[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15170-15175]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          EXTENDING THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LADDERS TO SUCCESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Mr. Speaker, we're back, and America expects that we 
ought to be going back to work. And we have a heavy load ahead of us. 
We want to make sure that every American has the opportunity to climb 
up that economic and social ladder as high as they want to and can go. 
So we have to make sure that those ladders of opportunity are in place.
  We also have to make sure that we are a compassionate Nation, that 
we're willing to reach out to those in our country who have been harmed 
by devastating natural disasters. We certainly saw this on the east 
coast, and I'd like to spend a good portion of this hour talking about 
how we, as a Nation, can respond to superstorm Sandy and the lessons 
that we should learn from this disaster.

                              {time}  1320

  It's not the first that has occurred in America, and it's certainly 
not going to be the last. In previous disasters, we learned a few 
lessons, but it seems as though we have yet to achieve the necessary 
wisdom from those occurrences to really put in place the policies that 
can protect Americans.
  First, our sense of compassion drives Americans to reach out in many 
different ways to assist those on the east coast that were so severely 
harmed by this storm. Our condolences go out to the families of those 
who were killed in the storm. Our wallets open to the American Red 
Cross and other organizations that are providing assistance. We should 
do that and we should do more of that, but as a Congress there are 
things that we must also do.
  Proposals have been made on this floor to reduce the effectiveness 
and the support for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Not a good 
idea. It's very clear from the disaster on the east coast that a single 
city or State or even a region is unable to adequately address--whether 
in the lead-up to a disaster where there is warning or in the immediate 
aftermath of that--the necessary resources to assist and to recover. As 
a Nation, we need some mechanism to gather together all of the strength 
of this incredible country

[[Page 15171]]

