[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 152 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6876-H6882]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        COMMEMORATING THE 1-YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SUPERSTORM SANDY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Tonko) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. TONKO. Mr. Speaker, on this evening of October 29, we commemorate 
the 1-year anniversary of Superstorm Sandy, which devastated the east 
coast. Many are still recovering from that tragic storm, and it 
certainly was a major force to be reckoned with.
  That force of nature was, at one point, nearly 1,000 miles wide over 
the ocean front, and when it landed in southern Jersey, it was nearly 
900

[[Page H6877]]

miles wide. It impacted so many States; 24 States, in number, felt the 
impact of that superstorm.
  It was devastation to property; it was devastation to lives: 162 
people in the United States lost their lives. And the fact that the 
storm surged to some record proportions reminds us of the impact of 
climate change.

                              {time}  1830

  Now as a member of the New York delegation in this House, my area 
received some mild impact from that superstorm. But ironically, the 
year before, Hurricanes Irene and Lee impacted the upstate region of 
New York and, again, devastated our area with loss of life, certainly 
of valuable farm land that was eroded, and damage to communities, 
businesses, and farms across the upstate region.
  These are issues that are brought to mind this evening as we 
commemorate that 1-year anniversary, as many continue to struggle to 
recover from the ravages of Mother Nature.
  The cost of climate inaction is severe. Climate change is an issue of 
science. It is certainly an issue of public health. And most 
definitely, it is an issue of economics, economic vitality.
  Earlier, the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition, which is 
a growing number--56, to be exact--of Democrats in the House looking to 
bring about significant policy reforms that speak to the environmental 
and energy needs of this Nation, began to provide a laser-sharp focus 
on the cost of climate change to our economy.
  In 2011 and 2012, there were some 25 extreme weather events that 
caused at least $1 billion each or more in damages. Total estimated 
economic damages were approaching $200 billion, and the cost to 
taxpayers, some $136 billion. The cost to individual taxpayers totaled 
$1.61 billion. So we know that there is a tremendous impact here that 
has been realized by the lack of a focus on climate change and global 
warming.
  As we continue to look at recovery--even from Irene and Lee in the 
upstate New York portion--as we look at the impact, the damage that 
came with Superstorm Sandy, as we look at the damage recently to 
Colorado, and if we look at the other extreme--not rainfall and 
flooding, but certainly drought and looking at the wildfires that have 
consumed some States in our country, there is definitely economic 
consequence that comes with climate change.
  In my territory, in my area that is part of the 20th Congressional 
District, it becomes very apparent that we need to do more than just 
replace. If data compiled are telling us that extreme rainfall has been 
part of the last decade or two, then wise, effective government will 
not merely replace but reevaluate how to reconfigure, for instance, a 
bridge that may cross, traverse one of the creeks. I know that that is 
the case in many locations.
  Looking at electric utilities, looking at what withstood the 
pressures of the storm; combined heat and power systems that we will 
talk about during this hour that apparently withstood greater pressure 
than some of the traditional systems, so we go forward with not just 
merely replacement, but we go forward with a renewal, a revision of how 
to take that area that was affected and make it work again. That is 
sound government. That is effective government.
  Tonight we are joined by several colleagues. We are joined by 
Representative Rush Holt from the State of New Jersey, and we are 
joined by Representative Scott Peters from the State of California. We 
may be visited by other colleagues this evening. We are going to talk 
about impacts they have seen perhaps in their region and talk about the 
science and economics related to climate change.
  I believe we, through SEEC, through the Sustainable Energy and 
Environmental Coalition, have brought about the discussion, have 
