Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, briefly let me just say, this issue of the candy manufacturers leaving this country has nothing to do with the price of sugar. The price of sugar has been cheap for over 25 years. They're leaving because they're getting health benefits for their people at a cheaper price in Canada and Mexico. The utilities are cheaper, and the packages that are put together for them by the international countries across the border to our north and our south are taking them away. It has nothing to do with the price of sugar. Sugar is healthy. Sugar is better than the chemicals that people put in their food that cost a whole lot more. We're worried about energy; we're worried about food. Let's keep sugar sound in this country.

We're not energy independent. For the first time in the history of our country, 2 years ago we imported more foodstuff than we exported.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for his comments. Being from an oil-producing State such as Louisiana, we have for decades been producing America's energy needs. To this day, approximately 30 percent of all the energy supply is domestically produced in our coastal areas in Louisiana. The same areas that produce all that oil and gas are also home to what we refer to as America's wetlands. The coastal marshes of south Louisiana are predominately the ones we are losing the most.

Ironically, in my district they provide roughly 30 percent of the seafood to this country. Now, people say, how can the oil industry and the seafood industry coexist side by side? Well, for a number of years, back at the beginning of time, so to speak, when the oil and gas industry began offshore drilling and wetlands drilling, there weren't the environmental standards and all the other standards that are put forth now. There wasn't the technology that is there today. So, yes, there were mistakes made.

We have learned from our mistakes. Our Government has recognized it. The States have recognized it. They have addressed those issues. If you look back after the storms, after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, if you look at the devastation that occurred across the Gulf Coast, did you hear of oil spills? The worst spills that you had actually were the gas tanks that were leaking fuel and oil on land at the oil refineries and from the service stations throughout the flooded areas.

There's a misconception. There's a fear by people that's more the fear of fear itself that people seem to concern themselves with. We have in this country, as was mentioned by some of the previous speakers in the first hour, an industry that may be misunderstood. It is called ``big oil''. But if you look who is producing the oil and gas in the United States, for the most part it is small, the independent. It may be a company such as Devon out of Oklahoma. Yes, it is on the stock market, but it was a company started in 1971 by a father and son. They took that gamble. They got out there.

It has, in fact, by the numbers I have seen, been determined that for the major oil companies to drill in the United States, whether onshore or offshore, whether deep water or shallow water, it is more expensive an investment and proposition than it is to drill in other parts of the world. Of course, there are some security problems going on in other parts of the world.

As we look at what we believe in in this country and what we should believe in in this Congress, we talk about energy independence. And energy independence, as mentioned, is not about Republicans and Democrats. It is about the old folks. It is about the young starting families. It is about the working people. It is about everybody that pumps gas in that car. It is about everybody that goes to a job.

When you look at natural gas, as Mr. Peterson talked about, it is a clean fuel and we have ample supplies throughout this country and we ought to be producing those fuels. However, our own policies have seemed to stymie us.

The Blue Dogs have put together a package that we are proposing that is a principle, not a package, a principle that we feel we ought to be looking at and having guide us as we go through the process of developing energy legislation.

We are not going to get this country moving forward unless we encourage development of oil and gas, alternative fuels, green fuels, whatever. It all has to be part of the mix. This is not about one fuel being better than the other. This is not one fuel seeing if it can ``out politic'' another fuel. This is about trying to bring together the country to devise an energy policy, and we as the Blue Dogs felt that it was time for us to try and take the lead and to give some guidance and leadership in this matter.

With that, I turn the floor back over to my friend, Mr. Matheson.

I think about the technology as it was brought up a second ago. One of the concerns that we have to have here as a Congress is there is a lot of technology out there. But there is a lot of perception that there is more technology than is factually out there. What we can't do with Federal policy is put demands and time slots, et cetera, production, that far exceeds what the technology provides for.

We need to make sure that we put a bill out there that is going to be reasonable. We don't want to run off our good-paying jobs. As discussed by Mr. Peterson earlier, natural gas is a basis for everything from fertilizer to foods to plastic, heating our homes, you name it, it is there. We need to make sure as the government, that we provide in the policy sections of these bills not only the financial support mechanism through tax breaks and other mechanisms to encourage the development of alternative fuels and to encourage the research and development of these new concepts, these new technologies, we as a government need to put that carrot out there so as to get industry to participate and to get involved in it and not discourage it.

Some of what we have seen in some of the legislation is a concern to us because it is going to be difficult to become energy independent if you are delaying the time frames for providing drilling permits to drilling companies, if you are having longer review periods for whether and when you can drill. We don't want to walk over the environmental issue. We want that to be taken under full consideration.

But right now the International Energy Agency is telling us that by the year 2030 if not sooner, this world will be short on oil and natural gas and the fossil fuels that we need to drive all of our economies worldwide. Now when you start looking at who holds the key to all the energy in the world, it is not the United States. It is in fact not the oil companies. It is the foreign countries most of whom are not necessarily our best friends.