we call America and apply that strength to those who have been so 
severely harmed by that disaster. That's occurring. FEMA has clearly 
been significantly improved in the last 4 years and certainly since the 
tragedies of New Orleans, but there is much more that needs to be done.
  As a Congress, as Representatives of the American people--people who 
may be in any part of this country and who at any moment could be 
affected by a disaster--we need to make sure that there is a national 
response capability in place that is ready to act with the sufficient 
resources. That's not just an organizational and administrative issue. 
That is also the necessary funds available. Shortchanging that money 
that we set aside for those disasters can lead to a period of time in 
which inaction is inevitable.
  So as we go about our budgeting, as we go about our appropriations 
process, we must make sure that we do not shortchange and that we 
provide enough money, that we set it aside and have it there, available 
for immediate response. It's not just the Federal response. It's those 
private companies and others that will be hired by the Federal 
Government or the States and cities to provide the necessary services.
  There are many other lessons to be learned from superstorm Sandy and 
from previous disasters. Early warning systems are essential. Yet we 
have seen proposals here before the Congress, in the budgets and 
appropriations before the Congress, to diminish the ability of America 
to see ahead--to be able to predict storms or earthquakes or fires--by 
diminishing the money available for NASA in their satellite technology 
and other research capabilities that are out there by which we can 
learn well ahead of a disaster that it's coming so that we can then 
warn the citizens and take whatever precautions are necessary and 
implement whatever defensive systems may be required.
  So it's not just the disaster. It's the preparation. It's the early 
warning--the ability to know what may be coming to harm the citizens of 
this Nation. As a Congress, we should be cognizant of the role that we 
play in providing the resources, the direction, and the authorization 
for those agencies that are able to have the technologies to perceive, 
to understand what may be coming to the citizens of this Nation and to 
those around the world.
  Secondly, as individuals, it seems to me we ought to be paying 
attention, and when the authorities say it's time to leave, we really 
ought to do that. I was the insurance commissioner and Lieutenant 
Governor in California, and I often found myself in situations where I 
had responsibilities along these lines. All too often and all too 
tragically, the citizens who were warned early that they should leave 
because of a fire danger did not. Tragedy struck and they lost their 
lives. So we have individual responsibilities as well as community 
responsibilities.
  There is another set of lessons to learn from superstorm Sandy and 
the drought in the Midwest and from other occurrences in the weather 
patterns of this Nation, which is that climate change is real. It is 
real. It is actually happening as we speak. We know that the great ice 
caps around this world are diminishing. We know that the ocean levels 
are rising. We know that there is a warming across the entire planet, 
and we know that this will have profound effects.
  It was predicted back in the early nineties when I was working on 
this issue at the Department of the Interior as Deputy Secretary. We 
predicted that there would be superstorms, that there would be droughts 
in new parts of this Nation, that the ice caps would melt, that there 
would be significant changes in the agricultural patterns around the 
world, and that certainly there would be significant changes in the 
river and stream flows. In my own State of California, we anticipated 
then--some almost 20 years ago now--in the Sierras, which is our single 
biggest reservoir, that we would see the snow pack diminish and that we 
would see there would be changes in the flows of the rivers and, quite 
likely, greater flooding.
  That brings us to the necessity of recognizing this as a Nation and 
for this Congress to work to address not just the reasons for climate 
change but, just as important, to prepare for the inevitability of the 
effects of climate change. A small rise in the sea level will certainly 
change the impact of major storms on all of our coastlines. The storm 
surges will be higher, the destruction greater, and therefore the 
twofold necessity: one, to do everything we possibly can to diminish 
climate change. That brings us to energy policy, which is not the 
subject of today's discussion; but it brings us, rather, to the issue 
of how we are going to effect and prepare for the inevitable changes.
  A little over a year ago, the President proposed the American Jobs 
Act. In that American Jobs Act, there was a substantial increase--in 
fact, a very significant increase--in the amount of money that this 
Nation would spend on infrastructure. In addition to what we would 
normally do, the President proposed an additional $50 billion of 
infrastructure investment in the near term, over the next 2 to 3 years. 
Unfortunately, that proposal was not even brought up in the current 
Congress. Nonetheless, it is a proposal that we as Members of this 
House should give considerable thought to. I look now to the east coast 
and the west coast and to my own district in California, which is the 
Sacramento Valley, and I'm looking at the President's proposal of some 
$50 billion, and saying: What if? What if we would actually undertake a 
major infrastructure action in the United States? What if we were to 
really prepare ourselves for the inevitable climate change? What would 
it mean to Americans?
  Certainly, right off, it would mean jobs. It would mean that we would 
be able to employ, perhaps, 2 million people immediately in building 
that infrastructure. It also means something beyond that. It could mean 
we would increase the deficit; or if we were wise, it could mean that 
we would not increase the deficit at all and that we would simply make 
some shifts in certain tax breaks that are now given to various parts 
of our economy--for example, to the oil and gas industry--and shift 
those tax breaks around so that we would fund infrastructure projects. 
In fact, that's what the President proposed to do.

                              {time}  1330

  Before I go further into how we might use the effort to build 
infrastructure, I want to say that that infrastructure program is going 
to be absolutely essential to rebuild an extraordinarily important part 
of this Nation; that is, the east coast.
  New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and some parts of Pennsylvania 
were devastated. There is going to be a multibillion-dollar rebuilding 
program necessary just to go back to where those parts of this country 
were before the storm hit. Much more will be needed to protect those 
parts of this country from future storms that are certain to occur.
  I'll let it go at that. I see my colleague from New York City has 
arrived here. I'd like her to pick this issue up and talk about the 
devastation that occurred in her communities, and then we can come back 
to the infrastructure.
  Thank you for joining us, Nydia. I suppose the proper introduction 
would be Nydia Velazquez.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, if Hurricane Sandy taught us anything, it is the 
importance of infrastructure to New York City and our Nation.
  Right now, New Yorkers are struggling with day-to-day challenges, 
many of them without power. In certain parts of the metropolitan area, 
gasoline shortages continue presenting enormous difficulties. But even 
as New Yorkers work to rebuild and recover for the short term, we 
cannot ignore long-term problems.
  In many ways, the city of New York took a number of prudent steps 
that reduced damage and sped up recovery time. However, it is painfully 
clear that more must be done in the future to ensure our Nation's 
infrastructure can withstand assaults from Mother Nature.