developed the dialogue, have encouraged moving forward, if you will, on 
this very important dynamic, understanding it full well so that we can 
move into prevention because the question asked here by a growing 
number of colleagues is, how long can we afford to go without a plan of 
action before we understand that the cost of replacement or renewal or 
transformation is going to drain the taxpayers, is going to drain the 
individuals and families impacted, the businesses impacted? No one wins 
in that scenario.
  So, Representative Rush Holt, if you would like to share some 
thoughts this evening as we begin our hour, we welcome you.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from New York (Mr. Tonko) for arranging 
this discussion.
  It is well worth recognizing the anniversary of this devastating 
storm because it might be said this was a storm like we have never seen 
before. That may be true, but I don't think it is correct to say this 
is a storm such as we will never see again.
  A year ago, Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey and much of the 
east coast. The storm may have faded from the headlines, but New 
Jerseyans haven't forgotten. It is felt in a very personal and painful 
way by thousands and thousands of New Jerseyans still today.
  These New Jerseyans are not alone. I mean that in two senses. First, 
we can hear from some who are representative of the millions. But also, 
when we hear from the younger New Jerseyans who are affected, we 
understand that they represent the future that will be affected by 
climate change. Quite simply, superstorms like Sandy are the new 
normal, and we had better get used to it, even if climate change 
skeptics claim otherwise.
  I think response to Sandy means, of course, tending to the human 
needs of those who have been victims of the storm, but it also means 
making significant investments in power engineering and transportation 
engineering and rail engineering and wireless engineering and shoreline 
engineering and river flood control engineering and residential 
planning, and taking steps to deal with the root cause of what we see.
  We may not be able to stop hurricanes in their tracks. In fact, we 
certainly can't. But we can make sure that our infrastructure and our 
environment and our communities are more resilient when they strike, 
and if we work hard as a Nation and as humanity, we may be able to stem 
the climate change that will result in more and more powerful 
superstorms.
  I know some in Washington are skeptical of the role of the Federal 
Government in fighting climate change, but as Sandy's $83 billion 
pricetag should make clear, society, our economy, yes, and our 
government will bear the costs of climate change one way or another. If 
we make the investments today, as the debts are coming due, we would do 
far better than to wait to pick up the pieces after other superstorms 
hit.
  I will be happy, as we go along, to talk about some specific New 
Jerseyans who were affected. I will be happy to talk about some of the 
science that suggests where we are as a world. Mostly, I just want to 
make the point that this is the new normal that we should be prepared 
for.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much, Representative Holt. Certainly your 
State, my home State suffered economic consequences to the nth degree. 
It is a stark reminder that the cost of inaction here is painfully 
borne by taxpayers into the future also.
  So I am proud of the SEEC organization, the coalition raising the 
consciousness of the House as to the importance of this issue.
  We are joined by Representative Scott Peters from California. 
Representative Peters has worked in the environmental arena and has 
contributed greatly in that regard. We are proud to have you join us 
this evening, Representative.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Thank you very much, Mr. Tonko. I 
appreciate the chance to speak with you on this special occasion.
  I am the climate task force chair of the House Sustainable Energy and 
Environmental Coalition, SEEC, and I rise to recognize the 1-year 
anniversary of Superstorm Sandy and to recognize those who have lost 
their lives as well as those continuing to rebuild from the 
destruction.
  I might mention, for the benefit of Mr. Holt, that I am a graduate of 
Westfield High. I spent my high school years in New Jersey. I still 
have sisters in Chatham and New Providence and nieces and nephews. I 
visited regularly Long Beach Island, Ship Bottom, and Beach Haven for 
family vacations. So I know well a lot of those areas and how