So as a country, we need to start thinking about energy independence if we are going to stay strong. I have told people that being a strong country means when times get tough, as they did back in World War II, my parents and others, they manufactured airplanes and boats. The Higgins Crafts were made right in New Orleans. The wives went to work at the plants. The husbands went to war. And wives went to war, too, I'm being discriminatory, but everybody played a part. We were producing all of the food we needed in this country at that time and more. We were producing the energy that we needed and more. We could manufacture everything that we needed and more. And now, we as a country have come to a position where we need to import most of our energy.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States imported 36 percent of domestically consumed crude oil and petroleum products and 4.3 percent of our natural gas supply in 1973. In 2005, we imported 66 percent of our crude oil and 16 percent of our natural gas from foreign sources. Morever, EIA projections indicate that the United States will consume 21 percent more oil and 19 percent more natural gas by 2030. Those numbers are dramatic, and that is just one country in this world who has been and should continue to be one of the strongest and mightiest and most independent countries in the world.

But what fuels the farms, is the energy that we need. What fuels the ability to get the energy, is the farms that feed the people. So it is part of a cycle. We need to make sure that if we are going to stay a strong, independent, viable country that can defend itself should it need to, then have to have an energy policy and we as Blue Dogs believe we need to provide and help guide this Congress in a way that brings us good energy policy for the long term, not for the next week, not for the next month, not to the next Congress, but for years to come.

We are drilling in areas and there are questions amongst our friends and colleagues. When you look at the gulf coast area, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas and Alabama who front on the gulf, are producing oil and gas for this country. Florida has ample supplies, but there are some restrictions off the coast, and if you come up the entire East Coast and West Coast. Now I don't fault my friends from those States not wanting to drill off their shores. But at the same time, we can't sit and talk about bringing oil and gas prices down if we are not all into this national effort. That is another issue. That is not going to be part of this bill, but that is something that Charlie Melancon concerns himself with.

I'd like to expound on what Mr. Scott just had to say. I've talked about that since the storms that devastated south Louisiana. I've seen the marshes of south Louisiana that I grew up hunting and fishing in, where my son and I have spent many, many weekends and weekdays and just out there enjoying the land and the water. And I've got a new grandson, and of course, after these storms, seeing the damage to these wetlands, these estuaries, seeing and hearing the facts that I'm hearing on climate change and the concern with, as I tell people, there will always be a planet called earth. The question is will there be an earth with life or with quality of life.

And we are in the generation, we are in a time in this Congress where I believe, as you, we have an opportunity to do it, but we have to do it right because I don't think we're going to get multiple chances at it. We've got to try and make those decisions as wisely as we can so that, whatever it is that we do, it is for the next generation and those that succeed them.

Hopefully, when they read the history books, the three of us and the other Blue Dogs and the other Members of this Congress, both Republican and Democrat, will go down well in history as saying they had the foresight.

Think about the people that put together and wrote the Constitution of the United States, and look at how we've lived with that Constitution for well over 200 years, and you think about it. It should be possible that people of our times and our capabilities can come together and work and come up with a policy that gets this country, gets this world and makes it work for us so that we can all live in harmony and peace.

And one of the things that I can remember a number of years back in one of the presidential elections, one of the presidential candidates went to the grocery store and didn't know what the checkout scanner was. Well, you know, there are kids in this world, I hope there's no Members of Congress that still believe that milk comes from the dairy department at the grocery store and not from the cow on the farm.

And the same with gas from the gas pump. There's many people out there that don't realize that you have to go and drill for oil in order to put that gasoline in that automobile to run those kids to baseball or basketball or cheerleading or whatever.

And so we need to understand what it is that drives the country. It is not a mechanical pump at the convenience store at the corner. It is an industry that needs to have a return on investment, and it is the government that needs to set policy that makes it so that the industry wants to produce it and produce it in volumes.

Yes, we have not done what we should be doing to encourage investment not only in the refining capacity. We're starting to see that. We did some of that about 2 years ago. There is some on-line. In my district alone, there's at least two refineries that are expanding. One of them will be a huge expansion project.

And the problem that I've always said is it's not that we can't produce the oil and gas or buy it from some other country, but you still have to have the capability of processing it through. But you still have, because you are not producing it fast enough in this country, dependence upon foreign oil coming in.

Ironically, this past week, speaking of climate change, there was a scientist that decided to swim in the Arctic Ocean and dove in and swam 6/10ths of a mile in 29-degree water in the Arctic Ocean. The symbolism there was we have a problem. He is the first man in history to swim for any length in the Arctic Ocean in a swimming suit. He might need other testing, but at the same time I think he's proved his point to me.

