[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1154-H1157]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LOCAL COMMUNITY RECOVERY ACT OF 2006
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 4979) to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act to clarify the preference for local firms in
the award of certain contracts for disaster relief activities, as
amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4979
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Local Community Recovery Act
of 2006''.
SEC. 2. USE OF LOCAL FIRMS AND INDIVIDUALS FOR DISASTER
RELIEF ACTIVITIES.
Section 307 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5150) is amended by
adding at the end the following: ``In carrying out this
section, a contract or agreement may be set aside for award
based on a specific geographic area.''.
SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the Corps of Engineers
should promptly implement the
[[Page H1155]]
decision of the Government Accountability Office in
solicitation W912EE-06-R-0005, dated March 20, 2006.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
Oberstar) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
General Leave
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and
include extraneous material on H.R. 4979.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
H.R. 4979, introduced by Mr. Pickering of Mississippi, amends the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to
clarify the preferences for the local firms in the award of contracts
for disaster relief activity.
The Local Community Recovery Act of 2006 makes it clear that the
government can limit contracts to local communities devastated in
disasters.
{time} 1630
The Stafford Act has a preference for doing business with local firms
because putting communities back to work is an important strategy for
helping them rebuild their economy.
In the areas hardest hit by Katrina, the job market, local economy
and tax base have been devastated. This legislation will put people
back to work rebuilding their communities while simultaneously
strengthening the local economy and tax base. Another common advantage
of contracting locally can be lower cost and faster job completion.
I would like to recognize my colleague, Mr. Pickering, for his
dedication to bringing this legislation to the floor. Mr. Pickering has
been a champion of this issue and has worked to help the people of the
entire gulf coast region. This bill is further proof of his dedication
and efforts. Since Katrina ravaged the gulf coast, Mr. Pickering has
worked tirelessly with me and the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee to resurrect his district and all of the gulf coast region.
I would also like to thank Ranking Member Oberstar and Ranking Member
Norton for working with us to develop a compromise bill that encourages
the Army Corps to move forward with its local contracts.
The amended version of the bill does not limit judicial review of any
contracts. As a result, the bill we are considering enjoys bipartisan
support, I repeat, bipartisan support, and I encourage Members to
support final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield myself such time as I may consume, Mr. Speaker.
The legislation in its amended form before us this afternoon is the
result of the finest of legislative action in which a substantive goal
has been achieved through discussion and understanding of one another,
understanding the underlying law and its application, and in this case,
an administrative action that has produced a right result.
The objective in the Gulf States devastated by hurricanes, not just
Katrina but Rita and Wilma and the ones preceding and the ones yet to
come, is local recovery. That means not just restoring the physical
needs of the communities, the homes, the businesses, the streets, the
levees, the lighting, but also the businesses.
The objective of the Robert T. Stafford Act, which I must say I have
had a very large role in shaping over the past 21 years with my then-
colleague on the committee, Mr. Clinger, is to affirm that the
administering agencies, that is, those administering the law and the
funding, would give preference to local businesses to restore those
businesses, to expedite completion of recovery work, and to achieve
lower costs, because businesses locally know how to do the job better
than out-of-State companies.
In this particular case, in the aftermath of Katrina, the Corps of
Engineers responded by taking the action that law allows them. They
issued a contract for debris removal in Mississippi that originally was
given to a Florida company, Ash Britt. They decided not to renew that
contract, because it was evident that the work was not going to be done
principally by local companies and, instead, chose to issue three
separate debris removal contracts to Mississippi firms to guarantee
that local Mississippi companies would be selected for the contracts
and to do so by limiting the bidding to Mississippi companies. The
Florida company protested that bid to the Government Accountability
Office.
Last week, the GAO issued its ruling, its decision in the matter of
Ash Britt, Inc., with reference to the file number, dated March 20, and
in the most important part said: ``We think Ash Britt misses the point
when it argues that some form of preference short of a set-aside also
implements the Stafford Act's preference for using local businesses to
clean up disaster-related debris. The question here is not whether some
lesser form of preference might have satisfied the act's intent, but
whether the preference chosen was an abuse of agency discretion. Since
the language in the statute does not specifically restrict the
application of the preference, and since the use of a set-aside is
consistent with the statutory goal of assisting firms in the affected
area, we do not view the Corps' decision to implement the Stafford Act
preference with a set-aside as an abuse of the agency's discretion to
implement this statutory scheme.'' And then they conclude with
referring to previous GAO decisions in the matter.
That settles it. The Corps has the authority; that authority has been
affirmed by the Government Accountability Office, and the contracting
should proceed. The GAO decision, so clear, so precise, so unequivocal
in my judgment and in previous experience with the Corps and with GAO,
should ward off any lawsuit or further appeal by Ash Britt. I think
they will be very wise to accept the judgment of GAO and allow the
procedure to go forward.