[[Page H6878]]

hard they have been hit both from a personal and an economic 
standpoint.
  I want to speak a little bit too about San Diego, though, as it has 
been my home for 25 years. My constituents in San Diego have 
experienced and know the long rebuilding and recovery process after 
disaster strikes, and we have a little bit of a different effect from 
climate change and global warming.
  October marks the 10-year anniversary--and I think the anniversary 
was a few days ago--of the beginning of the Cedar Fire, the largest 
wildfire in California history. As a San Diego City Council member at 
the time, I remember firsthand the destructive impact of this fire on 
people's lives. It destroyed hundreds of homes, personal belongings and 
memories, and the recovery costs were in the billions of dollars.

  The Cedar Fire burned through 273,246 acres of San Diego County, 
destroyed 2,232 homes, and took 15 lives. It burned through 95 acres of 
the Cuyamaca State Park and blazed through 98 percent of its mature 
conifer trees. To date, little of the forest has grown back from the 
bare mineral soil left behind by the wildfire.
  The community faced similar damage in 2007 during the Witch Creek 
Fire, and parts of the city of San Diego were also scarred at that 
time.
  Wildfires aren't new to California, but the damages from these fires 
are rising. This will sound familiar when we think about the warmest 
years on record all being recent. In California, 12 of the 20 most 
damaging wildfires occurred in the last 10 years. This has huge 
implications for California's tourism and farming industries. For 
example, take the Rim Fire this summer that pushed into parts of the 
Yosemite National Park and devastated local tourism.
  After the Cedar Fire, San Diego, the county and the city, are 
undoubtedly more prepared and ready to respond to a large wildfire. We 
have better communication equipment, better communication among 
agencies, and better fire equipment in general. More importantly, we 
have worked to minimize further damage through better planning. As Thom 
Porter, the chief of the San Diego Fire Authority said, ``It's not 
about stopping a fire from occurring but preventing the amount of 
damage it causes.''
  Today San Diego has new planning guidelines and building codes and 
100-foot brush clearance requirements around homes. Before 2003, it was 
just 30 feet. We found that we could decrease risk and save homes and 
lives.
  Resiliency starts at the local level because they know the conditions 
and the situations on the ground. They are the people who can talk to 
the neighbors about what they have to do to be ready. We have to make 
our communities more resilient to wildfires, hurricanes, and other 
extreme weather.
  In the last 5 years, wildfires have cost taxpayers more than $1.6 
billion a year. Last year, 9.2 million acres were burned by wildfires, 
which is an area bigger than the States of Delaware, Rhode Island, and 
Connecticut combined.
  In June, I introduced the bipartisan STRONG Act so the Federal 
Government could give tools for planning and resiliency to State and 
local actors. I think one of the first things we noticed as freshmen 
here, one of the first votes we were asked to take, was $60 billion for 
Sandy relief, which was the appropriate vote to take. We have spent 
$136 billion on relief in the last 2 years off the budget.
  Every dollar we spend now on disaster preparedness and resiliency, we 
can avoid at least $4 in future losses and FEMA expenses. We can bounce 
back faster with less economic damage. Each day that a community is 
disrupted by extreme weather, we lose economic output. So we need to be 
doing more to support our local communities with emergency management 
communication, public health, and energy reliability in the event of an 
extreme weather event, whether it is a wildfire or something like 
Superstorm Sandy.
  Swiss Re, a major reinsurer, recently ranked the top 10 metro areas 
in North and Central America that face the highest value of working 
days lost from natural perils. Nine of them were in the United States.
  On this occasion, I commit with my colleagues to better protect my 
district from the devastation caused by extreme weather by working to 
rebuild stronger and smarter with a mind for the future.
  Again, thank you very much for inviting me. I would be happy to 
discuss some of these items.

                              {time}  1845

  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Peters.
  We are also joined by Representative Denny Heck from Washington 
State, who is a freshman but has brought a very strong voice of 
advocacy for the environment to this Chamber. We are proud to have him 
join us this evening and raise again the dialogue that is so essential 
about climate change, global warming, and the economic impact that 
every region across this country is experiencing.
  So, welcome, Representative Heck, and thank you for being such an 
outstanding advocate.
  Mr. HECK of Washington. Thank you, sir. Thank you for the privilege 
to be able to add my voice to this also.
  As a member of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment 
Coalition, I stand here today as well to recognize the 1-year 
anniversary of Superstorm Sandy and remember all those whose lives were 
lost and all those left behind who are in the process of continuing to 
rebuild their lives from that destruction--not just in the months ahead 
but, undoubtedly, in the years ahead. Our Nation must--it can, it will, 
and it should--stand with those families and businesses as they 
undertake that task all along the Atlantic coast as they seek to 
recover.
  I actually come from about as far away from that in the continental 
United States as possible. I am from Washington State, and so the 
district that I have the honor to represent was not directly affected 
by Superstorm Sandy. However, my district has begun to feel the very 
real effects of climate change.
  Science has shown that climate change is driving an ongoing decrease 
in seawater pH. Scientists refer to that as ``ocean acidification.''
  You might ask, How does that happen? Truthfully, with all due respect 
to my colleague from New Jersey, you don't have to be a ``Jeopardy!'' 
champion to get this. In fact, you only need be exposed to a junior 
high- or senior high-level biology or chemistry course.
  It only stands to reason that as more and more carbon is emitted into 
the atmosphere, not all of it goes into the atmosphere, but, in fact, a 
goodly portion of it is absorbed by what covers approximately three-
fourths of our little globe's surface, namely the ocean. And that 
carbon being absorbed into the ocean does, in fact, affect the pH 
level.
  So ocean acidification, in turn, affects marine life in a lot of 
different ways; but the effect that I am the most familiar with is the 
damage that it causes to shellfish, including the shellfish grown at 
farms in my districts, specifically in Mason County. Indeed, I am proud 
to tell that you the largest shellfish farm in America, Taylor 
Shellfish Farms, is located, along with many others, in the 10th 
Congressional District of Washington State.
  The acidity in the water--the direct result of carbon emitted into 
atmosphere absorbed by the ocean--makes it difficult for the shellfish 
to grow and harden their shells. Frankly, it decreases survival rates. 
It makes it harder to raise shellfish.
  More than 3,200 people in our State--a lot of them in my district--
are employed directly or indirectly in the shellfish industry and by 
growers. The estimated total economic contribution is well over a 
quarter-billion dollars. But that entire industry is threatened by 
ocean acidification resulting from climate change. It is totally 
threatened by this.
  I have said here on this floor and elsewhere many times that a 
healthy economy is completely dependent and requires a healthy 
environment. The effect of climate change on Washington State's 
shellfish industry is but one of the clearest examples of that fact.
  Washington State has a climate change adaptation strategy that we are 
working on with our regional neighbors--and, I might add, with some 
degree of progress. But without the involvement at the Federal level 
and with the Federal Government, our plan isn't going to be successful. 
The reason: this is a global problem that will require global action; 
and global action