For those people that don't think that there's such a thing as global warming and/or climate change, the scientific community has documented it. It's there. We've talked about it. You don't have to believe everything that's said by a Member of Congress. Sometimes I doubt some of the things I hear, but the things that I see, the horrific hurricanes, the tornado activity throughout the country in areas that have never been affected, the floods that are occurring consistently, the droughts that are occurring throughout the United States, some people say, well, you just know more about them because the news is there. No, they're there. They're being documented. They are more frequent, more severe than we've ever seen.

So we need to move fast. We need to move together. We need to come together as a country, as a Congress, and put together policy that our kids and our grandkids and the future generations will have hope that the world will be as good as it was for us.

I think about Americans, myself as an American, and how spoiled we are with just being able to get in our car and go where we want, when we want. I like to tell people, and it's not that I should be bragging on it, because I'm not, but I think I'm probably a typical American family man. I

have got a Suburban and a Tahoe, I mean, that's not good, but I have got a boat. My son has a boat. We like to hunt, and we like to fish.

We have lifestyles that we have been fortunate enough that we can live. But now we're coming to a point in time where instead of maybe having a Suburban and a Tahoe, I could do with just having one and have a more efficient vehicle that got better mileage.

Part of what we are talking about in the energy efficiency system CAFE limits. Now, you can get to the limits drastically, as Mr. Matheson expressed, by just saying, by year 2015 or 2018, you have got to reach a certain limit for automobiles and trucks, and, you know, just damn everybody else, doesn't matter about the jobs, let's just get there.

Or you can take it as a curve that takes you to that point, maybe not as acutely as a straight line, and says that you got to get there by 2022, and you have got to achieve some goals on the way up there, that doesn't provide that we lose the manufacturing jobs and the manufacturers. I mean, after World War II, there were 33 vehicle types in America, our labels, as they call it. There are 335 now, different vehicle labels out there in the United States.

We are spoiled, and we still want to have those luxuries and be able to live those lives, the lifestyle. But we all have to start, first of all, all of us, are going to have to start pinching ourselves and come to the realization that we are going to have to make some changes in our lifestyles if we want to keep this world and this country vibrant in more ways than just fuel economy.

So the CAFE limits, we are going to have to choose, choose something that works, choose something that is not drastic, so that America can make that transition, so that America doesn't have to just drop everything and start all over again.

When we talked about infrastructure, we need to provide incentives so that you see some of the problems you have with providing electricity. In the northeast, you saw a lot of it over the last several years. Some of our transmission capacities and the grids Mr. Matheson talked about. Yes, it's great to go produce solar power or wind energy, but you have still got to get it somewhere.

If you are going to do ethanol, they are saying there is a problem with putting it in the pipeline, so you will have to build special pipelines just for ethanol. But somebody has got to have incentive to go build those pipelines.

We talk about having fuel-efficient cars. They are all over the place, flex fuel. You can walk out of here. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of them. But you can't find a station to find E-85. It's not available.

So to do one thing that sounds good, it's part of a whole package, and that's what the Blue Dogs are trying to make sure that we keep focused. There was a guy that I knew once, he says, just remember, keep your eye on the ball, and the ball here is getting America moved forward, but getting America's energy policy done right.

That's what we have got to stay focused on as a country, as a Congress, and this administration, to help us make sure that we provide good, sound energy policy.

I agree with that, and in one closing remark, just a thought, as people in public life, you have times where constituents are there wanting things, and, of course, as there is the old expression, what have you done for me today? I hope when this energy policy debate is over, and we have come to a consensus and passed a bill, that it's a good bill, and that we can say to you, I worked to secure your energy future, and I hope that it's going to be one that carries you for generations.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

I have heard a lot of facts from both sides for and against. And from a State that has been producing oil and gas off its coast in its coastal waters, on land, and every place else that is possible for well over 50 years, and I think Pennsylvania may have been the only State produced before Louisiana started, if you go back those 50 years, there is a lot that we could see environmentally that should have been done back there that would have protected America's wetlands, the estuaries and the marshes of South Louisiana.

That being said, now looking at today's technology, offshore drilling for oil or for gas is one of the cleanest that you will ever find. Yes, there are muds, there are liquids. But there are also liquids that are made from sugar. So my friends from Florida, we can keep that Florida industry healthy. It is biodegradable. It is something that can and is being used out there.

The thing that scares me the most, as we talk about energy independence, and the information that has been brought to the floor, is that we had, in an energy bill, a 125-mile barrier from Florida in the Gulf of Mexico, if I recall, in an energy bill this past year. While if you go 45 miles off of Key West, where those important fragile areas are down in that area, we have got China and Cuba in control of the oil and gas production. And that scares me even more so. And if you look in the latest weekly news, Russia is basically becoming dominant in the world for energy production, as are the countries in the Middle East.