[[Page 15172]]

  As Governor Cuomo said, ``We have a new reality, and old 
infrastructures and old systems.'' We can start by protecting low-lying 
areas near the ocean, like Brooklyn and Manhattan in my district, with 
seawalls, bulkheads, and floodgates. In other areas, soft 
infrastructure investments such as sand dunes and embankments can 
minimize flooding. Our electrical system needs to be hardened and 
protected. Other energy sources must also be safeguarded. Ensuring 
refineries and petroleum supplies do not fall victims to floods can 
prevent future fuel shortages.
  Just as with ensuring automobiles have fuel after disasters, other 
vital transportation arteries must be protected. Raising entryways to 
New York's subways could minimize flood damage to our subway system, 
ensuring our city gets back on its feet faster after the next storm.
  Constructing a storm surge barrier and implementing infrastructure 
changes like this, as you said, will not be cheap. It has been 
estimated costs could run as high as $20 billion just for New York 
City. But let's remember, in this one storm alone, New York City 
suffered $26 billion in economic damage and losses--and lives that were 
lost.
  Sadly, the question is not if there will be future storms, but when. 
By investing in our infrastructure now, we can prevent future economic 
damage, to say nothing of protecting our citizens from danger.
  Not only will these investments protect our city from disaster down 
the road, but they can provide a much-needed employment boost. New 
Yorkers are ready to go to work. Not only strengthening our city for 
the long haul, making this investment now can create good-paying jobs 
in the short term and reduce damage from future disasters over the long 
term.
  In New York, we're ready to go to work, investing not only in New 
York's infrastructure but also in our entire Nation's.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I thank you very much. Maybe we can engage in a little 
colloquy here, and we can talk about this in a little more detail.
  The storm surge that came into New York was anticipated, but the New 
York/New Jersey region were not prepared with the necessary 
infrastructure to protect the communities from that surge. And if I 
understood you correctly, you're suggesting that the cities or the 
region needs to put in place those infrastructures to protect it. The 
subways have to be secured from the inflow of water, and the seawalls 
and certain other things need to be put in place. Did you estimate a 
cost of some $20 billion?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. For New York City?
  Mr. GARAMENDI. For New York City. Not including New Jersey?
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Correct. Just for New York City.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I will share with you my experience in my part of 
California, which is the Sacramento Valley, the city of Sacramento and 
the surrounding area.
  We have significant flood potential. In fact, the northern part of 
Sacramento is considered to be the most flood prone or dangerous city 
in America after New Orleans. That creates a need in my own region for 
some of those same protective measures. We call them levees, not 
seawalls, but rather levees. They have to be improved. We anticipate 
the cost in Natomas, which is part of Sacramento, to be well over $1.4 
billion. Another city I represent, Marysville, needs some $20 million 
to protect that city, and then Yuba City next to it. The entire region 
that I represent has similar needs. I shouldn't use the word 
``similar,'' because we're not on the ocean. But we have needs for 
flood protection just like New York City and New Jersey.
  We can do this. We're a very strong and powerful Nation, and you 
couldn't be more correct by saying that if we do it, we protect 
ourselves, we reduce the potential damage, and we also put people to 
work.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. That's correct.
  In the long haul, not only do we protect our citizens, but the 
economy will not suffer.
  Look at New York. It came to a standstill. Our transportation 
infrastructure was totally paralyzed. Transportation in terms of 
bringing gasoline into New York, we couldn't do it.
  This is the right thing to do in order for our Nation to protect its 
citizens, but also it could improve the economic conditions of our 
entire Nation by creating many high-paying jobs at this time when the 
economy continues to struggle.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I know that you're deeply involved in small business. 
You're the ranking member of the Small Business Committee here in the 
House of Representatives. I would expect that there would be a 
significant opportunity for small businesses in this also.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Definitely.
  When it comes to transportation and infrastructure, a lot of the 
businesses are small businesses, and they are the backbone of our 
economy. They will be the ones creating the jobs that are so much 
needed in our local communities.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. I noticed that we've now been joined by another 
representative from an area that was significantly damaged, Mr. Pallone 
from New Jersey.
  Perhaps you would like to share with us your thoughts and your 
experience. I did see you on CNN one night as you were working with 
your constituents trying to meet the disaster in your area.
  Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague from California for having 
this Special Order and talking about the hurricane damage and what 
needs to be done in the future.
  I have to say that the damage to my district was catastrophic. We had 
many towns where initially at least it looked like the majority of the 
homes and businesses were wiped out.
  When we go back and look again, some of them can be saved. But we're 
talking about thousands of people who lost their homes and many others 
who lost their businesses.
  It really created a humanitarian crisis in that first week or so 
because we were trying to get FEMA in with the disaster recovery 
centers and with the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Over the first 
week, the main concern was just humanitarian, trying to find shelter 
for people, trying to make sure they had food and water and clothes.
  I have to say the response was overwhelming. So many of the towns in 
my district--basically, it was a voluntary effort because in the first 
few days, it was pretty much the people locally that were doing all 
those things.