[[Page H6879]]

is only going to occur if the United States leads, which it has so 
often in the past.
  And so, sir, on this occasion, the 1-year anniversary of Superstorm 
Sandy, I also commit to better protecting the district I represent, our 
Nation, and the planet from the devastating effects of climate change. 
We have been waiting long enough. The science is in, and it is time to 
act.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Heck.
  We have also been joined by yet another freshman of the House, from 
the State of Pennsylvania, another strong friend of the environment and 
a person who has spent much of his career defending the environment. 
Representative Matt Cartwright joins us this evening.
  Welcome. Thank you for participating with the SEEC coalition.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. It is my pleasure, my dear friend and colleague from 
New York.
  It is almost hard to believe, I would say, that we are noting the 1-
year anniversary of the terrible storm we called Hurricane Sandy 
striking our Nation's shores. It seems like no more than 6 or 7 months 
ago that that all happened.
  Maybe one of the reasons is that it was so horrific, so damaging, so 
devastating, that the harm continues. There are still families 
searching for a place to live. There are Americans still digging out 
from this problem, trying to salvage the situation for themselves and 
their families. And so it is almost hard to believe that it was a full 
year ago that this happened.
  This is a country that suffered so much in loss because of Hurricane 
Sandy, with $245 billion in business losses and $50 billion in property 
damage.
  I come from Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania, so far as it is from the 
seacoast, still had 1.2 million residents lose electricity during that 
event. In my own district, up in the hills of the 17th District of 
Pennsylvania, we still lost power for 53,000 residents.
  Indeed, I am so sorry to say that we had several lives lost in my 
district due to Hurricane Sandy; people who perished because of falling 
tree limbs and because of hypothermia due to exposure. We had somebody 
we lost because of exposure to carbon monoxide because of generator 
fumes that were emitted during the blackout.