If you look at their offshore drilling, I don't hear about all the oil spills. As a matter of fact, I went through Katrina, I went through Rita. And I heard the numbers, and I respect where the Member got the numbers because it was provided by somebody. But the only real oil spills I know of were in Chalmette, Louisiana, at the Murphy Oil Refinery and at the Phillips Petroleum Refinery, which are on land in Plaquemines and St. Bernard. Yes, there were some small oil leaks. There was probably more diesel fuel out of the tanks of some of those rigs that collapsed, but far less than what came out of the gas tanks in the ground in Chalmette, in St. Bernard, in Plaquemines, in Orleans Parishes and probably over on the gulf coast. Far more fuel leaked into the waters that flooded those cities.

As we move forward in this country and talk about energy independence, and when you pull up to that gas pump and you see that $3 figure up there, just remember those folks back home that are on fixed incomes, on Social Security, that are worried about how they pay the utility bill, much less how they fill their gas tank, whether they can buy the loaf of bread and milk or whether they need to have the gas in their car to get to the doctor.

We talk about tourism and fishing. The tourism in Louisiana has been better than it has ever been, particularly now that the industries have the technology. The fishing is phenomenal. Thirty percent of the seafood consumed in this country comes from the waters off Louisiana's coast, and we've been drilling for over 50 years. Deep water, shallow waters, coastal waters, inland waters, land-based, you name it. I implore everyone to think about this.

I respect tremendously my colleagues that have the fear of the environmental concerns. That is something that I share with you. But I've seen these oil companies. I've seen them in the past when they were awful; I've seen them today when they do an excellent job. The technology gets better

by the day. The last oil spills that were of any consequence were done by ships hauling oil in from the Middle East, Venezuela and other locations. It wasn't by oil rigs offshore.

We're talking about natural gas. You can perforate a drilling pipe at any point in time or elevation or depth that you want. You can drill through oil, you can drill through water, you can drill through rock, you can drill through whatever is below there and sample what's there before you open it up, and if it's not natural gas, then you keep drilling until you get to the sand that you're looking for, perforate, and, yes, bring only natural gas in.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity. I implore, if we're going to make this country energy independent, we have to find the means. And gas, this amendment, helps us.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 402) supporting the goals and ideals of National Hurricane Preparedness Week.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 402.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am here today with a resolution with my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart), that will help to make America aware of hurricanes and the devastation. This resolution supports the goals and ideals of National Hurricane Preparedness Week. It encourages the staff of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, especially at the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center and other appropriate Federal agencies, to continue their outstanding work to educate people in the United States about hurricane preparedness.

It also urges the people of the United States to recognize such a week as an opportunity to learn more about the work of the National Hurricane Center to forecast hurricanes and to educate citizens about the potential risks associated with hurricanes.

In light of the storms and devastation caused by Katrina and Rita in August and September of 2005, I think it is appropriate that America be aware of the situations with hurricanes, particularly since some 53 percent of all Americans live along the coastal areas of this country.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart covered the subject matter of the resolution with a tremendous explanation of why we need to be attentive to National Hurricane Week. This June 1 begins the 2007 hurricane season here in the United States, and I hope that recognition here on the floor today will make people aware throughout this country, particularly the people affected by these hurricanes, aware of the dangers and the need to pay attention to oncoming storms.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Diaz-Balart so much and Mr. Bilirakis. I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on the last vote, rollcall 229, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank Chairman Velazquez for the continued commitment to helping rebuild the gulf coast. Over a year and a half has passed since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated south Louisiana and other Gulf Coast States. I am pleased my colleagues remain committed to seeing us fully recover and rebuild.

I come to the floor today to support H.R. 1361, the RECOVER Act. Recovering from the two hurricanes that devastated our State and the gulf coast in 2005 is the biggest and most important challenge Louisiana and the gulf coast have ever faced. Katrina was the biggest natural disaster ever in the United States, and Rita, which may have been dubbed the ``forgotten storm,'' was the third worst disaster. First and third in our Nation's history, and they hit the same region within one month each.

After these storms hit, it became very clear that SBA was not prepared for a disaster of this caliber. SBA was understaffed, poorly trained, poorly managed and, overall, unprepared to respond effectively to the urgent need of disaster relief loans. The SBA's disastrous response effectively discouraged small business owners from applying for business or home loans.

Also, inadequate and inaccurate communications from SBA's employees kept many customers from finishing applications. I have personally heard of several instances in which small business owners were frustrated to the point of giving up on the SBA and the hope of getting financial assistance. I remind my colleagues again that this was a critical time, when these people needed help more than ever.

H.R. 1361 addresses those serious shortfalls experienced in the aftermath of Katrina. The RECOVER Act will better prepare the SBA to handle and fund disasters by requiring, among other things, that the agency develop a comprehensive disaster response plan, improve employee training, streamline their information tracking systems and follow-up process, and more efficiently distribute disaster loans by partnering with the private local lenders. SBA's unwillingness to immediately and effectively delegate responsibility to qualified private lenders created a critical choke point in loan disbursements following these hurricanes.

