[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 5 (Friday, January 18, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E37-E38]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 152, DISASTER RELIEF APPROPRIATIONS 
                               ACT, 2013

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                         HON. TIMOTHY H. BISHOP

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 15, 2013

  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, colleague and 
fellow New Yorker for yielding time. I'd also like to thank 
Representatives Lowey and King for their leadership; and I commend my 
colleagues in the New York and New Jersey delegations on both sides of 
the aisle for working so well together to advance the interests of our 
states at this critical time. I rise to support the rule and urge my 
colleagues to support H.R. 152, and the Frelinghuysen Amendment, and to 
oppose the Mulvaney Amendment.
  It has been two-and-a-half months since Superstorm Sandy hit 
communities in New York, New Jersey, and neighboring states which 
continue to face the almost insurmountable task of cleaning up and 
rebuilding homes, businesses, and lives. I'm grateful we finally have 
the opportunity to consider a relief package to help those who are most 
in need.
  On the eastern half of Long Island, businesses, farms, and homes fell 
victim to intense flooding; ferocious winds caused substantial damage 
to property, vehicles, and businesses; and along the coast, Sandy 
created breaches in the coastline and severely eroded other beaches. In 
New York and New Jersey, at least 651,000 homes were damaged or 
destroyed and approximately 463,000 businesses were impacted.

[[Page E38]]

  I must observe this has been a painfully protracted process; it is a 
fact that what we've tried to accomplish for the last two-and-a-half 
months had once been considered a common-sense, bipartisan response to 
natural disasters. And the calls for offsets and a slower pace of 
funding in the wake of natural disasters are a recent phenomenon, even 
though previous Congresses quickly supported measures that provided 
relief to affected states.
  For example, within two weeks of Hurricane Katrina, Congress provided 
$70 billion in disaster funding to the Gulf Coast with great bipartisan 
support, and with virtually no discussion about how to pay for it. 
Congress recognized this was a major disaster, people were hurting, and 
it had to act to alleviate the suffering.
  Congress, with bipartisan support, continued to appropriate emergency 
funds for various Katrina projects and activities totaling $120 
billion, all without payfors. For example, Congress funded $1 billion 
to build a retractable seawall to protect New Orleans from rising storm 
surge. And it approved $14 billion to rebuild and upgrade critical 
flood prevention infrastructure to minimize, or mitigate, the risk of 
such devastation occurring again. Why do New York and New Jersey 
deserve less urgency? And why are mitigation projects for New Orleans 
considered prudent, and mitigation projects for New York and New Jersey 
characterized as pork?
  Mr. Speaker, our states are not asking for anything more than help to 
get back on their feet and rebuild. We are asking for nothing more than 
to respond to this disaster as we have for Hurricane Katrina and other 
natural disasters that have wrought damage upon fellow Americans. I 
urge my colleagues to support this package without any damaging 
amendments.

                          ____________________