Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations For The Fiscal Year Ending
Mr. President, I wish to say to Senator Feinstein how much I appreciate her leadership on this in the Appropriations Committee. I wish to say to the chairman of the committee how much I appreciate his understanding of what we are going…
Mr. President, I wish to say to Senator Feinstein how much I appreciate her leadership on this in the Appropriations Committee. I wish to say to the chairman of the committee how much I appreciate his understanding of what we are going through in our State with historic rains, historic flooding. I thank the Appropriations Committee for listening to Senator Feinstein when she transmitted a request from the two of us and also from our Governor. This is a bipartisan request.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter written to Senator Coburn from Governor Schwarzenegger. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record information regarding the Sacramento region.
I am going to read part of this letter. He says:
Our work to restore structural integrity to our levee
system began over a year ago. We cannot wait for a disaster
to strike and must use the lessons of Katrina and act now.
Prior to Katrina, New Orleans had a 250-year level of flood
protection.
And then the Governor says:
Sacramento has 100-year level of flood protection.
That is optimistic. Most experts tell us that it is an 85-year level. And whether it is 85 years or 100 years, it is the lowest of any major city in the U.S.
The Governor writes:
It is only a matter of time before there is a significant
levee breach or system failure.
This is important for the Senator from Oklahoma to hear. I know he has been very gracious in filling me in on this and saying: I didn't go after your other items but just this one. But the fact is, this one is as important as all the rest. The Corps has told us they need these funds to move forward.
Here is what the Governor says:
Such [a flooding] event would flood valuable farmland that
produces food for [our] entire nation.
I say to my friend from Oklahoma, please, listen to us, because the food supply for the entire Nation is at stake, according to Governor Schwarzenegger, Senator Feinstein, myself, and a bipartisan delegation in the Congress.
The Governor says:
All of Sacramento and other Sacramento Valley towns would
be flooded. According to modeling [that has been done], a
single levee breach would cause flooding in many areas of the
City with depths over 15 feet. A flood event of this
magnitude would cut off Southern California's water supply.
I say to my friend from Oklahoma, in this body we are all equal, two Senators from every State. We have 37 million people in my State. Sacramento is a huge growth area. I will get into the
numbers in a minute. We are not talking about a few people being hurt. We are talking about a catastrophe. We are talking about farmland. We are talking about the State's water supply. About two-thirds of the water supply in the State comes from that northern area.
When my friend started, he was very nice and said he doesn't doubt the fact that the Sacramento levees are a problem, and that San Francisco has been having problems. I wrote down what he said. He said: San Francisco and the area south of there. This is the area north of San Francisco. This is Sacramento. I don't think my friend really, with all due respect, gets the intricacies of what we are dealing with here. There is a difference between north of San Francisco and south because north of San Francisco is where we have delta--again, two-thirds of the water supply of our State--the farmland and all the rest. South of San Francisco, we have Silicon Valley. That has other issues. But right now, we are talking about the Sacramento area, which is north.
The Governor goes on to talk about the economic disruption. Because we are such a large State, people say when California sneezes, the country gets a cold. It is an expression that speaks to the power of our State in terms of economic productivity. And in terms of the goods coming across into the ports of California and going all across into your State and everybody else's--this region is the bread basket. So we ask you to back off this amendment.
This is so not a partisan issue. The Governor writes:
As you know, Senators Feinstein and Boxer have worked
closely with Chairmen Cochran and Domenici to include funds
in the pending supplemental . . . for certain levee and flood
control improvements . . .
I support these funds and want to assure you that this is a
necessary and urgent time for Congress to act.
The Governor came here. He met with Senator Domenici and many Senators. He said:
. . . any investment at this time decreases the chances that
Congress will have to respond in the future with another far
more expensive emergency funding bill to address a widespread
flood disaster in California.
I ask that you recognize this as a necessary emergency funding bill. Support this.
I want to show a picture. Senator Feinstein showed us a version of this. They all tell a story better than I could. Here you have the Sacramento River. Here you have thousands and thousands of people. Here you have the levees, and here you have the riverbed. And what has happened, if my friend would like to take a look at this--I know he doesn't question that we need a project; he questions whether it belongs in this bill. I understand.