H.R. 1361 includes a commonsense solution that will cure this problem and allow for large, maximum loan amounts and create a more streamlined application process by allowing private, local, SBA-approved bankers to administer these loans. These private lenders have the unique advantage of being on the ground and knowing the community and, more importantly, the people in the businesses within them. By allowing these private lenders to participate, it will greatly increase the speed and efficiency in getting the funds in the hands of the small businesses after a disaster.

Another problem we faced after the storms was SBA's unwillingness or inability to provide maximum flexibility in the administration of these disaster loans. Instead of nurturing struggling businesses as they adapted to the new environment following Katrina and Rita, the SBA often strangled them with red tape and bureaucratic hurdles.

After the storm, some businesses along the gulf coast were denied sufficient loans because the SBA judged their application solely based on their prestorm capabilities, rather than on the new realities they were trying to adjust to or their ability to meet poststorm demands. The RECOVER Act will make the SBA a more flexible agency and will permit them to approve larger grants for businesses that become major sources of employment following disasters.

The RECOVER Act also addresses one of the most notorious problems that arose after the storms, the duplications of benefit provisions. Under current law, storm victims who took the initiative to apply for SBA loans are now being forced to repay their SBA loans with Road Home money. Hurricane victims in Louisiana and along the gulf coast need all the help they can get with rebuilding their homes and getting their lives back to normal. They don't need the Federal Government giving with one hand and taking with the other.

Rebuilding in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita has been the biggest challenge the people on the gulf coast have ever faced. In order to continue to recover and rebuild, recovery money must stay in the disaster regions, not sent back to Washington.

I understand the administration does not want people to double dip and must be effective stewards of taxpayers' money, but in this instance, victims of catastrophic disaster are essentially being punished for receiving these disaster loans before they get their recovery grants. Under this bill, borrowers will still have to repay their SBA loans; they will just be able to pay them over the extended time frame they originally agreed to when they got the loan.

I am a fiscal conservative, but this policy is absolutely ridiculous. It is dooming the recovery to failure, and it is time that we correct it.

I urge my colleagues to support the RECOVER Act today. With hurricane season approaching fast, this bill is critical to the survival of small businesses. Small businesses are the lifeblood of this country, and we must be ready to protect them from another, possible, future disaster.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, this bill has the potential to help thousands of small businesses and business owners still struggling to recover from these hurricanes that devastated the U.S. gulf coast.

I rise today in opposition to this amendment. After surviving Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, two of the

worst natural disasters in our country's history, the citizens of the gulf coast were then faced with a man-made disaster, one of the most disorganized, chaotic Federal responses that anyone has ever seen. Many of the Federal agencies that were created to help these people recover wound up making matters worse. One of these agencies was the SBA.

After these storms, 81,000 businesses were economically impacted. Over 18,000 were completely or severely destroyed. Astonishingly, however, following these hurricanes, only 38 percent of small business disaster loans were approved. In hearings, the SBA admitted that after ``typical'' disasters, they approved 60 percent of these business loans. After Katrina and Rita, conversely, over 60 percent did not receive SBA assistance and were left with nowhere to turn for help.

One of the many reasons that the SBA failed the people of the gulf coast was because it did not have the proper tools nor the flexibility it needed to sufficiently and adequately address the demands caused by the extraordinary storms. These were unprecedented natural disasters and they called for unprecedented response. This was not a one-size- fits-all storm, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle seem to perceive.

In the resourceful, self-sufficient economy of south Louisiana and Mississippi, small businesses are the lifeblood of the local economy. Many of these mom-and-pop shops are homegrown and family-run businesses, such as those in the shrimping industry in south Louisiana and Mississippi that do not fit the traditional mold of current SBA loan qualifications. These are the businesses that are being denied assistance, yet these are the businesses that are the local economy's most critical assets. I am a fiscal conservative, but this policy is ridiculous. It's dooming the recovery to failure, and it's time that we correct it.

To these business owners, these grants are critical investment capital which will help them pay utilities, keep the lights on, rent to keep the doors open and new equipment expenses to continue to recover and grow despite the incredibly difficult business climate that continues to persist in this area. Without this grant program, these small businesses will remain too debt-burdened to take the next decisive step required to move from recovery to rebuilding.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment today. Help these small businesses along the gulf coast get back on their feet and help America be the proud Nation that it should be.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again.

We had a similar motion to recommit, the gentleman is right, 2 or 3 weeks ago, and 50 people fell for it. They fell for it because it came to the floor just minutes before we had to vote, and it sounded like people such as myself would condone felons getting loans, when the law already prevents that.

For God's sake, the people in the gulf coast of the United States have suffered enough. And now we want to take

away or at least put some procedures in this just to screw with them some more. Let's vote this bill straight up and down. Let's kill this motion to recommit. It is a fallacy. It is fake. It is there just to disrupt. The people of this country and the people of the gulf coast need your help. Support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I would like to thank the leadership for the bipartisan effort also. It has been a long 18, going on 19, months for the folks of Louisiana; and this is the kind of thing that they have needed for a long time.

