Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011: House of Representatives

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. Beach replenishment is an economic engine for shore towns and for the tourism industry. It ultimately creates jobs. And also it's based on an Army Corps cost-benefit analysis that says for every dollar we spend on beach replenishment we save $2 or $3, depending on the cost-benefit analysis, that doesn't have to get paid by the Federal Government during a hurricane or northeaster or other disaster.

So beach replenishment actually saves the Federal Government money. It has to, otherwise the projects are not authorized by the Army Corps of Engineers. In addition to that, there is no way that local municipalities would be able to afford to do this. Many of them are very small; they have a few thousand people. I use my own State of New Jersey as an example. So you would be cutting off any kind of beach replenishment, any kind of protection in the event of a storm. And ultimately having to pay out those dollars in FEMA down the road makes no sense.

This is actually something that will cost the Federal Government money over the long run, and it is very ill-advised for that reason alone.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source