  We had tens of thousands of homes and businesses damaged in my 
district because of Hurricane Sandy. So don't think we didn't notice it 
either and don't think we didn't pay attention to the suffering of all 
of the other Americans because of Hurricane Sandy.
  There is no denying that there is climate change. There is just no 
denying it. We can argue all day about what is causing it and what to 
do about it, but there is no denying that it is happening and that it 
is resulting in more and more frequent weather events like this and 
more and more severe weather events like this. There is no denying that 
these things are happening, and there is no denying the damage and harm 
that comes to our Nation as a result.
  In 2011 and 2012, there were 25 severe weather events that caused a 
billion dollars or more in damage each; 25 of them were in a 2-year 
span. The total price tag for that was $188 billion in property damage 
to our Nation. And the taxpayers had to pick up $136 billion of those 
losses because that is what we do in emergency relief and in flood 
insurance and in crop insurance. These weather events cost taxpayers 
money.
  We have something in the legislature called the GAO. The GAO used to 
stand for the General Accounting Office. In 2004, we changed the name 
to the General Accountability Office, better to reflect the mission of 
that office--accountability and the proper husbanding of the assets and 
resources of the Federal Government. And they keep track of these 
things.
  Every year, they come up with something that they call the GAO High 
Risk Report. The GAO High Risk Report is a compilation of all the risks 
and assets and finances we have in this Nation as part of our 
government. It is a list of the things that threaten the assets of the 
Federal Government. For the first time, earlier this year, the GAO High 
Risk Report included climate change as a reason for risk to the 
American Government's assets.
  This is not just about security. It is not just about infrastructure. 
It is not just about damage to agriculture. It is not just about risk 
to the health and well-being of all Americans. It is also about 
financial losses to the American Federal Government, because, after 
all, we are an insurance company.
  We are a government that insures against flood. We are a government 
that insures against crop damage. We do that. That is something that we 
have thought about and something that makes sense for our Nation. But 
we end up in the position of an insurance company, and we end up paying 
the price tag when these storms happen. The GAO recognizes that and 
recognizes that climate change is a major driver in the risks to the 
American finances as a result of these programs that we do.
  As a result of all of that, in a few months, I will be introducing a 
comprehensive climate adaptation bill. Because, again, we can argue 
until the cows come home about what causes climate change and what the 
effects of it are, but one thing that can't be denied and that the GAO 
doesn't even deny is that this costs American taxpayers money, and the 
best way to handle that is to plan for it. And so, with the support of 
the White House, I will be introducing a comprehensive climate 
adaptation bill later this year. It should be out in a few months.
  And so, on this, the 1-year anniversary of the horrible tragedy that 
was Hurricane Sandy, we remember the devastation and we remember the 
losses. We remember the loss of life. We remember the communities that 
are continuing to struggle with the damage that was caused by that 
storm. And I say it is time for us also to plan for the future to 
minimize these losses that will continue to happen as the planet 
climate continues to change.
  Mr. TONKO. The Representative talks about the growing acknowledgment 
by agencies and various elements of government, and I can tell you also 
a personal experience of watching the constituents in our area 
understand more starkly and painfully the impact of global warming in 
the aftermath of Irene and Lee.
  Representative Peters has long promoted the awareness concept--
wanting people to understand the awareness of global warming and 
climate change.
  Your thoughts on that.
  Mr. PETERS of California. Just to follow on.
  I think what Mr. Cartwright said is exactly right. We don't know that 
our house is going to burn down, yet we buy fire insurance because we 
know that there is a risk of it.
  I often hear in this building, unfortunately, a lot of professed 
doubts about climate change; but even though I disagree with it, I 
think the science is pretty clear. If you doubt it, that doesn't mean 
it is not going to happen and you don't prepare for it and you don't 
plan for it and you don't make the investments to be more resilient, 
which is what the STRONG Act is about.
  So I completely agree. In the face of doubt, that doubt should not 
equal inaction. The fact that we have the strong evidence that this is 
happening, that we have had these off-budget expenses, is every reason 
in the world we need here to plan.
  I would say to folks listening at home that they need to get in touch 
with people in this body to let them know that.
  One thing I would just add briefly about what we did in San Diego, I 
was chair of a volunteer climate initiative which was part of the San 
Diego Foundation's effort to do civic engagement. What we tried to do 
was, through philanthropy, provide good support for decisionmaking 
locally around climate, because a lot of leadership, as you know, Mr. 
Tonko, is happening at the local level.
  We provided research on science. We did a study of what the major 
climate effects in San Diego would be, which are more intense 
wildfires, water supply threats, and sea level rise--no surprise to 
anyone here. And we were able to give that information to our elected 
officials so that they knew what we had to plan with locally.
  We also did a public opinion survey just to let them know what people 
thought. It turned out that people in San Diego wanted to be leaders on 
climate action. First of all, they wanted

[[Page H6880]]

to be leaders in the State. They also didn't want the jobs associated 
with the industrial opportunities to be going to China or Texas. So we 
were able to arm our elected officials with that information and made 
them a lot bolder about taking the actions that we needed to take.
  I bet the people in this body would benefit from the same kind of 
information and wouldn't be surprised that America is behind us in 
taking action, particularly on getting ready and being resilient and 
being prepared to save money down the road.