The bill before us is a revised version of the legislation the
gentleman from Mississippi introduced just before our recess and which
we discussed at some length. I had some reservations about it, some
concerns, especially the prohibition of judicial review. That has
wisely been removed, as the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, has expressed.
So I want to make it very clear that we have had a very thoughtful,
very constructive discussion with the gentleman from Mississippi, with
the subcommittee staff, with GAO, and with the Corps of Engineers. And
the language in this sense of Congress portion of the bill pending
before us this afternoon, ``It is the sense of Congress that the Corps
of Engineers should promptly implement the decision of the Government
Accountability Office in solicitation,'' and I don't need to repeat the
reference, dated March 20, 2006, that should be very clear direction to
the Corps of Engineers to proceed forthwith, get these debris removal
contracts under way, and move ahead without concern or fear of further
appeal by the contractor in this case.
I think it is a good legislative outcome. It is a good direction to
the Corps. It will be good for people of Mississippi. It will be a good
lesson for workers and smaller contractors in other hurricane-affected
Gulf States. It will set a good precedent for the future.
I think that we have had a very fine result this afternoon, and I
urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle and all Members to support
this legislation.
I would further observe, Mr. Speaker, that my wife is from New
Orleans. Her family was affected by the hurricane. We have just
recently, just 2 weeks ago, spent time in New Orleans; went with family
and friends to the 17th Street Canal, saw the levee break, saw the work
of the Corps, the cofferdam set up to rebuild that portion of the
levee, traveled to Saint Bernard Parish, saw the absolute utterly
horrifying destruction of an entire 38,000-home area inundated, over
the rooftops, homes floated away from their mooring, and debris still
in the streets.
That debris needs to be removed. Those people need relief. They want
to get back in their homes, they want to rebuild, and they are
frustrated that companies that know how to do the work aren't being
called on to do it.
This legislation will set the course, chart the future, give an
opportunity for those who know how to do the job to get in there and do
it and do it expeditiously.
[[Page H1156]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering).
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your support, your
leadership on these issues, and for your commitment and traveling to
the Gulf region, to New Orleans and to the Mississippi Gulf Coast, your
leadership on the committee and on the Select Committee on Katrina to
find the solutions for the future storms and recoveries, but also to do
everything you can to make sure that this Congress does the right thing
for this region as we recover. I am extremely grateful.
To Mr. Oberstar, I thank you for working with me today in the best
sense and tradition and civility of this place to find common goals and
common ground to be able to help my people in my home State recover,
rebuild and, most importantly, to lead the way for themselves.
As the Stafford Act clearly states, and Mr. Oberstar was here in the
beginning of that act and has been intimately involved in all aspects
of that over his career here, but let me read the Stafford Act and the
committee language when it was first enacted.
In section 204 of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, the Senate
Committee on Public Works, which proposed the language, stated,
``Preference is to be given to persons or firms who work or do business
in the disaster area.'' The committee report discussed the rationale
and justification for this provision. ``One outstanding feature of the
aftermath of a great disaster is the lack of ready cash. A Federal
assistance program should be designed to revitalize the community by
infusions of cash through the use of local people and business firms.''
To be honest, this has not been done in this recovery. Unfortunately,
it is a failure of the Bush administration in implementing the
contracts for the recovery of this region. But the administration is
trying to correct that action. Today, 95 percent of all Federal
contract dollars, 95 cents on every dollar spent on Federal contracts,
is going to out-of-State firms, not in-State, not community, not local,
but out-of-State.
Now, why is it so important that local firms, local businesses, local
communities lead the way? It is those local businesses that will pay
local taxes to rebuild local schools, to make the contributions to the
churches as they care for the people who are helpless, needy, hungry,
and homeless. It is those companies that will pay for the rebuilding of
the Little League ball parks. All of the community institutions and
infrastructure are led by local businesses and local leaders, and it is
those people who should be on the front lines, not at the back of the
line in the recovery effort.
What the Corps of Engineers did in December was to try to correct
that. They set aside on a geographic preference consistent with the
Stafford Act contracts for debris removal. And let me say this: In
Mississippi alone, we have had more debris, as you can see from these
pictures, more debris than any disaster in American history. Over 50
percent more has already been cleaned up than ever occurred in any
disaster anyplace in America. What the Corps did in December was to
say, in the future, going forward, we are going to let local companies
lead the recovery and comply with the congressional intent and stated
objectives of the Stafford Act.
