[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 17261-17262]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            DISASTER RELIEF

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. President, I rise to respond to some of the 
comments I heard from my colleagues with reference to the Hurricane 
Sandy emergency supplemental. Hopefully I can give all of our 
colleagues--who will be casting a vote here at some point--an 
understanding as to why we hold a different view than some of the 
comments that have been made.
  One of those comments I will generally put under the rubric we can 
wait and do something small. Various comments have been referenced in 
that respect. Some seem to be questioning whether this emergency is 
worthy of a robust Federal response. They say the cost to help families 
rebuild and recover is too much and should be reduced. I have heard 
that in this emergency it is not necessary, and unlike many other 
similar emergencies in the past, we should do something smaller and 
wait to do the rest later.
  I think those who suggest or make that argument don't seem to 
understand that a piecemeal recovery is a failed recovery. We cannot 
rebuild half of a bridge unless we know the entirety of the money that 
is necessary is committed, like the Mantoloking Bridge in New Jersey, 
which I have shown many pictures of. We cannot hire a contractor to 
ultimately replace an entire sewage treatment system that had enormous 
amounts of sewage dispersing directly into the Hudson River because it 
was overcome if we only have half of the funding. We cannot hire a 
contractor to rebuild half a home or restore half of a community unless 
we know the money is there and that they can depend upon it in order to 
finish the project. We need the money in place to rebuild entire 
projects and entire areas to ensure that families and businesses 
devastated by the storm can recover.
  Right now there are literally tens of thousands of small business 
owners trying to decide whether to reopen or pack it in. They are in a 
limbo. They are waiting to see what we, their Federal Government, do to 
respond to their tragedy. They are making decisions in their lives, 
their businesses, and everyone who is hired by those businesses. They 
are frozen and waiting to make those decisions based on whether the 
government is going to offer them a small business loan at low rates 
that are competitive with the marketplace and have longer term 
payments. Will they give them a grant toward rebuilding? What type of 
other benefits will they be able to derive in order to make a 
determination of whether they can open their business again? Having 
just a sense that there is only some emergent money and not the moneys 
to be able to do that doesn't allow them to open their business. It 
doesn't allow them to make that decision, and it freezes them in time.
  The same thing is true for the person who, as winter is biting in the 
Northeast, faces the challenges of deciding what they might get from 
the government as it relates to rebuilding their home. Should they go 
forth or not? It is as if some of our colleagues don't believe when we 
describe this tragedy--and I welcome any one of our colleagues who 
wants to visit us in New Jersey to come with me to see the breadth, 
depth, and scope of our devastation. I have already taken a number of 
Members who were willing to go.
  I ask my colleagues: Do you think Governor Christie is making this 
up? Do you think this fiscal hawk of the Republican Party is looking 
for Federal aid that is not desperately needed? Do you think we made up 
these photos of the damage? I can assure everyone we did not.
  This is a picture taken just at one small part of the Jersey shore. 
If I could have a continuum that would bring us around this Chamber, it 
would look exactly like this. This is Ortley Beach. It shows blocks and 
blocks of homes that have been totally destroyed. It is an image that 
can be seen up and down the New Jersey coast.
  Here is another example in Union Beach. It is half a home, but that 
whole community was significantly devastated. If we were to see this 
community, there would be rows and rows of houses reduced to rubble. I 
think that is the reality of what we have as a continuation of those 
neighborhoods in Union Beach.
  I was talking to the mayor today--as part of a group of mayors--about 
their challenges, and this is an example of what he is facing 
throughout his community.
  The storm damage is real and the Governor's request for funding is 
actually $20 billion higher than the supplemental we are debating. It 
is significant that it is $20 billion higher than the amount we are 
debating. These requests were scrubbed by OMB from the Governor's 
original request and gone over with a fine-tooth comb by the 
Appropriations Committee. Everything in this bill, whether it is about 
Sandy or something else, is about declared disasters. Now is the time 
to come to our neighbors' help.
  Secondly, there are those who come to the floor and say they are 
upset about the Army Corps element of this disaster bill and that the 
budget in this bill is too rigorous. They say that planning and 
rebuilding for the future is a waste, and that we can have another 
legislative opportunity to deal with the future. I would submit to 
those Members who very much care about fiscal responsibility that it is 
neither efficient, effective, nor fiscally responsible. What should we 
do, have the Army Corps go back to exactly what existed before? In many 
cases, what existed before did not sustain those communities, did not 
withhold the consequence of the surge, and created enormous losses.