I am here today to speak in support of the Katrina Housing Tax and, as Mr. Boustany pointed out, the Rita Housing Tax, also, which will extend important tax credits and waivers that are boosting rebuilding efforts along the gulf coast.

It is hard to exaggerate the devastation Hurricanes Katrina and Rita caused in south Louisiana. Over 1 million people had to flee their homes, and over 200,000 homes were damaged or completely destroyed. In St. Bernard Parish, a community to the east of New Orleans that I represent, it is reported that only five or six homes out of the 27,000 were inhabitable after the storm. It will take many years to repair the damage Katrina and Rita and the levee failures caused in just a few days.

The enormous extent of the damage and the unprecedented time and money it will take to recover are why we need to pass the Katrina-Rita Housing Relief Act. For south Louisiana to rebuild, we need to continue encouraging developers to build affordable housing,

not just high-priced condos. There is a severe housing shortage in the region, and rental prices have increased by 39 percent and more since the storm. Home sale prices in suburban parishes have also skyrocketed. Average working people can't move home because they can't find affordable housing.

One of the most important features of this bill is the extension of the Gulf Opportunity Zone low-income housing tax credit until the end of 2010. Louisiana is offering these tax credits to developers who build affordable housing in the hurricane-affected communities, but current law requires that developers have the project built and occupied by the end of 2008.

In the post-storm world of south Louisiana, this is almost impossible. The Housing Financing Agency in New Orleans estimates that 65 percent of the affordable housing units under development, about 11,050 units, won't make the deadline to be available for rent by the deadline at the end of 2008. Add all the extenuating circumstances of post-Katrina Louisiana, mold remediation for flood-damaged rehabilitation projects, elevation of property, getting permits, going through the zoning requirements, all the things that take time, including needing water, sewer, and gas lines, there is no way that developers can finish.

Finally, as a fiscal conservative and a Blue Dog, I want to point out that this bill follows House PAYGO rules and will not increase the deficit. In fact, the offsets that are contained in the bill will cause an increase in revenue.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I thank the bipartisan effort of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Katrina- Rita supplemental. The President was quoted yesterday as saying we needed a clean bill to fund the rebuild of Iraq. I disagree with that statement and suggest that we need the comprehensive bill put forth by the majority, so that the people of the Gulf Coast States can rebuild. For too long we are funding the rebuilding of foreign communities. While this is admirable, the American people deserve first call on the rebuilding money, and help when it is their very tax dollars that are being spent.

My Caucus leadership took me seriously when I challenged them to put forth action rather than words. The supplemental appropriation bill we are debating tonight is the first and only vehicle available to Katrina-Rita affected citizens! Because of budgetary rules, there is no other opportunity to address the unfinished levees, the rebuilding needs of local governments, affordable housing so people can return, and help for the coastal fisheries and farmers who have, to date, been virtually ignored.

My colleagues in the affected Gulf Coast States need to decide where they stand. If we let this one chance for $1.3 billion in levee assistance pass us by, every Member of Congress who votes against this should be held accountable for putting South Louisiana's citizens in harms way.

Are you in support of your Party, or are you for helping Louisianians, Mississipians and taxpaying Americans?

I support the Americans!

I would also like to submit the following clarification for the record:

This supplemental will provide funding for agriculture and fisheries disaster assistance along the Gulf Coast. For livestock producers, our intent is to increase the payment limit for those who lost hundreds of cattle as a result of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These cattlemen have been inadequately compensated as a result of previously underfunded USDA programs. Our citrus growers--whose groves were destroyed from up to a month of saltwater several feet deep--should receive an increase in the payment rate for USDA's hurricane assistance program.

Additionally, this bill contains desperately needed assistance for our shrimp, menhaden,

as well as other fisheries that were devastated by the storms and, unfortunately have been forgotten for the past 18 months by the Administration and Congress.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, first let me talk about the fraud. The fraud was perpetrated by people throughout this country in Florida, in California, in Colorado, that used addresses in Louisiana. The money that was spent was spent by the Federal agencies, and not misspent by the State of Louisiana.

I am speaking today to urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Gulf Coast Recovery Act and against the Price amendment, which would keep in place a major roadblock to Louisiana's recovery from Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. Rebuilding in the wake of these two hurricanes is the biggest challenge people on the gulf coast and, for that matter, in this country, have ever faced.

Katrina was the worst natural disaster ever in the United States history. Rita, which has been dubbed the forgotten storm, was the third worst catastrophic event in this country. Local governments are valiantly moving forward to try and rebuild, but without the ability to have the tax base that they need just to do day-to-day operations. If you have lived in a gulf coast community, you know the communities come back under normal circumstances. That is not happening.

