Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006

Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Collins to introduce legislation to help reverse the devastating population decline and economic distress that has plagued individuals and businesses in Aroostook County, the northernmost county in Maine. What the bill does is simple, it will bring all of Aroostook County under the Empowerment Zone (EZ) program. The legislation is identical to a bill that we introduced in the 108th Congress and was included in the FY 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill in 2003 as passed by the Senate.

To fully grasp the importance of this legislation, it is necessary to understand the unique situation facing the residents of Aroostook County. ``The County'', as it is called by Mainers, is a vast and remote region of Maine. As the northernmost county, it shares more of its border with Canada than its neighboring Maine counties. It has the distinction of being the largest county east of the Mississippi River. Its geographic isolation is even more acute when considering that the county's relatively small population of 73,000 people are scattered throughout 6,672 square miles of rural countryside. Aroostook County is home to 71 organized townships, as well as 125 unorganized townships much of which is forest land and wilderness.

As profound as this geographic isolation may seem, it is the economic isolation and the recent out-migration that has had the most devastating impact on the region. The economy of northern Maine has a historical dependence upon its natural resources, particularly forestry and agriculture. While these industries served the region well in previous decades, and continue to form the underpinnings of the local economy, many of these sectors have experienced decline and can no longer provide the number and type of quality jobs that residents need.

While officials in the region have put forward a Herculean effort to redevelop the region, with nearly 1,000 new jobs at the Loring Commerce Centre alone, Aroostook County is still experiencing a significant ``job deficit'', and as a result continues to lose population at an alarming rate. Since its peak in 1960, northern Maine's population has declined by 30 percent. Unfortunately, the Main State Planning Office predicts that Aroostook County will continue losing population as more workers leave the area to seek opportunities and higher wages in southern Maine and the rest of New England.

In January 2002, a portion of Aroostook County was one of two regions that received Empowerment Zone status from the USDA for out-migration. The entire county experienced an out-migration of 15 percent from 86,936 in 1990 to 73,938 in 2000. Moreover, a shocking 40 percent of 15 to 29-year-olds left during the last decade.

The current zone boundaries were chosen based on the criteria that Empowerment Zones be no larger than 1,000 square miles, and have a maximum population of 30,000 for rural areas. The lines drawn for the Aroostook County Empowerment Zone were considered to be the most inclusive and reasonable given the constraints of the program. It should be noted as well that the boundaries were drawn based on the 1990 census, making the data significantly outdated at the start and included the former Loring Air Force Base and its population of nearly 8,000 people, which had closed nearly 8 years before the designation, taking its military and much of its civilian workforces with it. The Maine State Planning Office estimated that the base closure resulted in the loss of 3,494 jobs directly related to the base and

another 1,751 in associated industry sectors for a total loss of $106.9 million annual payroll dollars.

Some of the most distressed communities that have lost substantial population are not in the Empowerment Zone, and other communities like Houlton literally are divided simply by a road, having one business on the south side of the street with no Empowerment Zone designation look out their window to a neighboring business on the north side of the street with full Empowerment Zone benefits. The economic factors for these communities and for these neighbors are the same as those areas within the Empowerment Zone. This designation is not meant to cause divisiveness within communities, it is created to augment a partnership for growth and to level the playing field for all Aroostook County communities who have equally suffered through continuing out migration whether it be in Madawaska or Island Falls.

The legislation I am introducing would provide economic development opportunities to all reaches of Aroostook County by extending Empowerment Zone status to the entire county. This inclusive approach recognizes that the economic decline and population out-migration are issues that the entire region must confront, and, as evidenced by their successful Round III EZ application, they are attempting to confront. I believe the challenges faced by Aroostook County are significant, but not insurmountable. This legislation would make great strides in improving the communities and business in northern Maine, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as Chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have long believed that it is my responsibility and the duty of this chamber to help small businesses, as they are the driver of this Nation's economy, responsible for generating approximately 75 percent of net new jobs annually.

Today, I rise with Senator Bennett to introduce legislation that would address the crisis that faces small businesses when it comes to purchasing quality, affordable health insurance. This is not a new crisis. Nearly 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. We've now experienced double digit percentage increases in health insurance premiums in four of the past five years. Small businesses face difficult choices in seeking to provide affordable health insurance to their employees. We must act now.

Study after study tells us that the smallest businesses are the ones least likely to offer insurance and most in need of assistance. According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, of the working uninsured, who make up 83 percent of our nation's uninsured population, 60.6 percent either work for a small business with fewer than 100 employees or are self-employed.

Furthermore, many of the small businesses who we meet with tell us how they feel like the cost and complexity of the health care system has moved health insurance far beyond their reach.

That is why today we introduce the Small Business Health Education and Awareness Act of 2006. This bill establishes a pilot, competitive matching-grant program for Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs) to provide educational resources and materials to small businesses designed to increase awareness regarding health insurance options available in their areas. Recent research conducted by the Healthcare Leadership Council has found that a short, less than 10 minute education session, can increase small business knowledge and interest in offering health insurance by about 33 percent.

