Local Community Recovery Act of 2006

I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.

The legislation in its amended form before us this afternoon is the result of the finest of legislative action in which a substantive goal has been achieved through discussion and understanding of one another, understanding the underlying law and its application, and in this case, an administrative action that has produced a right result.

The objective in the Gulf States devastated by hurricanes, not just Katrina but Rita and Wilma and the ones preceding and the ones yet to come, is local recovery. That means not just restoring the physical needs of the communities, the homes, the businesses, the streets, the levees, the lighting, but also the businesses.

The objective of the Robert T. Stafford Act, which I must say I have had a very large role in shaping over the past 21 years with my then- colleague on the committee, Mr. Clinger, is to affirm that the administering agencies, that is, those administering the law and the funding, would give preference to local businesses to restore those businesses, to expedite completion of recovery work, and to achieve lower costs, because businesses locally know how to do the job better than out-of-State companies.

In this particular case, in the aftermath of Katrina, the Corps of Engineers responded by taking the action that law allows them. They issued a contract for debris removal in Mississippi that originally was given to a Florida company, Ash Britt. They decided not to renew that contract, because it was evident that the work was not going to be done principally by local companies and, instead, chose to issue three separate debris removal contracts to Mississippi firms to guarantee that local Mississippi companies would be selected for the contracts and to do so by limiting the bidding to Mississippi companies. The Florida company protested that bid to the Government Accountability Office.

Last week, the GAO issued its ruling, its decision in the matter of Ash Britt, Inc., with reference to the file number, dated March 20, and in the most important part said: ``We think Ash Britt misses the point when it argues that some form of preference short of a set-aside also implements the Stafford Act's preference for using local businesses to clean up disaster-related debris. The question here is not whether some lesser form of preference might have satisfied the act's intent, but whether the preference chosen was an abuse of agency discretion. Since the language in the statute does not specifically restrict the application of the preference, and since the use of a set-aside is consistent with the statutory goal of assisting firms in the affected area, we do not view the Corps' decision to implement the Stafford Act preference with a set-aside as an abuse of the agency's discretion to implement this statutory scheme.'' And then they conclude with referring to previous GAO decisions in the matter.

That settles it. The Corps has the authority; that authority has been affirmed by the Government Accountability Office, and the contracting should proceed. The GAO decision, so clear, so precise, so unequivocal in my judgment and in previous experience with the Corps and with GAO, should ward off any lawsuit or further appeal by Ash Britt. I think they will be very wise to accept the judgment of GAO and allow the procedure to go forward.

The bill before us is a revised version of the legislation the gentleman from Mississippi introduced just before our recess and which we discussed at some length. I had some reservations about it, some concerns, especially the prohibition of judicial review. That has wisely been removed, as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, has expressed.

So I want to make it very clear that we have had a very thoughtful, very constructive discussion with the gentleman from Mississippi, with the subcommittee staff, with GAO, and with the Corps of Engineers. And the language in this sense of Congress portion of the bill pending before us this afternoon, ``It is the sense of Congress that the Corps of Engineers should promptly implement the decision of the Government Accountability Office in solicitation,'' and I don't need to repeat the reference, dated March 20, 2006, that should be very clear direction to the Corps of Engineers to proceed forthwith, get these debris removal contracts under way, and move ahead without concern or fear of further appeal by the contractor in this case.

I think it is a good legislative outcome. It is a good direction to the Corps. It will be good for people of Mississippi. It will be a good lesson for workers and smaller contractors in other hurricane-affected Gulf States. It will set a good precedent for the future.

I think that we have had a very fine result this afternoon, and I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle and all Members to support this legislation.

I would further observe, Mr. Speaker, that my wife is from New Orleans. Her family was affected by the hurricane. We have just recently, just 2 weeks ago, spent time in New Orleans; went with family and friends to the 17th Street Canal, saw the levee break, saw the work of the Corps, the cofferdam set up to rebuild that portion of the levee, traveled to Saint Bernard Parish, saw the absolute utterly horrifying destruction of an entire 38,000-home area inundated, over the rooftops, homes floated away from their mooring, and debris still in the streets.

That debris needs to be removed. Those people need relief. They want to get back in their homes, they want to rebuild, and they are frustrated that companies that know how to do the work aren't being called on to do it.