This was devastating, totally devastating. Bureaucratic red tape is holding us back. Our local tax base in south Louisiana is gone. Local governments have no way of coming up with money for the 10 percent match. For some parishes, the cost of local match for projects is many millions of dollars and could go as high as $1 billion across the devastated area. Ninety thousand miles, square miles, of devastation was caused by these two storms the size of Great Britain. We are sitting here and worrying about a 10 percent match that was harmful to these small communities and the City of New Orleans but has devastated this entire area.

One thing that I need to point out: The President has the authority to waive the local match requirements with the stroke of his pen. In fact, this authority has been exercised 32 times since 1985 for other major disasters.

In 1992, George H.W. Bush waived the requirement when the per capita recovery cost of Hurricane Andrew reached $139 per person. It was also waived for New York City following the attacks of September 11, $390 a person.

But despite a $6,700 per capita recovery cost following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the administration has refused to waive the local match, despite repeated requests. How is this fair to Louisiana? I am a fiscal conservative, but this policy is ridiculous. It is dooming the recovery to failure, and it's time we correct it.

I emphatically urge you to defeat the Price amendment, and pass the Gulf Coast Recovery Act, which will help thousands of people return home and begin rebuilding their lives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding.

I appreciate the fact that today is a historic day for Louisiana. After 50 years of producing the energy for this country that power the plants, that power the cars, that provide the heating oil and the natural gas, we finally are going to come to a point in Louisiana where we are going to get something in return for the efforts that we have put forth. And during those 50 years, our wetlands have been damaged. Our estuaries are eroding.

The Nation, I hope, will understand after these storms, and it is regretful that we had to have these storms in order to get the attention, but the marshlands, the wetlands, the estuaries of South Louisiana, the State in its wisdom has made a constitutional amendment to dedicate the funds that come from the revenues, and this will be new revenues, this will not be money coming out of the budget of the country, and it will be dedicated to rebuilding America's wetlands. It is America's wetlands because it provides for America energy and seafood, approximately 30 percent of each to the men, women, and children of this country.

I encourage everyone to please vote for this bill. Some have said it is too much money, but long ago the Louisiana delegation for decades has been asking for help and have been like the tree falling in the woods, unheard. Now is the opportunity to not only do something for energy production for this country but to do something for America's wetlands, and I urge your support and vote.

Yes.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Speaker, I join with Mr. Boustany and rise in support of Senate bill 4093. I would like to thank the leadership of the Senate Agriculture Committee for sending this bill over to us. This bill is just an extension of the term limit waiver until September 30, 2007. It will allow us to fully discuss the issue of guaranteed loan eligibility during the farm bill.

Passage of this legislation will ensure farmers and ranchers won't be left without financing options with little or no notice.

Mr. Speaker, this is especially important in areas suffering from crop and livestock disasters the last several years. I urge the passage of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the Water Resource Development Act of 2000, Congress authorized a project for hurricane protection known as Morganza to the Gulf. This contingent authorization would protect over 200,000 people in their homes, but the contingent authorization expired due to a delayed chief's report.

The citizens of Louisiana that live behind this future levee system have passed a tax on themselves that generates roughly $5 million per year in funds dedicated strictly to fund this hurricane protection system. They have waited 6 years to begin construction on this project that Congress directed to be constructed due to a delayed report from the Corps of Engineers.

H.R. 6428, introduced by Congressmen Baker and Melancon, authorizes only

a small portion of the project as a whole. This bill would allow the people in Terrebonne Parish to begin protecting themselves while we work towards a complete water resources bill.

The Melancon-Baker partial authorization bill includes only two reaches of levees, tying into the already existing system of levees. These levees would provide the most protection possible with the limited resources currently available.

The bill also authorizes the lock complex on the Houma Navigation Canal to protect against devastating storm surges, such as the one during Hurricane Katrina that ran up the Mississippi River-Gulf outlet and destroyed St. Bernard Parish. In addition, Houma would be protected from salt water intrusion in their drinking water and the degradation of the wetlands.

I urge passage of H.R. 6428. I wish to thank Mr. Oberstar and Mr. Young and the committee for all of their kindnesses to help us move this forward.

Mr. Speaker, during rollcall vote No. 508 on S. 3930, I mistakenly recorded my vote as ``nay'' when I should have voted ``yea''. I ask unanimous consent that my statement appear in the Record immediately following rollcall vote No. 508.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today to urge Congress to pass H.R. 6106. This waiver authority has been a key component in the success of rebuilding schools in the areas devastated by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and it is critical that we act immediately to extend the duration of this authority in order to allow these schools to continue their rebuilding efforts.

A real success story born from this waiver is the St. Bernard Unified School Group. Led by the efforts of Superintendent Doris Voitier and others committed in St. Bernard, this combined school was able to quickly start back up to provide a place for children whose parents were committed to coming home and rebuilding.