                              {time}  1900

  No one likes spending $134 billion off-budget. I certainly didn't, 
and I know my colleagues don't. There is no need to do that. We can be 
prepared.
  Again, thank you very much for scheduling this at this hour.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much, Representative Peters.
  The gentleman makes mention of awareness and of the many visuals out 
there that strike awareness even a coast away.
  Representative Holt, I just noticed recently in the news the 
reopening of the boardwalk--of the very famous, traditional boardwalk 
in your home State--as you continue to recover from the damages of 
Superstorm Sandy. The awareness is an amazing piece of the action here, 
and something as visible and understandable as that boardwalk brings it 
home for many people far removed from New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Some of the repair has taken place, but the recovery takes 
a very long time.
  Today, three New Jerseyans came to visit me.
  One, Eric, from Jersey City, had been ready to open his bakery with 
his wife when Sandy hit. The bakery was flooded by 6 feet of water, and 
a lot of equipment was damaged. It delayed until fairly recently the 
opening of that bakery, and of course there was the loss of income to 
that family.
  Norma, from Seaside Park, was displaced by severe flooding, nearly 4 
feet. We can talk about the depth of the storm surge or about the 
record low barometric pressure or what the wind speed was, but we 
mustn't lose sight of the people who were affected here. Norma had 
space in her home that was flooded, and so she lost the rental income 
for that space. She is still cleaning up. Incidentally, she is a 
science supervisor at a local school, and is now talking personally 
about climate change and extreme weather.
  April, from Jersey City, is a single mother of a child with asthma, 
who was uprooted because of the flooding from Sandy. She is now dealing 
with mold issues in her child's school as a result of the flooding, and 
she has gotten involved in helping low-income families recover from 
Sandy.
  I want to make this point about who is hurt the most.
  Researchers at Rutgers University in New Jersey looked at families 
who are employed but who are struggling. These would be asset-limited 
people, people who are barely earning a living. This makes up, really, 
about a third of New Jerseyans. They have no cushion. Yet about a third 
of New Jerseyans incurred more than half of the residential damage--the 
cost--and are obtaining only slightly more than a quarter of the 
resources that are available for rebuilding. So low-income families, 
who tend to have less safe, less resilient housing, are the ones who 
suffer the most damage. Many who work hourly jobs are less able to deal 
with the loss of wages that occur from these disasters. Many of them 
were underinsured, and about 90 percent did not have flood insurance. 
So it is only a fraction of the people in New Jersey, but it is a very 
large fraction of the people, who suffered the really severe damage.
  As bad as this is in America, the effects of climate change are even 
worse in developing countries around the world. Developing nations are 
more vulnerable to crop failure. Tropical diseases are very sensitive 
to climate change. Malaria and dengue fever and diarrheal disease are 
more prevalent now because of climate change, and developing nations 
are less able to afford the damage that results.
  I got in some trouble earlier this year--I was challenged earlier 
this year--when I said we have got to deal with climate change or 
millions will die. In fact, I looked it up. The World Health 
Organization estimates that climate change is already causing 140,000 
deaths per year--more than would have occurred without the climate 
change--primarily in developing countries. So it doesn't take very many 
years before, indeed, millions are dying. That is something of the 
human cost of what we are talking about.
  Mr. TONKO. In every measurement that we make, there is a huge impact 
that climate change calculates to the negative. You talked about the 
impact worldwide. It is the sightings of a perfect storm, with less 
available land as it erodes with these floodings and with a growing 
population worldwide. That is the formation of a perfect storm.
  But when we look closer to home, in these United States, you and I 
are part of the delegations that represent coastal States. The coastal 
erosion and the erosion of valuable farmland in my district are 
realities, and it is measurable already. The forewarnings are out there 
to take action to prevent further erosion. When you think of that 
impact, it comes in several dimensions, perhaps agricultural in nature 
as it is a major sector of our economy in this country, or in tourism. 
One of the bits of erosion that I saw--one of the impacts that came--
was with tourism infrastructure, with very valuable historic sites that 
were nearly ruined and that are along the beds of creeks and rivers 
that are tourism destinations but that now are shut for business as 
they get repaired. Some of these elements are extremely delicate, and 
part of our fabric as a Nation is to be able to share our sense of 
history with either other people of the United States or with visitors 
who travel to this land, so there are impacts that come.
  I would also talk about the infrastructure impacts on the energy 
side. We witnessed situations in which some fared better than others, 
and I was proud of our SEEC organization. Now, you and I are longtime 
charter members of SEEC, and I am proud of the fact that we called upon 
the Sandy Rebuilding Task Force to help communities rebuild stronger 
and smarter by having the task force issue guidance for combined heat 
and power, CHP systems. Those systems fared well in areas ravaged by 
these superstorms.
  CHP, as many know, is an innovative sort of concept, an energy-
efficient method for generating electricity and harnessing heat, the 
thermal energy that accompanies that. In CHP systems, heat that 
normally is wasted--allowed to escape--is captured and recovered as 
useful energy, and that allows us to require and to, perhaps, promote 
this integrated concept approach far more efficient than conventional 
power generation would be. Conventional methods have a typical combined 
efficiency of 45 percent, while CHP can operate as high as 80 percent. 
This technology is not only efficient; it also has demonstrated 
resiliency to extreme weather events. I can cite South Oaks Hospital on 
Long Island, which is a hospital facility that includes an acute 
psychiatric hospital, a nursing home and an assisted living center. 
During the storm and its aftermath, the hospital maintained full power 
through the use of its 1.3 megawatt CHP system.