For those of you who are not familiar, SBDCs are one of the greatest business assistance and entrepreneurial development resources provided to small businesses that are seeking to start, grow, and flourish. Currently, there are over 1,100 service locations in every state and territory delivering management and technical counseling to prospective and existing small business owners.

Our legislation would require the Small Business Administration (SBA) to provide up to 20 matching grants to qualified SBDCs across the country. No more than two SBDCs, one per State, would be chosen from each of the SBA's 10 regions. The grants shall be more than $150,000, but less than $300,000 and shall be consistent with the matching requirement under current law. In creating the materials for their grant programs, participating SBDCs should evaluate and incorporate relevant portions existing health insurance options, including materials created by the Healthcare Leadership Council.

In addition, SBDCs participating in the pilot program would be required to submit a quarterly report to the SBA.

Enacting this legislation is an important step in the right direction towards assisting small businesses as they work to strengthen themselves, remain competitive against larger businesses that are able to offer affordable health insurance, and in turn bolster the entire economy.

We encourage our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill, and to continue to work to address the issues facing the small business community.

Thank you. I ask unanimous consent that the text of our bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, as Chair of Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to introduce The Small Business Partners In Reconstruction Act of 2006. This legislation, co- sponsored by Senator David Vitter, is the product of 3 hearings held in my Committee in September and November 2005, and in February 2006, which examined the response of the Small Business Administration, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Homeland Security and its Federal Emergency Management Agency, and other Federal agencies to the devastation wrought by the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita on our Gulf Coast states.

Speaking on September 15, 2005 from New Orleans' historic Jackson Square, President Bush declared that ``It is entrepreneurship that creates jobs and opportunity; it is entrepreneurship that helps break the cycle of poverty; and we will take the side of entrepreneurs as they lead the economic revival of the Gulf region.'' Unfortunately, the Federal Government's performance has not matched the President's declaration. This is particularly true with regards to the role of small firms, especially Gulf Coast small firms, with regards to contracts and subcontracts for recovery and reconstruction. Too often, small contractors have been treated in the disaster contracting process less like the partners in disaster recovery and economic revitalization they are, and more like unwanted stepchildren. Eight months after Hurricane Katrina, it is time for this to change.

To begin with, some Federal bureaucrats have used the Katrina and Rita disasters to exclude small business from contracting in the name of emergency and speed. Contracting with small firms, it was said, does not provide sufficient flexibility to the contracting officers in time of crisis. Quite the opposite is true. The Small Business Act contains flexible contracting authorities as part of the 8(a) program, the HUBZone program, and the service-disabled veteran-owned program, which allow Federal agencies to quickly buy goods and services in emergency situations. Indeed, on May 30, 2003, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy issued guidance on Emergency Procurement Flexibilities, which encouraged Federal agencies to use contracting flexibilities, such as the HUBZone flexibilities, which are part of the Small Business Act. This guidance was largely ignored, as billions of dollars went to large corporations through non-competitive mechanisms such as no-bid contracts or the so called micro-purchase authority, originally intended by Congress to cover small purchase card transactions.

My legislation requires the Office of Federal Procurement Policy and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to ensure that Federal contracting officials have the most comprehensive and up-to-date guidance on the full use of available small business emergency procurement flexibilities, and that such guidance is published in the Federal Register. My legislation also ensures that the SBA provides government-wide training for procurement agencies on using small business contracting flexibilities in emergency situations, and directs the SBA to designate at least one advisor for small business emergency contracting who would help Federal agencies apply small business procurement flexibilities in emergency situations.

Small contractors have also been denied access to reconstruction dollars by paperwork and bureaucracy. Red tape had the most serious effect on small disadvantaged businesses. Many of these contractors have been certified to do business under the Federally-funded, Congressionally-established Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program (DBE) for transportation contracting such as highway or bridge construction. In the Federal procurement system, a parallel Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) Program exists. According to law and the Memorandum of Understanding between the SBA and the U.S. Department of Transportation, the DBE certifications are based on the SDB certification requirements under the Small Business Act. Unfortunately, DBEs have been unable to secure recognition as SDBs by the Federal agencies or by Federal prime contractors. As a result, agencies and prime contractors had little assurance that SDB goals may be met by doing business with DBEs. My measure will ensure that capable small contractors enjoy full reciprocity among contracting programs instead of the red tape they currently face.

Lack of comprehensive procurement data on Katrina and Rita contracting is another flaw which my bill is trying to correct. It is hard to believe that almost 8 months since the Hurricane Katrina struck, the Federal Government's disaster contracting ship is literally sailing blind. Both the Small Business Act and the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act require that accurate and comprehensive data on government contracting and subcontracting, especially including small business participation, be collected and maintained. Although the government-wide procurement spending database, the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS), collects the data related to Hurricane Katrina and Rita reconstruction, this data is demonstrably incomplete. According to the Government Accountability Office and admissions of Federal procurement officials, the FPDS data is not accurate and omits billions in Defense and Homeland Security contracts. As a result of these deficiencies, the Executive Branch made exaggerated claims concerning the share of reconstruction work that went to small businesses. For instance, last October, the Commerce Department claimed that small businesses received 72 percent of Katrina contracting dollars, and the SBA claimed the small business share to be at 45 percent. During hearings before my Committee, the GAO confirmed that the Administration's claimed numbers are unrealistic and unsubstantiated. My legislation directs the Administrators of the SBA and the OFPP to ensure that the Federal Procurement Data System reflects comprehensive government-wide contracting spending on Katrina and Rita reconstruction.