St. Bernard Parish was one of the most devastated regions affected by Hurricane Katrina. Without local revenue, the schools had to look elsewhere to meet the 10 percent match required by FEMA.

This waiver has allowed the school district to use State funds for the 10 percent match and use federal restart funds to pay teacher's salaries and benefits. By allowing this flexibility, Superintendent Voitier was able to secure teacher's employment and open up the St. Bernard Unified School 11 weeks after the storm.

Today, there is no longer need for the St. Bernard Unified School. Chalmett High is back up and running full capacity with 1700 students to date; Andrew Jackson Elementary, with 1800 students, has also opened its doors, and Tryst Elementary is next in line.

However, we can't stop here. There are many more schools that are still being rebuilt and we need this legislation to ensure that these schools continue to reopen.

This waiver has proven critical to the recovery of schools in the Gulf Coast region, and has enabled them to access much needed reconstruction funds. Without this extension, these school systems will not have the financial resources to operate nor rebuild.

This waiver authority has already been authorized by Congress in the Hurricane Education Recovery Act. Unfortunately it is set to expire this Saturday. It is imperative that we reauthorize this waiver. Hurricane recovery has reached a critical stage, and it needs our continued support in the Gulf Coast.

Families are continuing every day to return home to these areas and there are still schools that are in need of rebuilding and repair. Therefore, I urge the members of Congress to support this bi-partisan legislation and give these schools the flexibility that Superintendent Voitier and others need to continue their dedicated efforts in rebuilding and to make sure that students and teachers can return to the classroom.

Brief Summary of what waiver does:

FEMA requires that each local community put up a 10 percent match in order to get 90 percent reimbursed for replacing all items lost in the storm.

Two Problems; (1) 10 percent of the total damage is tens of millions of dollars and (2) St. Bernard schools can't raise this money from the local community because their sales and property tax base has been decimated.

So, they initially wanted to use federal restart monies to put up the 10 percent match. However this is prohibited in the Stafford Act because you can't use federal restart monies to supplant money from

Mr. Speaker, Today I welcome President Nursultan Nazarbayev of the Republic of Kazakhstan to the United States.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was great concern about the political and economic future of the former Soviet republics. The world wondered whether these nations would join democratically developed nations, and whether they would be able to overcome the communist ideology that had been imposed on them for so long. Furthermore, as a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Empire, nuclear weapons were scattered, uncontrolled and therefore even more dangerous. The colossal number of nuclear weapons was a real threat to peace and the possibility loomed of bloody territorial and international conflict.

Unfortunately, in some cases our concerns were valid. For many of these emerging states, the burden of building a stable, flourishing and democratic society appeared to be a difficult task. Not everyone could handle this historic mission. The world witnessed several conflicts, sometimes bloody, in the former Soviet bloc, which not only destabilized the region, but also caused economic stagnation.

All indicators showed that Kazakhstan, with its enormous territory, vast natural resources and multinational and multiethnic population, should have been the epicenter of instability. But instead, Kazkahstan was one of only a few former Soviet states that avoided bloodshed. Kazakhstan withstood the pressure of reform and today has made staggering economic and political progress, largely due to President Nazarbayev's vision and leadership.

President Nazarbayev's stewardship of Kazakhstan's vast natural and strategic resources has given the world confidence in his government. His commitment to harmonize Kazakhstan's political and business climate with Western standards has allowed Kazakhstan to assume a leadership role among the former Soviet states of Central Asia. And Kazakhstan has risen up as a model in disarmament and nonproliferation and should be applauded by all nations of the world.

In November of last year I visited Kazakhstan. The warm and hospitable Kazakh people reminded me of the people from my own home state of Louisiana. During that trip, I was proud to be one of the first leaders to congratulate President Nazarbayev on his reelection. I also met with the elected leaders of the legislative and executive branches of government and of several opposition parties. I am glad to report that democracy in Kazakhstan is growing.

If you have never seen Kazakhstan's capitol city, Astana, you must. The brand new city rises up out of the Steppes, with cranes and skyscrapers studding the horizon. Astana is a truly awesome testament to the will of the Kazakh people to move into the future. It is a symbol of the progress Kazakhstan has made from Soviet dominance to independence.

I would also like to commend President Bush's Administration for seeing what I have seen for some time. Kazakhstan wants to be a partner with the United States. They are an ally in the Global War on Terror and Kazakh troops have shed their blood alongside Americans in Iraq. As we work to secure our nation from terrorism, we should thank the Kazakhs for their sacrifice. Kazakhstan's military and economic security is linked to America's. I hope to see our nations walk together down a path of prosperity and stability.

It is with great enthusiasm that I look forward to Kazakhstan's continued success in the years ahead and wholeheartedly support the future strengthening of the U.S-Kazakhstan strategic partnership. I am confident that with President Nazarbayev's leadership we will bring our two nations closer together.

Welcome to the United States, Mr. President.