Yes.
That is what I just said. I said the Senator doesn't oppose us doing this. He doesn't want it in this bill. That is my understanding of his position. I couldn't disagree with you more. When my friend quoted me and I said Iraq should have been in the budget, that is exactly how I feel, because we knew about it. Frankly, we didn't know about this, that we were going to have the kind of events we have had, the rain and the rain and the rain. I will go into the details of how much rain we have had compared to other years and the fact that anything can happen now.
The weather patterns are changing. When I lived in the bay area in California so many years ago, it is too long to remember, when I first came here in the 1960s, you never had rain in March, let alone April. It was dry. It was dry really from mid-February on. It has been moving forward, and we have March as one of the rainiest months and then April. We had a month this year--April--where we had rain almost every day. It is unheard of. You can see how muddy this is. You can see the breaks here in the riverbank.
I will show you another picture on the other side where there is not as much development but the same thing has occurred. These trees were on the other side of the riverbank. Look at these trees. They are now buried in the water. So if we don't go ahead with the Corps now, when the Corps tells us we need to do this now, we are going to lose this riverbank. We are going to lose the levees. And then it is too late.
My friend says he wants to save money. It reminds me of the old adage of penny wise and pound foolish. It is a colloquialism, but the fact is, you have to prevent things. This is an emergency circumstance, as the Governor said. These levees could break. Now we have a snowmelt. That snowmelt occurs, that water gets deeper, the pressure in that river increases, and the riverbank begins to disappear, leaving those levees exposed.
I wish to refer to a document put together by the Chamber of Commerce in Sacramento. It reads, ``Sacramento: A Region at Risk.'' Cities and counties don't like to say, especially chambers of commerce, we are at risk. They don't like to say that because they want to have investment. They want people to come in. They don't go about saying: We are in danger. And when a chamber of commerce goes out and says: We are in danger--and these are Republicans mostly, and these are as conservative as my friend from Oklahoma; they know that an investment is not wasteful spending if, in fact, we are going to save money at the end of the day. How much would we have saved if we had built stronger, better levees in Louisiana? Untold, probably billions. I don't think my friend is at all a fiscal conservative by taking away $11 million. It is reckless. I hope and pray that my colleagues are listening to this debate and are looking at these pictures and understanding what we are talking about.
The Sacramento area faces a triple flood threat, and it faces it now. We have a confluence of two major rivers, the threat of a deteriorating flood control system, and the threat of near record precipitation this year. We are talking about 165,000 homes, nearly 500,000 residents, the State capital, and many businesses providing 200,000 jobs. It is also the hub of the six-county regional economy, providing hundreds of thousands of jobs. A major flood along the lower Sacramento or American Rivers would cripple the region's economy. I will go into that tomorrow because Senator Feinstein and I each have 15 minutes in the morning. I will save some of my talk for then.
California has the world's fifth largest economy, and we are quibbling over $11 million that the Corps says it needs to fix up these riverbanks. How outrageous, how shortsighted, how foolish. I don't understand why my friend is doing this. We talked. He feels deeply about it. I respect that. I voted with him a couple of times. I have been very careful, picking and choosing, sticking with the committee when I felt the committee was right, joining my friend. But I don't understand this one. This one is inexplicable.
The average family understands that if they have a problem with their roof, they fix it. They don't put it off. They fix it so that their home is not destroyed. It is straightforward.
Let's look at the pocket again. They call this the pocket of Sacramento; 112,000 people are at risk, and you can see clearly where this riverbank has deteriorated. On New Year's Day, Californians in the northern and central parts of our State awoke to flooding that cost the State $200 million. We are talking about $11 million so we can mitigate what comes next. But precipitation after January 1 has kept river levels very high, further stressing and eroding our critical flood control infrastructure.
Precipitation, including snow pack, as the snows melt, is nearly twice the normal amount, 174 percent of normal, and that is just as of last week. And the snows are just now starting to melt.