For years, the Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) program, created to direct Federal contacting dollars to small firms in economically distressed areas, has been recognized as a potent economic development stimulus. Since its inception in 1997, the HUBZone program stimulated the hiring of over 124,000 HUBZone residents and investment of over half a billion dollars in HUBZones by HUBZone-certified firms. With the support of the Administration, I propose extending the HUBZone designation to the disaster region. A HUBZone designation would enable small businesses located in the disaster area and employing people in that area to receive contracting preferences and price evaluation preferences to offset greater costs of doing business. Extending the HUBZone designation to the Gulf Coast would bring needed businesses development tools to affected areas of the Gulf Coast. Under my proposal, the SBA Administrator would have the discretion to define the geographic scope or duration of this designation to ensure that the HUBZone preference is targeted to those who need it the most.

Small businesses vying for government contracts or subcontracts often must post bid or performance bonds in order to convince Federal contracting officials or prime contractors that small business are a good project risk. In turn, small firms must seek bonding from private bonding companies. The SBA, through its surety bond program,

has provided guarantees on bonds awarded to small businesses up to $2 million. But small firms need an increase in bonds to handle larger projects for hurricane relief. Local small businesses in the Gulf Coast can use higher bonds to compensate for the damage to their assets from the hurricanes. My legislation would increase the maximum size of SBA surety bonds from $2 million to $5 million, and provide the SBA with authority to increase the maximum size to $10 million upon request of another Federal agency. In its proposal to re-build the Gulf Coast region, the Administration suggested making the $5 million increase.

My legislation also directs the SBA to create a contracting outreach program for small businesses located or willing to locate in the Katrina disaster area for the next five years. Federal contracts and subcontracts can provide critical assistance to small businesses located in the areas devastated by the hurricanes in the form of solid business opportunities and prompt, steady pay. In addition, government procurement would open doors for many local small businesses to participate in the long-term reconstruction work in the Gulf Coast areas. While many small businesses would benefit from other forms of disaster assistance, many of them want to get back to work and into business as soon as possible. Technical assistance and outreach through the SBA, the Procurement Technical Assistance Centers, the Federal Offices of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilizations, and other organizations could prove invaluable to these firms.

Yet, outreach alone would not ensure fair participation of small businesses in Gulf Coast reconstruction contracts. To promote jobs creation and development in the disaster region, the Federal Government must set and follow definitive goals for small business participation. Prior to the disaster, small construction companies in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana received nearly $500 million in Federal contracts a year. Total small business contracts in the Gulf Coast region exceeded $3 billion a year. With the Federal cost of hurricane relief and rebuilding estimated at over $100 billion, small businesses, particularly those located in the disaster area and that employ individuals in the affected areas, should receive their fair share of Federal contracting and subcontracting dollars. My legislation establishes a 30 percent prime contracting goal and a 40 percent subcontracting goal on each agency's hurricane-related reconstruction contracts. These goals are compatible with the Department of Homeland Security's and the Army Corps of Engineers' history of small business achievements.

My legislation would also address two unfortunate provisions in the Second Katrina Supplemental Appropriations that unwisely changed the emergency procurement authority Congress granted to contracting officers in the aftermath of 9/11 and reclassified many reconstruction contracts into categories that excluded small firms from prime contracting or subcontracting. I spoke out against these provisions, and Congress ultimately repealed them last year. Nonetheless, this bill puts in place safeguards to ensure that small firms do not fall prey to such actions again. My legislation protects the Small Business Reservation (SBR) for disaster-related contracts below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT). The SAT and the SBR are normally set at $100,000. The Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act allowed Federal agencies to use simplified procedures for all contracts below the SAT, but only if they attempt to place, or ``reserve'', these contracts to qualified small businesses. Many small businesses qualify for contracts under expedited procedures under the Small Business Act, which would help to move the reconstruction process forward. The SBR does not delay relief contracting. If no qualified small business is available to do the job, agencies can place the contract with any qualified supplier. This provision restores the parity between the SBR and the SAT any time the SAT is increased for disaster-related contracts.

My legislation also restores small business subcontracting requirements in emergency procurements. The Second Katrina Supplemental abolished small business subcontracting requirements for all Katrina- related contracts by treating contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars as purchases of commercial items, like contracts for office supplies. This is an improper and unjustified procurement practice. The Army Corps of Engineers currently imposes a 73 percent subcontracting requirement on hurricane-related contracts, demonstrating that the subcontracting requirements are not onerous. Under the Small Business Act, only a ``good faith effort'' to provide subcontracting opportunities is required. The legislation allows a grace period of 30 days to negotiate an acceptable plan (subject to a 50 percent payment limitation until the plan is concluded).

