The Republican-controlled House of Representatives is expected to vote today on its superstorm Sandy aid package, a crucial test that could signal the scale of the rebuilding effort in the storm- battered region for years to come.
The vote also will be a test of the influence of the region's politicians -- particularly Governor Christie, a Republican who has been furiously lobbying members of his own party amid accusations that the $50.7 billion proposal is bloated and includes spending unrelated to the storm.
In a preview of the debate, some House members were pushing Monday night for last-minute amendments that would water down the emergency spending bill. But supporters of the aid package predicted they would prevail.
"We have more than enough votes, I'm confident of that," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., claiming a base of strong support from Democrats as well as Republicans
from the Northeast for both a $17 billion bill and an amendment for an additional $33.7 billion.
In response to critics of the House aid package, Christie called it a "clean bill," free of the controversial spending that caused the House leadership to balk at the $60.4 billion package approved by the Senate late last month.
"All these folks that are yapping on TV that it's a pork bill, it simply isn't," Christie said Monday. "It is a pure Sandy bill now."
"I'm hopeful that tomorrow we'll get to a good result," he added. "You can count on the fact that I was on the phone a lot this weekend and I'll be on the phone a lot today, tonight and during the day tomorrow, making sure that they understand exactly what the governor of New Jersey thinks about what needs to be done."
Few conservatives argue that the federal government shouldn't provide some recovery aid in the wake of the Oct. 29 superstorm, which devastated much of the Jersey Shore and flooded the boroughs of Moonachie and Little Ferry, as well as causing extensive damage in New York City, particularly on Staten Island. But some say the money should be distributed in smaller amounts as needed, and that the current bill contains vague language that would allow spending elsewhere.
"We need to do this in a more incremental approach so we actually know what we need," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the Washington-based group Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Experts said there will likely be enough bipartisan support for the $17 billion bill aimed at immediate Sandy recovery needs, including $5.4 billion for New York and New Jersey transit systems and $5.4 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's disaster relief aid fund. But budget hawks are more likely to resist the amendment by Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-Morris, for an additional $33.7 billion, including $10.9 billion for public transportation projects.
The House approved $9.7 billion earlier this month to help pay flood insurance claims from the storm. Passage of the measures up for consideration today could bring the total to around $60 billion, the amount President Obama requested last month.
The Club for Growth, a conservative group, urged lawmakers Monday to oppose both Sandy aid measures.
"Congress shouldn't keep passing massive 'emergency' relief bills that aren't paid for, have little oversight and are stuffed with pork," the club said in a statement.
As with past natural disasters, the $50.7 billion Sandy aid package does not provide offsetting spending cuts, meaning the aid comes at the cost of higher deficits. The lone exception is a provision in the Frelinghuysen amendment requiring that the $3.4 billion for Army Corps of Engineers projects to protect against future storms be paid for with spending cuts elsewhere in the budget for fiscal year 2013.
The House will consider 13 amendments to the bill today, 10 of them proposed by Republicans.
Conservative Reps. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., Tom McClintock, R- Calif., Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., and Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., offered an amendment to offset the $17 billion in the base bill with a 1.6 percent across-the-board spending cut for all discretionary appropriations for 2013.
"I believe we can provide that relief while finding ways to pay for it, rather than adding to the nation's ballooning deficit," Mulvaney said.
Congress historically does not offset disaster relief with spending cuts, and lawmakers from states hit by Sandy are outraged by proposals to do so now. The White House, in a statement Monday, urged the House to steer clear of requiring offsets.
"Given the emergency and one-time nature of this supplemental appropriation, and in keeping with the response to Hurricane Katrina, Deepwater Horizon and other disasters, the administration believes that all funding in the bill should be designated as an emergency requirement and not be offset," the statement said.
Another amendment requires FEMA to disclose the details of how all disaster relief grants are spent, not just those over $1 million, in an effort to increase oversight.
Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., who proposed the amendment, said in a statement Monday night: "Disasters happen, and many times there is a role for Washington to respond. But that does not mean we put on the blindfolds and pray that the money gets where it needs to go."
The Senate, which reconvenes Jan. 22, is expected to take up whatever legislation the House approves.
Whatever the final Sandy aid package looks like, it is likely to have significant implications for New Jersey's economy.
A report released Monday by Rutgers University estimated that the state will overcome its heavy storm-related economic losses by 2015, but only if reconstruction aid arrives as expected.
Researchers forecast a "modest" state recovery from the estimated $11.7 billion in economic losses, assuming $25.1 billion in federal assistance for recovery and rebuilding.
"We do not intend these losses to seem small. These damages will echo for years," said Joseph Seneca, a professor of economics at Rutgers' Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy and one of the report's authors.
Without aid, however, the report sketches a bleak economic picture:
The state's gross domestic product would be $2.8 billion less than it would have otherwise been in 2013, and would be $325 million below expectations by 2015.
Written by: Shawn Boburg
Staff Writers Melissa Hayes and |Juliet Fletcher contributed to this article, which includes material from |The Associated Press.
Original Publication URL: https://www.ivyexec.com/professionals/insights/article/2539
Discussion
Sign Up for Updates