                              {time}  1340

  Towns had shelters set up. People were bringing in food, making hot 
meals. I never saw such an outpouring of support, if you will. And it 
continues. This weekend, by this last weekend, there were disaster 
recovery centers set up by FEMA in many of the towns, particularly 
those that were hardest hit. And I have to say that locally FEMA did a 
very good job. The people who came out and set up the disaster recovery 
centers or helped with the humanitarian needs, they really were 
excellent.
  But I wanted to talk a little bit today, if I could, not that the 
humanitarian concerns have disappeared, because they haven't, I don't 
want to suggest that, but I wanted to talk a little bit about long-term 
needs, if I could, and take just a little bit of your time.
  We met with the FEMA director this morning, and I talked essentially 
about four needs that we really need to address. One was what I call 
temporary housing. In other words, I want people to get out of the 
shelters and either be able to go back to their homes or some kind of 
temporary housing that would last them for a year or 18 months. We set 
up, and I think it should open by this weekend at Fort Monmouth, which 
is one of the military bases that was closed under BRAC, but we have 
identified at least 600 units I believe now where we can put people 
temporarily who lost their homes and can't go back to their home. But I 
talked to the FEMA director today about trying to get trailers in. And 
he said that was going to happen, but it hasn't happened yet, because 
many of the people right now are still living in a house that has no 
power and is not functional. But because it is not terribly cold, or 
hasn't

[[Page 15173]]