Looking forward, my legislation directs the Administrators of the OFPP and the SBA to work with other Federal agencies to ensure creation of multiple-award contracts for disaster recovery which are set aside for small business concerns. As the GAO testified before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last year, Federal agencies lacked adequate acquisition planning for hurricane disaster relief. This measure would reverse this practice both for ongoing and for future disaster recovery efforts.

I am a firm believer that the reconstruction acquisition process must be not only efficient, but also transparent. In this regard, the Federal Government provides central website postings for all Katrina- related opportunities through the SBA's Sub-NET. Unfortunately, the SBA's Sub-NET subcontracting database, though recommended by the Government, has been until recently unused by the Katrina prime contractors. My legislation directs all prime contractors which received substantial Federal contracts related to the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita for which subcontracting plans are required to post subcontracting announcements on the SBA's Sub-NET online database.

Finally, my legislation addresses the government's failure to direct contract dollars to those who need them the most--local small businesses. During the hearings in my Committee last November, I was deeply troubled to discover that Federal agencies failed to grant business opportunities to qualified Gulf Coast small firms. These shocking practices make a mockery of our national commitment to rebuild the Gulf Coast. For instance, while investigating Hurricane Katrina contracts at my request, the GAO found a memorandum from an official in the Army Corps of Engineers informing the SBA that the Corps has successfully concealed the information about millions of dollars in upcoming contracts for mobile classrooms in Mississippi from, among others, local small businesses. The Corps requested that SBA approve giving this work to an out-of-state company without any prior experience. As a result, the Corps excluded a local small business, licensed by the Mississippi Department of Education, from bidding. Incredibly, the SBA obliged and approved the contract three times, eventually increasing its value from $10 million to $47 million.

Practices such as these violate Section 15 of the Small Business Act, which unequivocally directs priority in government contracts ``to small business concerns which shall perform a substantial proportion of the production on those contracts and subcontracts within areas of concentrated unemployment or underemployment or within labor surplus areas.'' It is hard to imagine a clearer example of an ``area of concentrated unemployment or underemployment'' or a area with labor surplus than the devastated Gulf Coast region. Nonetheless, some have ignored the clear command of the statute. My legislation would designate the Gulf Coast disaster area as a labor surplus area for purposes of the Small Business Act's preference for labor surplus area contractors. In addition, this provision authorizes Federal agencies to use contractual set-asides, incentives, and penalties to enhance participation of local small business concerns in disaster recovery contracts and subcontracts.

Finally, my legislation suspends the application of the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration (Comp Demo) program to Gulf Coast disaster contracts. The Comp Demo Program denies the protections of the Small Business Act like set-asides to small businesses involved in construction and

specialty trade contracting, refuse systems and related services, landscaping, pest control, non-nuclear ship repair, and architectural and engineering services, including surveying and mapping. Historically, small businesses have been the backbone of these industries, and these industries are in heavy demand for disaster recovery efforts. The Comp Demo Program, ostensibly a test program, denies Federal agencies likes the Departments of Defense and nine other agencies the ability to do small business set-asides. Essentially, the Comp Demo Program reserves whole industries for big business. Last year, at the request of the Department of Defense, I supported an amendment to terminate the Comp Demo Program. The Senate agreed that small businesses in all industries should receive the full protections of the Small Business Act, and unanimously voted to repeal this Program. Suspending this Program for Katrina and Rita contracts would go a long way towards restoring fair treatment for small businesses affected by this disaster.

I believe this legislation will find broad support in this body. Indeed, the HUBZone designation, the outreach programs, and the surety bonding increase have already been adopted by the Senate on a vote of 96-0 as part of my amendment to the Science, State, Commerce, and Justice Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. The provisions dealing with the small business reservation offset and retention of small business subcontracting in emergency procurements were cosponsored by a bi-partisan group of Senators as part of my bi-partisan disaster relief bill, S. 1807. With the Senate leadership and every Senator of both parties on the record in support of greater access of small businesses to Federal contracts, I look forward to speedy consideration of this legislation and its support by the Senate.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5013, the so-called Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. There is really only one word to describe this bill: Insane. The proper title of this bill should be The Right to Sue Cops and National Guardsmen Act of 2006.

The premise of the bill is that following Hurricane Katrina, and possibility other disasters, law enforcement personnel illegally seized guns from people who had legal permits to own a gun.

In some cases, they may have been seized because law enforcement did not want guns inside a public shelter. In other cases, people evacuated and left guns behind, and the police collected these guns so they would not fall into the hands of looters.

The NRA claimed this was illegal and sued the New Orleans Police Department. The New Orleans Police Department stated it had to determine who were the rightful owners of the guns before they could return them. I believe the lawsuit has since been settled, and the guns are being returned to their rightful owners.

