion bill to aid victims of Hurricane Sandy, including grants for homeowners and businesses, and investments in regional infrastructure for projects like hospitals and transit systems. All the funding needed to pass was House approval.

Last night, however, House Republican leaders announced after passing the fiscal agreement that there would be no more votes in this Congress -- effectively killing Sandy aid and forcing the process to start over. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) urged the GOP to reconsider.

It wasn't supposed to go this way. Earlier in the day, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) seemed prepared to bring a smaller Sandy aid bill to the floor -- the Senate was even prepared to approve it by unanimous consent today -- but without explanation, House GOP leaders reversed course last night.

In addition to the Democratic leadership, a bipartisan group of lawmakers representing affected areas quickly condemned Republican leaders for deliberately ignoring Sandy victims, but to no avail. House Speaker John Boehner's office said he's content to deal with the aid package in the new Congress, when it will have to start over in the Senate.

"This is an absolute disgrace and the Speaker should hang his head in shame," Rep. Eliot Engel, (D-N.Y.) said.

Several lawmakers, including Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), are launching 11th-hour lobbying campaigns this morning, hoping to persuade Boehner to reverse course today, but there's been no indication from the Speaker's office that he's open to changing his mind.

Getty Images

President Obama has submitted a $60.4 billion relief package for areas affected by Hurricane Sandy, which is actually below the total aid request from the governors of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, but as promised, Congress is not in a generous mood.

House lawmakers don't intend to introduce an emergency funding bill anywhere near as large as the $60 billion the Obama administration is seeking to help rebuild the Northeast after superstorm Sandy, saying the administration hasn't provided sufficient details to justify spending that amount, two senior GOP aides said Wednesday.

If the Republican-controlled House doesn't take up the measure this year, it would push debate on a large rebuilding bill into next year -- something New York and New Jersey officials have said they want to avoid.

Though Republican leaders in both chambers have been cautious, saying very little about Sandy-related relief, The Hill reports that several rank-and-file House GOP lawmakers have already explicitly said they will demand funding offsets before emergency aid is approved. In other words, unless Democrats accept $60.4 billion in spending cuts, affected areas can forget about $60.4 billion in disaster relief.

And that's a real problem.

To reiterate an item from a few weeks ago, post-disaster aid didn't use to work this way. Last year, however, congressional Republicans came up with an entirely new standard when it came to emergency relief: Congress will consider helping struggling Americans and devastated communities, but only if Democrats accept comparable spending cuts.

It came as something of a shock. The same GOP lawmakers who saw no need to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tax cuts for millionaires, or the Wall Street bailout said American communities struck by a natural disaster can get help, but only if the costs of the aid are offset elsewhere, penny for penny. It was a standard without precedent.

Steve M. reviewed the recent history: "Republicans, led by Eric Cantor, pulled this stunt in the spring of 2011, after a tornado cut through Joplin, Missouri, and then a couple of months later, after Hurricane Irene and an East Coast earthquake (which damaged Cantor's home state of Virginia). This was wildly unpopular, even with Virginia's Republican governor, but when has being unpopular ever prevented Republicans from posturing as obnoxious hard-asses?"

Senate action on the Sandy relief package may come as quickly as today, though House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) indicated his committee is "scrubbing the numbers," and won't act anytime soon.

Getty Images

Last year, congressional Republicans came up with an entirely new standard when it came to emergency disaster relief: Congress will consider helping struggling Americans and devastated communities, but only if Democrats accept comparable spending cuts.

It came as something of a shock. The same GOP lawmakers who saw no need to pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, tax cuts for millionaires, or the Wall Street bailout said American communities struck by a natural disaster can get help, but only if the costs of the aid are offset elsewhere, penny for penny. It was a standard without precedent.

Any chance Republicans would be more compassionate going forward? Apparently not.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, signaling that Republicans may revive last year's battles over offsets to disaster aid relief, says he expects that any package to help Northeast states hit by the superstorm Sandy will have to including matching cuts in spending elsewhere in the federal budget.

"We always help communities during disasters," he said Wednesday after having met earlier in the day with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who is pushing for quick passage of an aid package. "The difference you have got now is that it is going to have to be offset."

And why is "going to have to be offset"? Because Republicans say so.

Steve M. reminds us of the recent history: "Republicans, led by Eric Cantor, pulled this stunt in the spring of 2011, after a tornado cut through Joplin, Missouri, and then a couple of months later, after Hurricane Irene and an East Coast earthquake (which damaged Cantor's home state of Virginia). This was wildly unpopular, even with Virginia's Republican governor, but when has being unpopular ever prevented Republicans from posturing as obnoxious hard-asses?"

The White House is still crafting a disaster relief package to aid communities hard-hit by Sandy, and Congress does not yet know the expected price tag. Most estimates, however, point to an $80 billion aid package.