been, they are able to stay there. Once it gets cold, they won't be 
able to and will have to go back to a shelter. And we want people to 
get out of these shelters.
  So I'm hoping that not only will we have some housing at Fort 
Monmouth, but we can also supplement that and get some trailers in from 
FEMA that could actually be put in place on people's own property so 
they don't have to go to Fort Monmouth or elsewhere over the next year 
or 18 months. This is sort of the second stage, out of the shelter and 
into some temporary housing for a year or 18 months, and then back to 
your own house once it is repaired or rebuilt.
  The second thing is that, and I think you were getting at it before, 
we have a lot of the beach replenishment and the dunes and the seawalls 
that were being used as protection. Some of my towns are actually below 
sea level, and if it wasn't for the seawall or the dunes or the beach 
replenishment, artificial beach replenishments that have been put in 
place, the loss would have been even worse. And now those are gone. Not 
completely, but in a town like Keansburg, New Jersey, the dune is gone. 
And in many towns along the Atlantic coast, the slope of the beach has 
gone down 6 or 7 feet, and so they don't have any protection anymore. 
Seawalls have been broken up.
  I asked the Corps and FEMA today, the FEMA director, to give the 
Corps the go-ahead to do emergency work. Right now in Keansburg, for 
example, if you have another storm, not even a hurricane, since the 
dune is not there, the water will come right in, and you'll have the 
same problem again. So we got a positive response on that, but we need 
to find out when that is going to happen, when it's going to begin.
  The third thing is the match. I have a lot of very small towns. Some 
of my towns have 1,000 people, 2,000 people. When you talk about long-
term work on infrastructure, municipal or State infrastructure, there 
is a 25 percent match. We are trying to get that reduced or eliminated 
because the towns cannot afford that.
  The last thing, many people have asked, and I'm sure we're going to 
have a debate, I have no doubt that these more severe and frequent 
storms are a consequence of global climate change. I have been around 
60 years, and I've never seen a storm like this. Nobody has. They say 
it is the 500-year storm. I'm afraid, my colleagues, that the 500-year 
storm is now the 10-year storm. And the nor'easter that we would get 
every 20 years is going to happen every year. I hope not, but it 
certainly seems that way.
  So we have to look at in some cases buy-outs. In other words, people 
have said, look, we can't do this every 2 or 3 years, so can we have 
the government buy our home. Well, there is no home, but what's left of 
it rather than rebuild--and in many areas if the homes could be lifted 
and put on a platform or piling, then maybe they could stay because the 
water would rush underneath. I also brought this up with the FEMA 
director, and he said there are programs at the Federal level that 
would accomplish that.
  So we are now looking, and I'm not taking away from the humanitarian 
problem that still exists, it definitely does, but we have to look at 
some of these issues in terms of housing, rebuilding, and changes in 
the way we build over the long term.
  I know that all of you and all of our colleagues, hopefully on a 
bipartisan basis, will be supportive of trying to get funding for all 
of these things. The FEMA director said for emergency purposes there is 
adequate funding at least until the spring. But when we talk about some 
of these long-term things, undoubtedly there will have to be some kind 
of an appropriation that we're going to have to pass here; and I hope 
and I pray that we're all going to work together to accomplish that.
  Thank you for the time.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you very much, Mr. Pallone.
  There is no part of this Nation that is immune from a natural 
disaster. The disasters will be different: tornadoes, superstorms, 