Yet, today, we are considering a bill that would ostensibly solve this so-called problem of guns being illegally seized following a disaster. Since the lawsuit arises from this issue that has been resolved, I do not see why the legislation is necessary.

But how does this bill solve the supposed problem? It actually creates a private right of action for gun owners to sue personally cops, National Guardsmen, FBI officers, and other law enforcement personnel who are simply carrying out their jobs following a disaster or emergency situation.

The bill says that no Federal employer officer, including the military, National Guardsmen, or any person connected to the Federal Government, such as members of police departments, local police departments, that receive Federal funding, or anyone acting in support of relief to a major disaster or emergency, may seize any firearm which is allowed under Federal or local law. If they do seize such a gun, it would allow a gun owner to sue a cop or National Guardsman personally, not the government, sue the cop personally, even if the officer was carrying out his official duties. And the gun owner can even recover attorneys fees.

Aside from the fact that the entire premise of the bill is ridiculous, there are a number of serious problems with the legislation.

First, the presumption is all in favor of the gun owner and not the cop. There is no requirement that the gun owner prove the gun is legal at the time it is seized. So, if a cop sees someone with a gun, he has no evidence of his right to have a gun, maybe the cop suspects he was a looter, if the cop takes the gun, he is personally liable if it turns out he had a legal right to it later. Also, if a cop finds a gun on the floor or in a store or in a home and takes it to prevent it from getting into the hands of looters, that cop can now be sued. So let us leave the guns lying around for the looters to pick up and shoot people with.

Second, if this bill passes, Federal response officials and aid workers, such as the Red Cross, would have no say where guns are carried. They could not prohibit guns in public shelters where kids are present, nor could they prevent armed gangs and vigilantes from showing up and wandering the streets with guns. Private volunteers with guns can show up in any disaster situation, and law enforcement would have no say.

Third, the bill applies to a ``major disaster or emergency,'' which includes a terrorist attack. So if the New York Police Department responds at the World Trade Center, or the military responds to an attack at the Pentagon, and there is a group of guys with guns, law enforcement cannot disarm them without risking being sued. Why would we want to tie the hands of the military responding to a terrorist attack?

This bill has a chilling effect on law enforcement responding to a major disaster or to a terrorist attack. If law enforcement illegally seizes firearms, or seizes firearms that turn out to be legally owned, even though they have no reason to believe they are at the time, aggrieved parties already have the right to sue, as was the case when the NRA sued the NOPD. I should restate that. If law enforcement illegally seizes firearms, aggrieved parties today can sue, as was the case when the NRA sued the New Orleans Police Department. The only reason for this bill, to give an additional right, seems to be vindictive, to force some poor police officer or National Guardsman doing his job into bankruptcy.

If there really is a problem, this legislation is not the way to fix it. It is too broad, it is poorly drafted, and it will create more dangers in times of major disasters.

That is why the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Violence Policy Center have expressed opposition to this bill. I also have a letter in opposition from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represent 57 major law enforcement organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

Major Cities Chiefs,

Office of the President,

June 19, 2006.

Re H.R. 5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal

Protection Act of 2006.''

United States Congress,

Washington, DC.

Dear Legislator: The Major Cities Chiefs (MCC) Association

represents fifty-seven (57) major law enforcement

organizations in the United States and Canada who are located

in a metropolitan area of more than 1.5 million population

and employ more than 1,000 law enforcement officers. All our

officers are actively engaged in providing law enforcement,

public safety and homeland security to the citizens of our

communities every day. We are writing in opposition to H.R.

5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection

Act of 2006.''

As law enforcement professionals, we understand and

acknowledge the Constitutional limitations on police power to

confiscate personal property. These limitations, however,

must be balanced with the need to maintain public safety and

security during emergency situations. We are concerned that

the bill would void local laws that guide police actions

regarding firearms in emergency situations. We also feel that

police should be allowed to take into safekeeping any

dangerous weapons and/or explosives they find abandoned in a

building or home.

Additionally, as law enforcement executives, we feel if the

President, a governor and/or mayor declares a state of

emergency for a devastated area after a disaster, these

officials should also be allowed to temporarily include

provisions for a weapon-free zone during the area's recovery.

For example, law enforcement may need to ensure that

evacuation sites are free of weapons. Sister law enforcement

agencies responding to a disaster must also be free to carry

their firearms into another jurisdiction and help maintain

law and order until the devastated area recovers.

Finally, we are concerned that the bill creates a new right

to file lawsuits against police who take abandoned guns for

safekeeping in an emergency or create emergency secure areas

free from weapons. The bill should not create a new right to

file lawsuits against law enforcement seeking to safeguard

the public in emergency situations.

Should you need additional information, please feel free to

contact MCC's General Counsel Craig Ferrell for further

clarification of our position.

Sincerely,

Harold L. Hurtt,

MCC President.

If the gentleman will yield for a question, under this bill, if a law enforcement officer had completed evacuating people from someplace and saw a few guns lying around in a house, and didn't know who they belonged to but wanted to take them up so that looters who might come by later couldn't take them and present a menace to the public, would this prevent him from doing that?