This legislation will set the course, chart the future, give an opportunity for those who know how to do the job to get in there and do it and do it expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to express my appreciation to Mr. Pickering for those kind remarks. We have spent a very productive time together.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express appreciation for the cooperation we have had this afternoon in working out this matter that should have been considered appropriately in committee

process. In the subcommittee, full committee we could have resolved these matters in an expeditious manner in a very expedited way. But failing the committee process, we have reached, I think, a very sound, very progressive and forward-looking outcome.

I want to restate section 2 of the pending bill, line 8: ``In carrying out this section, a contract or agreement may by set aside for award based on a specific geographic area.'' This is unmistakable language. It reaffirms the original intent of the Stafford Act, reaffirms historical precedent, and states it very clearly in legislative language.

We intend to get this bill passed this afternoon, and I hope the other body will act expeditiously as well so we can make this very, very clear and proceed on the awards of these contracts and reestablish businesses in Mississippi, as the gentleman from Mississippi has so well and firmly and forcefully stated as a very strong and effective advocate for the people of his district.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your cooperation. It always seems to me that the gentleman from Minnesota and a gentleman from Pennsylvania are working on the FEMA program, Mr. Klinger, Mr. Ridge, and the gentleman's father, the first Mr. Shuster. Every time we do, we come up with a good result.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your support, your leadership on these issues, and for your commitment and traveling to the Gulf region, to New Orleans and to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, your leadership on the committee and on the Select Committee on Katrina to find the solutions for the future storms and recoveries, but also to do everything you can to make sure that this Congress does the right thing for this region as we recover. I am extremely grateful.

To Mr. Oberstar, I thank you for working with me today in the best sense and tradition and civility of this place to find common goals and common ground to be able to help my people in my home State recover, rebuild and, most importantly, to lead the way for themselves.

As the Stafford Act clearly states, and Mr. Oberstar was here in the beginning of that act and has been intimately involved in all aspects of that over his career here, but let me read the Stafford Act and the committee language when it was first enacted.

In section 204 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, the Senate Committee on Public Works, which proposed the language, stated, ``Preference is to be given to persons or firms who work or do business in the disaster area.'' The committee report discussed the rationale and justification for this provision. ``One outstanding feature of the aftermath of a great disaster is the lack of ready cash. A Federal assistance program should be designed to revitalize the community by infusions of cash through the use of local people and business firms.''

To be honest, this has not been done in this recovery. Unfortunately, it is a failure of the Bush administration in implementing the contracts for the recovery of this region. But the administration is trying to correct that action. Today, 95 percent of all Federal contract dollars, 95 cents on every dollar spent on Federal contracts, is going to out-of-State firms, not in-State, not community, not local, but out-of-State.

Now, why is it so important that local firms, local businesses, local communities lead the way? It is those local businesses that will pay local taxes to rebuild local schools, to make the contributions to the churches as they care for the people who are helpless, needy, hungry, and homeless. It is those companies that will pay for the rebuilding of the Little League ball parks. All of the community institutions and infrastructure are led by local businesses and local leaders, and it is those people who should be on the front lines, not at the back of the line in the recovery effort.

What the Corps of Engineers did in December was to try to correct that. They set aside on a geographic preference consistent with the Stafford Act contracts for debris removal. And let me say this: In Mississippi alone, we have had more debris, as you can see from these pictures, more debris than any disaster in American history. Over 50 percent more has already been cleaned up than ever occurred in any disaster anyplace in America. What the Corps did in December was to say, in the future, going forward, we are going to let local companies lead the recovery and comply with the congressional intent and stated objectives of the Stafford Act.

Unfortunately, the incumbent contractor from out of State protested that action. They gamed the system to delay the implementation of those contracts. Three months later, the GAO rejects the protest, finds in favor of the Corps, finds in favor of the congressional intent of the Stafford Act, and says, in essence, the protest is baseless.

It is time, and this act urges the Corps, to immediately, to promptly move forward in the implementation of local contracts for local debris removal.

President Bush, when he addressed the Nation in Jackson Square in downtown New Orleans stated: ``In the work of rebuilding, as many jobs as possible should go to the men and women who live in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.'' What we are doing in this act is clarifying and reaffirming the original intent to make it possible that no one can litigate this or game this or delay this to keep local firms from leading the way.