hurricanes, droughts, floods, and fires. The west coast, we talk 
earthquakes. You could talk earthquakes on the east coast, and 
certainly the New Madrid fault in the central Missouri area ought to 
keep everybody a little bit nervous. So wherever it is around this 
Nation, the disasters could occur, and the response which you described 
is critically important, that is, the forewarning and then the response 
when the disaster actually hits.
  But the preparation to put in place the infrastructure to best 
protect those critical parts of the communities, Ms. Velazquez talked 
about the refineries which were badly damaged by the storm. There are 
certain things that can be done to protect them; and in doing so, you 
protect your power supplies, the grid systems, seawalls and the like. 
All of these things are critically important.
  I remember last year I was on this floor with my colleague from the 
New York area who was deeply concerned about another storm that came 
through. Was it Irene, I believe, that came through the northeast and 
created significant damage. Mr. Paul Tonko, you spoke with great skill 
and compassion about your citizens, their lessons learned, and things 
to share with us today.
  Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi, for leading us in this very 
important hour of discussion.
  As I listened to Representative Pallone speak about the disaster in 
his district and across the map of New Jersey and now into New York 
City and Long Island and great portions of New York State, it was 
shades of the not-so-distant past that came to mind. And we're still 
doing recovery from the storm of August, the flooding of Irene and Lee 
in August of 2011, which impacted my district severely. There were 
human lives that were lost, property that was damaged, homes that were 
swept away into the river. Everything for which people had ever worked 
taken from them. Drastic situations. So as we do our work here in 
Washington, we need to make certain that on this House floor there is 
advocacy for the response to these given situations.
  Already the price tag is coming forth from the leadership back home. 
Governor Cuomo, for instance, suggesting the price, the impact has now 
steadily risen. At first snapshot, you cannot begin to comprehend all 
of the damage and all of the aspects and dynamics of recovery that will 
be required. And now we are looking at something like $30 billion that 
impacts a State in a very severe way, disrupts service and electric 
power that is disrupted, commerce that's frozen in place, human misery 
that's incalculable where lives have been impacted forever by the 
forces of Sandy.
  So, you know, this is a revisitation, so to speak, as we are still 
recovering. It was a fight on this floor to make certain that disaster 
aid moneys were brought into play so we could respond with compassion 
and dignity and integrity to these given situations.

                              {time}  1350

  So the lessons here are to go forward as we deal with this given 
fiscal issue at hand, to go forth with the priorities that are the most 
urgent and important and meaningful in putting back the fabric of these 
communities.
  There is a need to work closely with an outlay of resources to FEMA, 
making certain that disaster aid is at the level that will be required 
here, working with other agencies that are as significant in the 
equation--the Department of Transportation, the Small Business 
Administration--working with HUD, making certain that all of these 
various elements are addressed in our sense of advocacy here.
  The human misery, again, is impacting. It is a situation that now 
brings to mind the fact that in upstate New York, and even in metro New 
York City and the Long Island area and in New Jersey, these are 
atypical situations for hurricanes to travel that far north. To have 
something in upstate New York do the sort of hurricane damage that we 
witnessed last year is not typical.
  So the nomenclature of a ``100-year storm'' is just ludicrous. It 
doesn't speak to what's really happening.