  Again, lessons, hopefully, will be learned. So, as we go to replace, 
we also have to transition some of our thinking and make certain that 
we are building systems that will be able to endure these storms into 
the future. Certainly amongst our priorities has got to be this all-out 
effort to combat global warming, climate change, to make certain that 
we do all of our preventative measures. Then when we rebuild, we do it 
in a way that is efficient so that sound government, smart government, 
is the tool that is reached to rather than awkwardly replacing in a 
sort of rush order to get us back into a working progressive outcome, 
but where we haven't addressed some of the dynamics of the ravages of 
weather, which is teaching us several lessons as we go through these 
many storms.
  So you are absolutely right. The people are the most impacted here. 
We have to keep them front and center in our thinking, but all of these 
services that either provide jobs for people or provide economic 
opportunities, economic growth, or that meet their public safety needs 
or their energy needs or their household needs or their business needs 
have got to be brought into this calculus that is adjusting concepts

[[Page H6881]]

based on the theory of climate change, and where we, again, underscore 
the importance of prevention.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that all of our colleagues 
understand that when my friend from New York talks in detail about new 
energy systems that he is talking about human welfare, that he is 
talking about addressing the human cost that we were speaking of 
earlier. In other words, it is not just a matter of providing energy 
for people to power our economy and provide comfortable daily lives; it 
is also a matter of doing it in a way that avoids this enormous human 
cost from climate change. The way we produce and use energy is the 
greatest insult to our planet. It is changing our very climate, and we 
must address that. The sooner we address it, the more effective we will 
be at addressing it, and the more of these costs we can avoid.
  It is unmistakable, unequivocal, that global warming has taken place 
and is taking place. Just in the past month, the Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change came out with its fifth very carefully prepared 
report. It says that global temperatures are likely to rise from a 
third of a degree to 4\1/2\ degrees, roughly, Celsius, and that sea 
levels will rise. It is certain that the upper ocean has already warmed 
over the last three decades. It is certain that the upper ocean has 
already absorbed carbon dioxide, making it more acidic, as we heard 
from our friends earlier.
  Most of the aspects of climate change will continue for centuries 
with the result in a cost in lives and dollars if the CO2 
emissions are not brought under control. In fact, some of these costs 
will be incurred now even if we bring CO2 emissions under 
control because of the damage already done, but it is important to 
emphasize that it comes down to the human cost. That is what we mustn't 
forget in all of the charts and graphs and scientific discussions of 
the causes and effects of climate change.
  Mr. TONKO. I think it is very important for us to recognize, too, 
that here this evening you and several of our colleagues and I have 
shared thoughts about painful consequences in our given regions, or we 
have talked about not only flooding but drought situations and 
wildfires. We have talked about the economic impact of climate change 
with these associated storms. We have talked about the recovery 
efforts. We have talked about Superstorm Sandy on this 1-year 
commemoration date, still finding its neighborhoods, its communities, 
its people, its businesses, its farming communities still struggling to 
recover. We have talked about all of this, and now I think we need to 
close, in the remaining minutes we have in this hour, and talk about a 
plan of action.