Let me say this. As I look across to both sides, this body has been extremely generous to the people of Mississippi and New Orleans. We have appropriated billions, now over $100 billion to the recovery of the region. The churches and the charities across this country have been compassionate, and their generosity has flowed down and poured into our region. Our people will be forever grateful. Mississippi is the most generous State in the Nation, according to IRS returns. We are the poorest State, but we give more per capita than any State in the Nation. We are a proud people, and we want to lead the way and work first.

We do not want to be at the back of the line. We want to be on the front line, cleaning up, rebuilding, restoring and renewing our region.

I urge bipartisan support of this action today so that our region can recover with the help, but not the dependence, not the displacement, not the replacement of our own people, our own economy, our own jobs; and I ask all of us to look at this legislation and to work with me and for the administration to keep its commitment and to keep the law and the intent of this legislation.

In closing, let me also ask the current contractors: do nothing as these contracts to Mississippi companies go forward to disrupt, to sabotage, or to slow the work. Cooperate with us and partner with us, just as our companies have partnered with you as you led. Stand down. Let us stand up. Let us lead the way, and we can have a continued good relationship. But protest this, litigate this, fight this, sabotage it, and there will be bad will that will go forward and undermine the way that our communities and our country should work together.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Members for their support, and I thank the ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, as we continue to rebuild our region.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4979) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to clarify the preference for local firms in the award of certain contracts for disaster relief activities, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 4979.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 4979, introduced by Mr. Pickering of Mississippi, amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to clarify the preferences for the local firms in the award of contracts for disaster relief activity.

The Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 makes it clear that the government can limit contracts to local communities devastated in disasters.

The Stafford Act has a preference for doing business with local firms because putting communities back to work is an important strategy for helping them rebuild their economy.

In the areas hardest hit by Katrina, the job market, local economy and tax base have been devastated. This legislation will put people back to work rebuilding their communities while simultaneously strengthening the local economy and tax base. Another common advantage of contracting locally can be lower cost and faster job completion.

I would like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Pickering, for his dedication to bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Pickering has been a champion of this issue and has worked to help the people of the entire gulf coast region. This bill is further proof of his dedication and efforts. Since Katrina ravaged the gulf coast, Mr. Pickering has worked tirelessly with me and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to resurrect his district and all of the gulf coast region.

I would also like to thank Ranking Member Oberstar and Ranking Member Norton for working with us to develop a compromise bill that encourages the Army Corps to move forward with its local contracts.

The amended version of the bill does not limit judicial review of any contracts. As a result, the bill we are considering enjoys bipartisan support, I repeat, bipartisan support, and I encourage Members to support final passage.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for those kind words.

The Local Community Recovery Act makes sense. As the ranking member pointed out, it clarifies and reaffirms the language in the Stafford Act. It also directs the corps to move forward quickly so we can see the cleanup continue to make progress in the Mississippi and in the gulf coast region.

I want to again thank Mr. Oberstar for his cooperation on this issue. Once again, the T&I Committee has come together in a bipartisan manner and moved forward for the betterment of this Nation. I also thank Mr. Pickering for his leadership and in working so closely with the T&I Committee to put this together for what I think is going to be a very positive outcome.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Oberstar for his leadership on this matter and for forging this bipartisan agreement. I rise today in support of H.R. 4979, the Local Community Recovery Act of 2006.

I want Members to know I approve of this language allowing set-aside contracts based on a geographic region. Florida for years has pushed for more local company involvement. This is something that Florida has been pushing for after every hurricane has battered our State.

Every time contracts go to out-of-state contractors who have relationships with FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, Florida companies do not get the work. This provision will allow local communities to recover more quickly. It is important for all contractors to work with local companies and local workers who know the area and the best way to get the job done.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act provides assistance to States in response to natural disasters. I recommend that the agencies follow the law and allow local communities to recover from these natural disasters.

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, hundreds of us will be going to New Orleans. It will be my second trip to work in that area and to try to encourage local participation and to find out the status so we can come back and report to the Congress on the progress. I think every Member should go to the region and work in that region to make sure that the $100 billion dollars that we are appropriating is spent in the local area.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4979 received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.