[[Page 15174]]

We've had several storms in a 20-year period that were dubbed 100-year 
storms. So right there, the logic and, again, the nomenclature is 
misrepresenting the facts at hand. We are getting more and more repeats 
here of situations from disasters driven by mother nature. And as 
Representative Pallone made mention, a 500-year storm is what they were 
dubbing the case to be in the 21st Congressional District that I now 
represent in the State of New York.
  So there is a need here for us to be cognizant of those responses to 
disaster situations but also to look at the bigger, bigger public 
policy issue--that of the environment and that of climate change and 
global warming. We need to be cognizant of our stewardship over our 
planet. We need to make certain that if these data that are compiled 
are telling us that there is increased precipitation, for instance, 
over a given Catskill watershed in the area just south of my district, 
let's be aware of that. Let's know what's happening here, and let's 
respond accordingly to sound public policy as it relates to the 
environment and our stewardship of the environment, and let's be 
cognizant of the needs in responsiveness measure.
  I know that you want to add to this discussion here, so I'll just say 
this. In a time where government perhaps has been hit hard by critics 
out there who are suggesting there's no role for the public sector 
here, we need to reduce government, I can tell you that people were 
addressing ``the war room,'' as they designated it, putting together 
all of the professionals and academics and people who operate these 
programs and are well trained. Watching that compilation, that 
collaborative effort of these professionals who are responding through 
public sector employment to the needs of these given communities is 
powerful, and it speaks to what I think the public asks for and 
deserves--sound, effective government. But this option of ``no 
government,'' I know people were reaching out. They wanted that 
partnership because they were in such immense pain and were at a loss 
for how and where to move.
  So, Representative Garamendi, thank you very much for bringing the 
focus to what should be our staunch advocacy for people in need.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Representative Tonko, once again, it's good to be with 
you on the floor, sadly reliving what you and I discussed here almost a 
year ago in response to Hurricane Irene and the devastation that 
occurred in your community.
  It seems to me that there are many, many lessons to learn here, some 
of which I talked about before you came in. Certainly the ability to 
know well ahead of time what is coming.
  We saw with Hurricane Sandy that NASA was able to anticipate, the 
Weather Service was able to anticipate the nature of the storm and 
where it was going. That ability to understand what is happening and 
what is likely to happen really comes from the support of the Federal 
Government appropriating money to those agencies and then directing 
those agencies to provide those services. This is something we need to 
keep in mind.
  As we go through the deficit reductions that we must do, we must 
begin a prioritization of those things that are critical to the well-
being--indeed, the lives--of Americans.
  We also know that we are going to have to rebuild. Ms. Velazquez was 
suggesting that it was going to cost some $20 billion for New York City 
alone. And Mr. Pallone didn't give us a number, but we can anticipate 
billions for the New Jersey area. And then the areas in upstate New 
York and Pennsylvania with lesser numbers, fortunately. But 
nonetheless, it begins to add up to a huge amount of money. And some of 
the damage is not well known even today.
  I was talking with representatives of the International Brotherhood 
of Electrical Workers, 500 of whom came from northern California to 
assist in New York, and we were talking about what those men and women 
were doing. They said, in the subway systems that were flooded, they 
were flooded with seawater. And the effect of salt on the electrical 
systems is--it's over. You've got to replace the entire electrical 
system. But not just to replace it, but to then anticipate that it 
could happen again, so to upgrade the entire infrastructure, to provide 
the protection that should it happen, you won't lose the entire subway 
system as has occurred in New York City.
  So we need the infrastructure to be replaced but then also to be 
significantly enhanced. This is a very, very expensive proposition. 
It's also a way in which people could go back to work and we could 
enhance the employment. We can do this. In fact, indeed, we must do it.
  The American Society of Civil Engineers has said clearly that the 
infrastructure of America--not just New York City and New Jersey, but 
my own State of California, the flood control systems we have in our 
State are woefully inadequate, and they address it as a D. Fortunately, 
not an F. But not an A, not a B, not a C, but a D. So we know that we 
have extraordinary needs here.
  The President, in his American Jobs Act, proposed a $50 billion 
addition to what we normally do with our infrastructure, which is a 
lot, an additional $50 billion to be spent in 2 to 3 years. That's a 
critical boost. And I know the cities I represent--the Sacramento area; 
Natomas area, one of the most dangerous places in America for flooding; 
Marysville and Yuba City; the delta, where I live--are all subject to 
flooding. We need to enhance our levees in order to protect ourselves, 
not from a 100-year, but from a 200-year storm, which is much more 
likely to occur.
  We can pay for these things. This doesn't have to add to the deficit. 
For every dollar we put into infrastructure, we get $2-plus back in 
economic growth. So it's actually an investment, a short-term and long-
term investment that will last for years.
  There's another thing that we have which is no longer authorized. 
Part of the Recovery Act, the stimulus bill, was the creation of Build 
America Bonds. The President proposed that as part of his 
infrastructure program, the Build America Bonds, which are called 
BABs--it took me a while to figure that one out. But BABs, Build 
America Bonds, are partly funded by the Federal Government and partly 
funded by the local agencies and had an enormous effect on enhancing 
infrastructure, sanitation systems, water systems in communities.
  Let's talk a little bit about these kinds of things, the effect that 
they may have on your communities in New York, Pennsylvania, and 
others.
  Mr. TONKO. Sure.
  Well, absolutely, some of these programs are welcomed news. Two 
points I would make--and I would just like to go back for a moment to 
the sense of community that is expressed at times like these tragedies. 
It's not government as a stand-alone solution--we understand that--but 
it's an essential part, and we want effective government.
  We also have had a private sector response and volunteerism. I mean, 
the sense of volunteerism, that sense of American spirit comes right 
into the fore of all of this expression. And you begin to understand 
the greatness of this Nation through some of the darkest hours that we 
share. So that point has to be made clear.
  But to your point about infrastructure improvement, infrastructure 
bank bill, the transportation bill that provides for adequate amounts 
of resources, putting together these bonds that are unique in design so 
that we can have the resources to make it happen, I absolutely agree.