We have another threat to this area. My colleague, Senator Feinstein, said it beautifully: How would we feel if we did something on this Senate floor today that turned our backs on this issue and then we had a tragedy?
We would not feel very good about it. So I am going to save the rest of my talk until tomorrow. But I am going to say to you, Mr. President, again thank you. It is very rare that we have such bipartisan cooperation in our State. This is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. We will have Republicans suffer if we have a problem and
we will have Democrats suffer. We are Californians united. Our Governor has recognized the crisis. He declared a state of emergency earlier this year to expedite improvement of this system.
Everything we did in this bill we cleared with the Army Corps and they say they can use this money. They need this money. They are going to move forward with these repairs. So my friend from Oklahoma can make the case every which way he wants. He can use rhetoric and say anything he wants. The bottom line is this, and I will quote Representative Dan Lungren, a Republican, who is very well respected among our Republican friends in this body. He said:
Today the Sacramento region has half the flood protection
and twice the risk as did the city of New Orleans prior to
Katrina. The cost of recovering from a flood-related disaster
far exceeds the price of guarding against it.
Unlike other issues where we have come to the floor and it has been Republican versus Democrat, I can honestly say to you that I stand here representing a bipartisan, strong majority in my State and, hopefully, in the Senate, that says this: The 2005 hurricane season taught us some hard lessons--that we neglect shoring up eroded and damaged flood control infrastructure for major metropolitan areas at our peril.
We always say we must learn from history. We must surely learn from recent history. Sometimes we forget history that occurred way back, but we certainly should remember history from a year ago.
I urge my colleagues to vote a resounding no on this Coburn amendment and to take a stand for innocent people in this valley, in this area, these farmlands, these farmers, and the economy, and don't take out $11 million that could do so much good to restore these banks.
I thank the Chair.
I yield the floor.
Will the Senator yield?
Does the Senator not know that this is a federally authorized project? Is the Senator unaware of that?
Cost sharing goes along with this project just as with every other project. So for the Senator to stand up and suggest that we don't pay into this project is simply false.
Mr. President, I cannot allow certain things that were said to go unchallenged. My friend says this is not about paying your share, after he said it was about that. He made a big point, why doesn't California do something? Of course, we are doing something. We abide by the law. I have to say to my friend, if something happens in California, a bread basket of this country in many ways, there is going to be suffering throughout this country. If something happens to this economy, let alone the 112,000 people who live in this pocket, this particular amendment will put them at greater risk.
My friend says he believes in prevention. He is a doctor. I am sure he does and I am sure he does a wonderful job at that. But he doesn't believe in prevention right now, I will tell you that. Because that is what Senator Feinstein, Governor Schwarzenegger, and both Democratic candidates for Governor--everybody agrees this has to be done. This is a Federal project. This is not a State project. This is a Federal project with a State share. The Army Corps has a responsibility which they have stepped up to the plate to do, and they told us they need these funds. As far as not paying for this, we know that emergencies get special treatment around here because they are emergencies. My friend says, why is this an emergency? Take a look at this. This isn't the way a river is supposed to look, the way a riverbank is supposed to look. This isn't the way a tree that was on the land is supposed to look, when it was on the other side of the riverbank. When you get the second highest predicted snow pack melt known to the history since they started taking down the record, in the history of California, yes, you have an emergency.
I know my friend from Oklahoma left the floor. I hope he joins me in a pay-as-you-go budget because I have voted for that every year. Frankly, right before the Bush administration, we had surpluses. Now we have deficits. I will admit that. I support pay-as-you-go budgeting. I have voted for it. We can talk about that another day. But this is a true emergency, just as I believe funding the veterans home in Mississippi was, which I was sorry I didn't get a chance to vote on. I listened to the debate. I could hardly believe my ears that the Senator from Oklahoma
was objecting to making sure that our veterans, elderly veterans, could go home. What is wrong? Something is wrong here with these debates. I don't know where the heart is, where the soul is. I don't know where the common sense is.
I pray and hope that tomorrow, come morning, we are able to get the votes to keep this funding in the supplemental. Again, I thank Senator Cochran. I thank the Chair for his patience.
I yield the floor.