Would this subject him to a lawsuit later personally if it turned out that the owner of the house came back and said, why did he take my legally owned guns?

I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Answer the question, please.

Reclaiming my time, I am not talking about after arresting looters. Law enforcement people see guns lying around in a house. They don't know who they belong to.

Let me say this. There are lots of reasons why law enforcement may be going by: to check on the safety of people, to look into a house to see if anybody is there lying wounded or whatever. They see guns lying around. No one is there, thank God. They are all out, but they see guns lying around. Under this bill, if they pick up those guns, lest looters come and find them later and it later turns out that those guns legally belonged to the homeowner, when that homeowner returned, he could sue the individual privately. And, therefore, no cop in his right mind would pick up those guns. He would have to leave it for the looters.

This bill, as I said before, is insane.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

This bill does not create nor does it delete any existing rights or State laws. So for example if there are existing State laws prohibiting guns in State shelters, this bill would do nothing to remove that prohibition. For example, many States already have existing laws prohibiting guns or firearms in schools, in sports arenas, or in other areas commonly used as shelters. Nothing in this bill would override that prohibition.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman again for yielding.

Again, if there is existing law allowing the Governor in a state of emergency or other circumstances to take extraordinary measures, nothing in this legislation would prohibit that Governor from doing so, or in Louisiana's case, it may by the primary law enforcement officer of the parish, we call them parishes, not counties, nothing in this bill would override, supercede existing State laws that allow the Governor or chief executive officer from doing so.

Madam Speaker, again, let us be clear. I know there has been a lot of confusion and a lot of rhetoric about the private right of action contained in this bill.

In Louisiana's case, going back to what happened specifically after Katrina, our State has already passed a State law prohibiting anybody in State or local law agencies from confiscating legally owned guns. The intent of this law is to apply to those agencies receiving Federal funds. The intent of the right of action was to counteract what happened last year when, even despite a court judgment, despite a ruling from a judge, there was still not compliance with that court ruling to return the firearms.

So the intent is to be able to allow the individuals to recover, for example, attorneys fees, court costs to put some teeth into this bill to make sure that if a judge does indeed rule in favor of a plaintiff that action will be taken. That did not always happen last year in Louisiana after Katrina.

I thank my colleague from New York for handling this bill and for supporting this in committee.

Madam Speaker, I have a letter from the Fraternal Order of Police endorsing H.R. 5013, which I am pleased to submit for the Record.

Grand Lodge,

Fraternal Order of Police,

Washington, DC, July 24, 2006.

Hon. Bobby Jindal,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Jindal, I am writing to you on behalf

of the members of the Fraternal Order of Police to advise you

of our support for H.R 5013, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal

Protection Act,'' which is scheduled to be considered by the

House tomorrow

This legislation would prohibit the use of any Federal

funds from being used to seize firearms during a major

disaster or emergency, except under circumstances currently

applicable under Federal or State law. As we witnessed in the

communities along the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane

Katrina, large scale critical incidents demanded the full

attention of law enforcement officers and other first

responders. During this time, the preservation of life--

search and rescue missions--is the chief priority of every

first responder. Further, breakdowns in communications

systems and disaster-related transportation or other

infrastructure failures will lengthen a law enforcement

agency's response times, increasing the degree to which

citizens may have to protect themselves against criminals. A

law-abiding citizen who possess a firearm lawfully represents

no danger to law enforcement officers or any other first

responder.

On behalf of the more than 324,000 members of the Fraternal

Order of Police, I am pleased to offer our support for this

bill and look forward to working with you to getting it

passed. If I can be of any further assistance on this issue,

please do not hesitate to contact me or Executive Director

Jim Pasco in my Washington office,

Sincerely,

Chuck Canterbury,

National President.

Madam Speaker, a lot has been made and said about this bill, H.R. 5013, and I want to take people back into the days, the hours right after Hurricane Katrina that devastated my home State. I want to remind people my constituents, many of them, were sitting in their homes without power, without water, and without communication. It was literally impossible to pick up a phone and call 9/11. For many, there was no recourse or ability to call for the police.

Now, the first responders, the local and State law enforcement agents, many did a heroic job; however, they couldn't physically be at every place at every time. Indeed, many law enforcement officials advised residents to only return if they had firearms. Members of my staff were advised only to return if they were in possession of a firearm. It was a very different time than what we are normally accustomed to in our cities.

H.R. 5013 makes sure that those that are obeying the law, lawful residents, are able to keep their legally owned

firearms, whether it be in their home, in their cars, in their businesses. There were instances where people were deprived of this right. Now, let me repeat this. At the same time that we had looters, at the same time we had other problems in our State and in our city, we absolutely had bureaucrats depriving people of their legal constitutional rights to possess a legally owned firearm.

Now, contrast that with the situation in our neighboring State of Mississippi where the Governor famously said, ``If you loot, we will shoot.'' There were literally signs put up saying, ``If you loot, we will shoot.'' This bill is intended to make sure that, God forbid, if there is another hurricane, another natural disaster, another calamity in my home State, that my constituents aren't left defenseless, they aren't left without the ability to call 9/11, they are not left without the ability to defend their homes, defend their properties, or defend their families.