                              {time}  1400

  I contend that as we get impacted by some of the storm and Mother 
Nature occurrences, we need to make certain we've reached the facts. If 
data are telling us that we're going to have additional activity, two 
things need to happen. You need short-term and long-term response. You 
do not rebuild exactly as if you had. You need to retrofit that to the 
projected impacts of now a newer, stronger force of Mother Nature.
  Secondly, we need that global policy. We need policy that speaks to 
the environmental outcomes. If we're ignoring

[[Page 15175]]

that, we're going to see a hasty buildup, I believe, of some of these 
situations, which is only going to drain our budgets. So, it's time to 
be academic and to be economically wise and effective here.
  I think that's what voters have asked for, that's what the electorate 
asked for, that's what the people of the country demand and deserve: a 
sound use of resources. To go forward and build it in a way that 
provides for a more improved, more effective outcome.
  You look at some of this infrastructure, and it reminds you when it's 
taken away how significant it is to our quality of life and our 
profitability as a Nation. You know, a grid system that connects power 
to the sources that require it, a communications network that allows us 
to dialogue and build our profitability. The infrastructure that moves 
freight, our roads, bridges, highways. You talk about the damage done 
by salt-infested waters.
  Again, it's incomprehensible about what that score goes to in terms 
of impact when you think of a subway system, rail system, energy 
generators, and all of the power supplies within the utility 
infrastructure and communications. It's just important for us to learn 
from these effects of the storms.
  If we can put together concepts like an infrastructure bank, if we 
can put together the bond activities that will respond more 
compassionately and more effectively and more urgently to a given 
situation, then let's prioritize where we need to prioritize so as to 
make things happen.
  The infrastructure needs--we've talked about them outside the context 
of the ravages of Mother Nature. Water and sewer systems that just need 
to be upgraded because of the age of some of these systems and the new 
technology that has been introduced where we can do it in energy 
efficiency formats where you save operating costs for local 
governments.
  Now's the time, when you've taken this blow, perhaps we can then 
retrofit to do state-of-the-art that will mean less costly operating 
expenses for local entities and NGOs, nongovernment organizations, that 
allows for everyone to win and the taxpayer dollar is stretched in 
positive, favorable terms to be a more effective outcome for everyone 
in the equation.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. You've raised some, I think, very, very important 
points.
  These are not partisan issues. This is not Democratic or Republican. 
Over the years both parties have been champions of infrastructure 
investment, and both parties have been very clear about the need to 
respond to the disasters that have occurred.
  We need to be ahead of this, and we need to work together. It's our 
responsibility, 435 of us here in the House of Representatives, as we 
end this session, we should be willing to step forward in the lame duck 
session, provide the resources that are needed immediately, if they are 
not now available, for the rebuilding, for the humanitarian efforts and 
the recovery that's necessary.
  Then, we should, although I don't know that this would happen, we 
should take that step forward to put in place those programs that will 
create an infrastructure that will protect Americans from the 
occurrences that we know have happened and will happen in the future.
  You've mentioned one that I think is very important, an 
infrastructure bank, together with the Build America Bonds, shifting 
unnecessary tax breaks from one industry back into others so that we 
can build. As we do this, as we do this rebuilding, as we do these 
infrastructures, it comes to my mind, something you and I have spent 
many days talking about here on the floor, is that we make it in 
America, that we use American-made equipment to build these projects, 
we use American-made equipment and supplies in the construction 
activities.
  In doing so, we not only put in place the infrastructure, which is an 
investment for the long term, but we also build and rebuild the 
American manufacturing sector.
  So we can have a win, and a win, and another win. So, we can have a 
triple win here if we are wise in putting our policies together.
  I know that many of our colleagues on the Republican side have taken 
up these issues. We have time, 2 months now in this session, to deal 
with this. Obviously, we have the big deficit issue. But we also know 
that in that deficit issue, we cannot forget the immediate needs of 
America, and the long-term benefits that come from strategic 
investments.
  I'll wrap with this, and then if you would care to, we'll call this a 
session.
  I was flipping through the channels trying to find the latest news on 
the current scandal in Washington, and I came across, I think it must 
have been a PBS show on the Brooklyn Bridge. I think it was David 
McCullough who had written a book on the Brooklyn Bridge. And the 150th 
anniversary of the Brooklyn Bridge is this year or maybe next year. 
It's in this period of time. It's a piece of infrastructure that has 
served New York City, and in a larger context, the Nation, for 150 
years.
  So, what we can do now as we rebuild New York, New Jersey, and the 
other areas, and, please, California also, as we protect ourselves from 
these natural disasters, we will put in place investments that will 
serve for multiple generations into the future.
  Now, that's a capital investment with an enormous return, as the 
Brooklyn Bridge was 150 years ago.
  So, we have these opportunities, and we ought to take advantage of 
them, not just for humanitarian reasons, but also for immediate jobs 
and long-term investments. That's our task. That's what we ought to be 
about. Not a Democrat, not a Republican idea, but a true American idea 
that goes way back to the very early ages of our country.
  Mr. Tonko, if you'd care to wrap, we'll call this a day.
  Mr. TONKO. Sure. Let me do this quickly.
  I think we have it within our intellect to create the outcomes that 
are strong, that will reinforce those in need, and still go forward and 
address the critical economic times. I can tell you, because the memory 
is so fresh, people did not want to hear about offsets and Tea Party 
mentality when they were without last year. They lost everything for 
which they ever worked. They are endorsing, now, a balanced approach.
  Take a scalpel to the situation. Don't wield an axe. Come up with 
sensitivity, with an effective response using academics. Deal with 
policy strengths in the long-term picture outcome, and get us our 
immediate assistance so we can rebuild and do it in cutting-edge 
fashion so we will have learned from this experience and come out even 
stronger.
  I think in general, in a bigger picture framework, our best days lie 
ahead if we approach these issues with sound academics and with the 
skillfulness and the compassion required.
  Thank you so much for leading us in this hour of discussion.
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. Tonko, and I thank Mr. Pallone and Ms. 
Velazquez.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________