[[Page 17262]]

  We lost over 40 lives. The storm affected over 300,000 homes--30,000 
permanently gone.
  It seems to me, if we want to be smart fiscally, planning for the 
future means rebuilding well and rebuilding smart. It means rebuilding 
in a way that protects us from future storms.
  We learned a lot from this superstorm. We know Army Corps coastal 
defenses work. Where we had them in place, the damage was minimal; 
where we didn't, there was more devastation, there was more damage, 
there was more destruction, and more recovery costs.
  Stockton College did a study of the Army Corps beach engineering 
projects before and after the storm, and what it found was unambiguous. 
Where the Army Corps was able to complete a beach engineering project 
recently, the dunes helped and damage to communities behind the project 
was manageable.
  Here is a picture taken at Surf City, NJ, right after the storm. This 
beach received beach engineering in 2007 as part of the Army Corps Long 
Beach Island Shore Protection Project, and my colleagues can see that 
despite damage being done to the dune, the dune held and saved lives, 
saved property, and saved money.
  Alternatively, the pictures of Union Beach, which I previously 
referred to--it is a working-class town that couldn't afford the local 
match for the Army Corps project, and as my colleagues can see, we have 
an entirely devastated neighborhood. So we see the fundamental 
difference: Engineered beaches by the Army Corps, minimal destruction: 
Those that weren't engineered, maximum destruction; costs, and 
consequences. Rebuilding the defenses only to the standard that existed 
before the storm will just give us more of the same in the next storm. 
If we don't do things differently, we shouldn't expect a different 
outcome.
  In this photo, we also see the homes destroyed by the storm surge. 
Yes, we can help these homeowners rebuild, but if we don't rebuild 
smarter, better, and with stronger coastal protections, we will be 
paying again after the next storm, both in terms of human suffering and 
Federal funds. The storm crews with the Army Corps of Engineers, 
academic studies, and local community officials have been telling us 
for years that beach engineering works. It protects lives. It protects 
properties. It saves us money in the long run.
  Time is of the essence. The severe storm damage caused by Sandy has 
left New Jersey defenseless. As we enter what is our most vulnerable 
storm season--the winter Nor'easters--we don't need a Superstorm Sandy 
to have major consequences all the way up and down the communities 
throughout New Jersey.
  Right now, the Jersey shore is similar to a person with a weak immune 
system. The storm has destroyed our defenses, and that is why we need 
to rebuild them quickly. If we don't, a relatively mild storm can cause 
catastrophic damage.
  This is a challenge to us right now--right now. Suggesting the Army 
Corps budget is not one we need right now and it can wait--these 
communities can't wait. These communities can't wait. In fact, it will 
be far more costly to us.
  I think we have close to anywhere between $750 million and $1 billion 
in Army Corps of Engineers projects that have been approved--passed and 
been approved--but they have not had the funding. So when we add those 
that would ensure we don't end up like Ortley Beach and that we can 
recover those like Ortley Beach that have been battered and shattered, 
then I think it makes critical sense.
  Finally, I know there are some who suggest mitigation is not worthy 
of this disaster. I think I have made the case, in the case of the Army 
Corps, although the Army Corps is not the only form of mitigation. 
Mitigation means rebuilding smarter and stronger. Whether it is through 
a flexible CDBG account that will allow the hardening of our electrical 
grid or elevating homes or via traditional Army Corps or FEMA programs, 
mitigation has long been a part of supplemental appropriations.
  In the gulf coast, we spent $16 billion building a world-class storm 
protection system in Louisiana--$16 billion. In Alabama and Texas, we 
used CDBG funding to raise homes and improve infrastructure. So much of 
the public infrastructure in our region that was damaged as a result of 
the superstorm is eligible for reimbursement from FEMA. There is no 
disputing that.
  The Stafford Act has now been the law of the land for many years, and 
it says the Federal Government will assume the cost of repairs to 
critical infrastructure after an event such as Sandy. These 
communities, when we talk to mayors in Little Ferry and Moonachie--not 
the Jersey Shore but northern New Jersey and other places that were 
dramatically hit--when I was visiting them soon after the storm, one 
mayor said to me, Mayor Vaccaro, I lost my police department, my fire 
department, and city hall is underwater.
  They need to be protecting their citizens. They need to be able to 
fully depend upon the resources to get back their public safety 
efforts. It does not make good fiscal sense for Congress to pay to fix 
our broken infrastructure, which we are legally required to do, without 
looking to protect our investment and prevent similar costly damage in 
the future. To me, that makes a lot more fiscal sense at the end of the 
day. So we will look forward to coming back to the floor again and 
again as we deal with these issues, but I hope our colleagues 
understand the urgency of now.
  Final point. After Katrina, in 10 days the Congress passed two 
emergency supplementals that totaled a little over $62 billion for 
Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi. It has been 6 weeks--6 weeks, not 10 
days, 6 weeks--since the storm hit New Jersey, New York, and the 
Northeast, and there hasn't been any action. The urgency of now is 
incredibly important and the urgency of doing this robustly is 
incredibly important to the recovery of a region that is so important 
to the economic engine of this country.

                          ____________________