Now, indeed, Ronald Reagan once famously said, and I will paraphrase, at the very least, we want any potential looters to have to think twice before they go through that front door. We want them to at least think twice that maybe those potential victims are armed and maybe that can serve as a useful deterrence.

There are many things this bill does not do. It does not create any new rights or any other limitations under Federal, State, or local law. Now, I was pleased to answer the questions of my colleague from New York. This bill, further, does not prevent, does not prevent confiscating guns from felons. It has no effect on law enforcement operations outside of the disaster relief situation.

It does not have any impact on law enforcement's ability, for example, to go after criminals and looters, to stop suspect behavior. It has no impact on law enforcement's ability to secure weapons, for example, that may be lying outside of somebody's possession. States are able, under this bill, to regulate their own shelters. States are able to adopt their own laws.

For example, in Minnesota, a firearm cannot be brought on private property when the owner has posted a notice of that prohibition. My bill does not change this. This bill specifically allows the Coast Guard and others who are evacuating individuals to have their own regulations, to have their own requirements for getting on those boats, or getting on those helicopters.

For example, it allows the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition of entry. If a State, and many do, if a State does give express authority to ban possession of a firearm to the government, to others, my bill does nothing to supersede that.

In conclusion, I am proud that my bill has the support of over 150 Members of this House, Democrats and Republicans, and it has the support of the national Fraternal Order of Police. A similar bill has been adopted in my home State of Louisiana. It does one simple thing: it merely protects residents' legal right to own firearms.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

What happened actually in New Orleans, let's actually go back to what happened.

I will, but let me actually tell you what happened in New Orleans. I would like to offer a few facts for the record as well.

There was looting, for example, of stores, where guns were potentially going to fall into the wrong hands. Nothing in this bill would prohibit law enforcement, after arresting those looters, from securing those firearms.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, I am talking about the instance of firearms lying around this store that has been looted. In the situation the gentleman describes, there is no reason for law enforcement officers to be in somebody's home that has been abandoned.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with my colleague from Illinois, Senator Obama, concerning what we believe is yet another important step in reducing our Nation's dependence on petroleum fuels.

S. 264, the Alternative Energy Refueling System Act of 2006 would provide an incentive for gas station owners across the country to install alternative refueling systems for automobiles. This legislation builds upon the existing tax credit that gas station owners can receive for installing alternative energy tanks. Most importantly, I would like to point out to my colleagues that this legislation does not require any additional taxes.

Currently, as a result of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, a tax credit of up to $30,000 is available through 2009 for gas station owners who install an alternative refueling system. Eligible alternative fuels include those that contain 85 percent by volume of ethanol, natural gas, compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, hydrogen, or any mixture of biodiesel or diesel fuel that is composed of at least 20 percent biodiesel.

Our legislation basically allows gas station owners and operators to be reimbursed for 30 percent of the costs--not to exceed $30,000--of installing an alternative energy system.

One of the primary benefits of this legislation is that it can be used for up to two alternative refueling systems per gas station. This is important because under the tax credit that was part of last year's energy bill, a gas station owner can only utilize the $30,000 tax credit one time--even for those individuals who own multiple refueling stations.

For example, if a gas station owner in South Dakota, Illinois, or elsewhere wanted to install three new alternative refueling systems at his or her gas station, under the current system that owner would be limited to the $30,000 tax credit for a single alternative fuel system.

Under our legislation, that same gas station owner would continue to receive the tax credit for the first alternative fuel system. However, the station owner could also be reimbursed for 30 percent of the costs--not to exceed $30,000--for up to two additional alternative refueling systems. Therefore, the legislation we have introduced today would drastically increase the incentives for gas station owners to install additional alternative fuel systems.

I am hopeful that if this bill is signed into law, gas station owners across the country will be able to use this reimbursement mechanism to help consumers who already own or are thinking of purchasing an alternative fuel vehicle.

Senator Obama and I are both strong supporters of alternative fuels. In fact, South Dakota and Illinois are leaders in the production of ethanol--our Nation's leading renewable fuel. The legislation we are introducing today in no way preferences ethanol over other alternative fuels. In fact, they are all treated equally under our bill.

Alternative fuels such as E-85, which is composed of 85 percent ethanol, are starting to gain popularity. However, while automakers such as Ford and General Motors are producing an increasing number of flex fuel vehicles, which can run on either E-85 or gasoline, there is a critical need for more alternative refueling sites across the country. Many individuals would be shocked to know that of the 180,000 gas stations across the country, only 600--far less than 1 percent-- offer alternative fuels such as E-85.

There are approximately 5 million flexible fuel vehicles on the road today. The addition of alternative refueling systems--such as E-85, compressed natural gas, biodiesel, and hydrogen--will allow American consumers the ability to refuel their vehicles with alternative fuels that are better for both the environment and our Nation's security.