                              {time}  1915

  Now, SEEC, the Sustainable Energy and Environmental Coalition, has a 
growing number of representatives--56 strong as we speak. Individuals 
are talking about the consciousness, raising the consciousness, talking 
about awareness out there in the community. But there is also a 
requirement for legislative action. Absent that, we move to an 
executive order, and some have expressed concern about that.
  Leaving no other option available, the Chief Executive, the 
President, has moved to resolve some of these concerns through 
organizations and agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency. So 
I think there needs to be this dialogue here and in the United States 
Senate, working with the President, with the White House, and the 
administration to develop a sound package of legislation that allows us 
to go forward.
  It is apparent after the number of stories heard here just this 
evening and the personal anecdotes that you shared, Representative 
Holt, about people from New Jersey and the pain that they endured. That 
should motivate us to move forward with a plan of action, understanding 
that the cost of inaction is very, very heavy. Many have placed 
threshold dates out there. They are not that far into the future--2017, 
2020 some say at the latest.
  It is our stewardship that is called upon. We inherited this 
environment, this Earth, from ancestors who preceded us. Now it is our 
challenge, I believe, to hand that to next generations unborn in even 
better working order with the growth worldwide of population, with the 
industrialization of many Third World nations, the reach to automobiles 
being put on the highways around the world, the development of power 
supplies around the world, causing this huge growth of challenge in 
terms of carbon emission and eventually methane that will destroy 
antibodies out there.
  So the challenge is before us. I think we need to go forward with a 
very focused effort of policy development that can be done in the very 
near future here in the House.
  Avoiding that, walking away from it, denying it ought to be revisited 
by those who have suffered heavily from the damages of these storms. 
Certainly as we focus on Superstorm Sandy this evening, on that one 
storm here, it has brought to mind many, many situations where people 
are still suffering--blocks destroyed by fires in Superstorm Sandy that 
destroyed neighborhoods.
  We have a challenge before us, Representative Holt.
  Mr. HOLT. The work of the Sustainable Energy and Environmental 
Coalition here in Congress is to see that we can move into the future 
in a sustainable way.
  It is completely appropriate that we talk about both energy and 
environment in this same--really with the same breath. Because as I 
said, the way we produce and use energy is the greatest insult to our 
planet. But it is possible to produce and use energy that will power 
our economy and provide a good quality of life for 10 billion people in 
the world if we are smart and if we get to work now. We can do it in a 
way that doesn't ruin the world and condemn all of these billions of 
people to the kinds of superstorms, the kinds of effects of climate 
change and spreading diseases and so forth that will result if climate 
change runs amuck.
  New Jerseyans need no further reminder that climate change is real. 
Evidently, some of our colleagues here do need that reminder. This 
year, one year after Hurricane Sandy, we are here to tell our friends, 
to tell our colleagues this is for real, this is serious, and we should 
get to work. The work of the Sustainable Energy and Environmental 
Coalition is dedicated to that work.
  I thank my colleague, Mr. Tonko of New York, for his work to propel 
the SEEC coalition.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Representative Holt.
  I will close by just focusing in on this graphic, which showed the 
enormity, the immense breadth and depth of this Superstorm Sandy.
  Many didn't relate that storm to a huge tide coming in. For any of us 
who have jumped into the ocean, we know the power of a tide. But to 
have the highest storm surge ever measured recorded at Kings Point, New 
York, the highest ever recorded at 14.38 feet, tells a story. The fact 
that the water level at Battery Park in Lower Manhattan reached 9.1 
feet above the average high tide line. Think of it--1 inch, 2 inches, a 
foot of water additional that comes into a flood zone calculates that 
much more damage.
  Here, what we had with the situation were records beyond 9 feet, 
approaching 10 feet, a storm surge of 14.38 feet. We are talking 
monumental damage. We are talking about a force that swept away lives, 
a force that sparked fires in neighborhoods, a force that wiped out 
businesses and found neighborhoods still vacant, a silence that has 
befallen these given communities because of the ravages of Mother 
Nature that can be prevented if we put our minds and hearts and efforts 
into that concept of being better stewards of the environment.
  This is a place where a plan of action can take hold. In these Halls 
of government, leadership is called upon. A moral compass points in the 
direction of us being sounder friends of the environment and 
protectionists when it comes to getting things done so as to avoid the 
high scale of economic destruction that has gripped our communities.
  I still see it in the aftermath of Irene and Lee in the 20th 
Congressional District of New York. Damage done in 2011 is still 
causing hardship in 2013, impacted by all sorts of weather events that 
are atypical of our region--tropic storms, hurricanes, tornados--that 
wiped through the area and required all

[[Page H6882]]

sorts of volunteerism to enter in, and certainly dollars that were 
shared from private sector sources and from FEMA at the Federal level 
and various other programs at the Federal Government. It will be an 
exhausting situation that will continue to drain the taxpayers as we 
move forward if we don't take action.
  On this very solemn day of commemoration, as we call to mind all of 
the destruction that came into 24 States a year ago this evening, 
should be all the call to action that is required of us. Since then, it 
has been followed by devastation in Colorado, wildfires in the 
Southwest, and predictions that more and more damage will be part and 
parcel to a future that is allowed to go forward without the soundness 
of stewardship of the environment that ought to be a high priority in 
this House, in the United States Senate, and certainly across this 
Nation.
  Sound leadership begins with the acknowledgement that there is a 
challenge out there and that the challenge is then met with accurate 
and detailed and information exchange that builds a dialogue that 
creates a package of response that indicates that we are a 
compassionate, caring, loving people in this Nation that through the 
Halls of this House can provide hope for this environment and hope to 
families who have suffered the consequences and hope to generations 
unborn as we pass to them a stronger sense of stewardship of this 
Earth.
  It has been our pleasure in this hour to have shared many of our 
ideas, many of our concerns, many of the anecdotal bits that 
personalize a given situation for far too many, and we are thankful for 
the opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________