Hyper-dysfunctional Congress punts on Sandy relief
Late last night (at least, late by Congress’ standards), the House voted to approve the ugly, flawed compromise Vice President Biden worked out with Senate Republicans. The vote happened only after a series of representatives took to the podium to laud the body’s fine work and to celebrate a piece of legislation noteworthy in part for simply extending a number of tax benefits that were due to expire. But perhaps the ugliest moment of the year came after that vote, as members representing areas struck by the storm tried to get the House to hold a promised vote on a relief package. It didn’t. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) pointed at majority leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.); a “leadership aide” put the blame back on Boehner.
Members from New York and New Jersey were furious. From the Times-Dispatch:
“This is an absolute disgrace and the speaker should hang his head in shame,” said Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y.
“I’m here tonight saying to myself for the first time that I’m not proud of the decision my team has made,” said Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y. “It is the wrong decision, and I’ m going to be respectful and ask that the speaker reconsider his decision. Because it’s not about politics, it’s about human lives.”
“I truly feel betrayed this evening,” said Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y.
It’s not hard to guess why the House didn’t want to approve an aid package last night. Even after pushing to slash the president’s $60 billion proposal down to $20 billion, Republicans already being lambasted for raising taxes in the fiscal cliff vote (even though it extended existing low rates for some 99 percent of Americans) were undoubtedly hesitant to be seen as then OKing billions in relief to New York City liberals. Tax and spend.
What makes the House’s inaction even more disconcerting is how it would sliced down the aid package in the first place. Much of the tens of billions House Republicans wanted to excise was funding for preventative measures, research and infrastructure that could make future storms less deadly — and costly. Last month, the New Yorker‘s James Surowiecki explained why that response was all-too-common in American politics:
Politically speaking, it’s always easier to shell out money for a disaster that has already happened, with clearly identifiable victims, than to invest money in protecting against something that may or may not happen in the future. [Economist Andrew Healy and the political scientist Neil Malhotra] found that voters reward politicians for spending money on post-disaster cleanup, but not for investing in disaster prevention, and it’s only natural that politicians respond to this incentive. The federal system complicates matters, too: local governments want decision-making authority, but major disaster-prevention projects are bound to require federal money. And much crucial infrastructure in the U.S. is owned by the private sector, not the government, which makes it harder to do something like bury power lines.
In this week’s issue, the same magazine lays out what’s needed to prepare New York for a similar storm. In “Adaptation” (subscription required), Eric Klinenberg details how Rotterdam and Singapore have invested in flood prevention — and how far behind the United States is. Take our power grid.
After Sandy, there was a ﬁve-day blackout in lower Manhattan, because the walls protecting Con Ed’s substation along the East River, at twelve and a half feet above the ground, were eighteen inches too low to stop the storm surge and prevent the consequent equipment explosions. When I asked [geophysicist Klaus] Jacob about this, he threw up his hands in exasperation. “Just put it on a high platform and use more underwater cable,” he said. “We’ve had it available for a long time now. These are just moderate investments, in the millions of dollars. It’s a small price to pay for more resilience.” …
In recent decades, American utility companies have spent relatively little on research and development. One industry report estimates that, in 2009, research-and-development investments made by all U.S. Electrical power utilities amounted to at most $700 million, compared with $6.3 billion by I.B.M. and $9.1 billion by Pﬁzer. In 2009, however, the Department of Energy issued $3.4 billion in stimulus grants to a hundred smart-grid projects across the United States, including many in areas that are prone to heat waves and hurricanes. The previous year, Hurricane Ike had knocked out power to two million customers in Houston, and full restoration took nearly a month. When the city received $200 million in federal funds to install smart-grid technology, it quickly put crews to work. Nearly all Houston households have been upgraded to the new network, one that should be more reliable when the next storm arrives. … Creating a smarter, more resilient grid for New York will be expensive, but not as expensive as a future ﬁlled with recurring outages during ordinary times and long-lasting failures when the weather turns menacing
That’s just the electrical system. Klinenberg also outlines the various ways the transportation system needs to be protected and possible efforts to stem flooding with offshore barriers. What results isn’t a detailed plan to make New York storm-proof; rather, it’s a portrait of a massive, poorly-understood need.
People affected by Sandy — thousands still without homes or electricity, much less heat and running water — desperately need short-term assistance. They need it yesterday, both proverbially and literally. The storm ravished entire economies, from real estate to boat insurers. But the 112th Congress provided not a single dollar to that effort.
John Boehner, hoping to quell the outcry, promises to have a vote on relief by the end of the month. That promise should be considered as trustworthy as the GOP’s earlier promise to hold a vote on a bill last night. But even if the House does approve relief funding, without a huge investment in research and infrastructure, it’s simply an attempt to cure cancer with a Band-aid.
Which wouldn’t result in our mocking Congress. That would be Congress mocking us.
Republican Tensions Stall Hurricane Sandy Relief Bill
WASHINGTON — Late Tuesday, Speaker John Boehner unexpectedly halted a vote on disaster relief funding for states hit hard by the storm Sandy — drawing fire from members of both parties who hoped to approve the measure before a new Congress is sworn in Thursday.
“I think it’s imperative we stay here and address this issue,” Rep. Charles Dent, a Republican, said on the House floor when it became clear that a vote would not be held.
“We cannot leave here doing nothing,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi echoed. “That would be a disgrace.”
But the measure to send $60 billion in relief to states ravaged by Sandy was held up in part due to the House vote on a fiscal cliff agreement, which saw House Majority Leader Eric Cantor vote against the bill — and opposite Speaker John Boehner, who supported the compromise.
Cantor came under fire in 2011 for arguing that disaster spending should be offset, only to see his home state of Virginia hit by an earthquake and hurricane in a matter of days.
Since that time, the Virginian has become a champion of sorts of disaster relief spending, and he worked closely with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and their respective state delegations and appropriators on the Sandy bill.
Indeed, the plan for voting on the smaller House version and a subsequent amendment increasing the bill to match the Senate’s $60 billion price tag originated with Cantor’s office, leadership aides said, and Monday afternoon it appeared likely it would move forward.
But Republican aides said that after the fiscal cliff vote, in which Speaker John Boehner saw 151 Republicans break with him — including Cantor — in large part because it did not include spending cuts, attempting to push the bill forward was simply a bridge too far. Boehner could barely muster 85 Republicans for an extension of the Bush tax cuts because it didn’t include spending cuts, and the idea of expanding spending for the north east was simply not something his conference was willing to accept.
“The Speaker made the decision not to proceed this Congress,” a Republican leadership aide confirmed Wednesday.
But Boehner’s office said the delay is only temporary.
“The speaker is committed to getting this bill passed this month,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel.
Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.