As President Bush noted in his State of the Union Address earlier this year, ``America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.'' Since being elected to Congress I have worked hard in promoting the development of alternative energy sources. In fact, last year's energy bill marked an important milestone due to the 7.5 billion gallon renewable fuels standard that I and others advocated.

S. 2614 utilizes the interest earned from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, which currently has a $2.6 billion surplus, to reimburse eligible gas station owners who add alternative refueling systems.

This trust fund continues to grow from a portion of the Federal gas tax--one-tenth of a cent per gallon--which amounted to roughly $190 million last year. The fund also continues to grow from the interest that is earned on the balance of the fund, which amounted to roughly $67 million in 2005.

I firmly believe that the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program serves an important function in keeping our land and water safe from storage tank releases. Our legislation simply seeks to use a portion of the interest earned annually to reimburse gas station owners for a portion of the costs associated with the installation of new alternative refueling systems.

An added benefit of using a portion of the interest from this trust fund is that the installation of alternative refueling systems reduces the overall number of petroleum tanks that can cause leaks.

Additionally, this bill ensures that States are not required to use their annual allocation of appropriated funding to reimburse gas station owners for the installation of alternative refueling systems. Such reimbursement would come directly from the EPA Administrator.

Mr. President, this bill would help to lessen our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of oil and--increase the use of alternative fuels. It is a step in the right direction, and is something I hope my colleagues will support.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time remains on both sides.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).

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

Mr. Speaker, the principal problem with this bill is that it didn't have any hearings. The bill was introduced and moved through the committee without deliberation, without consideration. Many of the issues that have been discussed this afternoon on the floor were issues that could and should have been raised in the course of hearings, and that would have been resolved, as they have been resolved in the bill now under consideration, but not in the bill introduced nor in the bill reported from committee.

Now, the appropriate order of business in our committee is we, unless there is overwhelming consensus, we have a hearing on a bill. And even on bills in which there is overwhelming consensus on both sides, we have hearings on the legislation, because there is always something that may come up that we hadn't thought about. And there were things that came up in this bill that the drafters hadn't thought about, and those were issues of law enforcement, public safety officials, specifically the Coast Guard.

The Coast Guard is mobilized to deal with a disaster when it has to evacuate persons stricken by disaster, hurricanes, floods, at sea under tempestuous circumstances, as we see on the Weather Channel the Coast Guard nobly rescuing people under extraordinary adverse circumstances. The bill, as introduced, would have prohibited a Coast Guard officer from requiring a person boarding a rescue helicopter, boarding a rescue vessel, a search and rescue ship, would have prohibited those persons from surrendering their firearm. Not to seize the firearm, not to take it away permanently, but to say we will keep this for you until you are safely onshore. There is no law that gives the Coast Guard the authority to do that.

Now, we should have had the bill under consideration in the committee, and we should have provided that authority to the Coast Guard, and that authority would be perfectly acceptable to advocates of firearm ownership. I have been, for 32 years, an advocate for firearm ownership. I have supported the right to keep and bear arms for all my service in the Congress and long before that, as a young lad growing up in northern Minnesota going out hunting before school and after school and on the weekends. But this is a different situation, and we needed that authority for the Coast Guard.

So now we have it in this language that is on page 5, line 19 of the bill before us. Subsection (b) Limitation: nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person from requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used to rescue or evacuate during a major disaster or emergency.

That is sensible. That is reasonable. It is not confiscation. The Coast Guard in this case, the agency that we have in mind, will hold the firearm and, after the rescue is completed, the person gets the firearm back. Now, we should have had that in the bill before it even came to the House floor.

The other problem was that, on the face of it, it would prohibit operators of shelters from requiring the surrender of a weapon as a condition for entry into the shelter. Now, this same, similar language, operates to protect those who operate shelters, such as the Super Dome or the Convention Center.

Now, the principal author of the bill, the gentleman from Louisiana, spoke with accuracy about the circumstances in New Orleans and with some detail. I know of circumstances myself. My brother-in-law, who still lives in New Orleans, in fact, both my brother-in-laws live in New Orleans were affected by the flood.

I have a very close friend whose home was broken into. They were on the second floor. They heard the people looting the place. His gun was on the first floor. He had no access to the gun. He couldn't protect the house, so to save themselves, they fled into the attic while the looters were stripping their house. They might have been able to do something if they had had the gun on the second floor and had more access to it.

There are many circumstances of this kind, where the person, as the gentleman from Louisiana said, should be able to protect him or herself in their own home. But you don't need a gun to go into the Superdome. You don't need a gun when you are in the Convention Center. If you have one and you are there, this legislation permits, under and in accordance with State and local law, the surrender of that firearm for the time of keeping or refuge in the center. That is what it does. So we have a good balance between the second amendment rights of our fellow citizens, the responsibilities of the Coast Guard, protection of the Coast Guard against frivolous actions, and protection of fellow citizens who operate in all good faith, shelters for victims of disaster. In that spirit, this legislation ought to be enacted, and we ought to support the bill and it ought to pass handily in this House.

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