Unfortunately, the incumbent contractor from out of State protested
that action. They gamed the system to delay the implementation of those
contracts. Three months later, the GAO rejects the protest, finds in
favor of the Corps, finds in favor of the congressional intent of the
Stafford Act, and says, in essence, the protest is baseless.
It is time, and this act urges the Corps, to immediately, to promptly
move forward in the implementation of local contracts for local debris
removal.
President Bush, when he addressed the Nation in Jackson Square in
downtown New Orleans stated: ``In the work of rebuilding, as many jobs
as possible should go to the men and women who live in Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama.'' What we are doing in this act is clarifying
and reaffirming the original intent to make it possible that no one can
litigate this or game this or delay this to keep local firms from
leading the way.
Let me say this. As I look across to both sides, this body has been
extremely generous to the people of Mississippi and New Orleans. We
have appropriated billions, now over $100 billion to the recovery of
the region. The churches and the charities across this country have
been compassionate, and their generosity has flowed down and poured
into our region. Our people will be forever grateful. Mississippi is
the most generous State in the Nation, according to IRS returns. We are
the poorest State, but we give more per capita than any State in the
Nation. We are a proud people, and we want to lead the way and work
first.
{time} 1645
We do not want to be at the back of the line. We want to be on the
front line, cleaning up, rebuilding, restoring and renewing our region.
I urge bipartisan support of this action today so that our region can
recover with the help, but not the dependence, not the displacement,
not the replacement of our own people, our own economy, our own jobs;
and I ask all of us to look at this legislation and to work with me and
for the administration to keep its commitment and to keep the law and
the intent of this legislation.
In closing, let me also ask the current contractors: do nothing as
these contracts to Mississippi companies go forward to disrupt, to
sabotage, or to slow the work. Cooperate with us and partner with us,
just as our companies have partnered with you as you led. Stand down.
Let us stand up. Let us lead the way, and we can have a continued good
relationship. But protest this, litigate this, fight this, sabotage it,
and there will be bad will that will go forward and undermine the way
that our communities and our country should work together.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Members for their support, and I thank the
ranking member, Mr. Oberstar, as we continue to rebuild our region.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to express my
appreciation to Mr. Pickering for those kind remarks. We have spent a
very productive time together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Oberstar for
his leadership on this matter and for forging this bipartisan
agreement. I rise today in support of H.R. 4979, the Local Community
Recovery Act of 2006.
I want Members to know I approve of this language allowing set-aside
contracts based on a geographic region. Florida for years has pushed
for more local company involvement. This is something that Florida has
been pushing for after every hurricane has battered our State.
Every time contracts go to out-of-state contractors who have
relationships with FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security,
Florida companies do not get the work. This provision will allow local
communities to recover more quickly. It is important for all
contractors to work with local companies and local workers who know the
area and the best way to get the job done.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
provides assistance to States in response to natural disasters. I
recommend that the agencies follow the law and allow local communities
to recover from these natural disasters.
Mr. Speaker, on April 1, hundreds of us will be going to New Orleans.
It will be my second trip to work in that area and to try to encourage
local participation and to find out the status so we can come back and
report to the Congress on the progress. I think every Member should go
to the region and work in that region to make sure that the $100
billion dollars that we are appropriating is spent in the local area.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to express appreciation for the cooperation
we have had this afternoon in working out this matter that should have
been considered appropriately in committee
[[Page H1157]]
process. In the subcommittee, full committee we could have resolved
these matters in an expeditious manner in a very expedited way. But
failing the committee process, we have reached, I think, a very sound,
very progressive and forward-looking outcome.
I want to restate section 2 of the pending bill, line 8: ``In
carrying out this section, a contract or agreement may by set aside for
award based on a specific geographic area.'' This is unmistakable
language. It reaffirms the original intent of the Stafford Act,
reaffirms historical precedent, and states it very clearly in
legislative language.
We intend to get this bill passed this afternoon, and I hope the
other body will act expeditiously as well so we can make this very,
very clear and proceed on the awards of these contracts and reestablish
businesses in Mississippi, as the gentleman from Mississippi has so
well and firmly and forcefully stated as a very strong and effective
advocate for the people of his district.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your cooperation. It always seems to me
that the gentleman from Minnesota and a gentleman from Pennsylvania are
working on the FEMA program, Mr. Klinger, Mr. Ridge, and the
gentleman's father, the first Mr. Shuster. Every time we do, we come up
with a good result.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for those kind words.
The Local Community Recovery Act makes sense. As the ranking member
pointed out, it clarifies and reaffirms the language in the Stafford
Act. It also directs the corps to move forward quickly so we can see
the cleanup continue to make progress in the Mississippi and in the
gulf coast region.
I want to again thank Mr. Oberstar for his cooperation on this issue.
Once again, the T&I Committee has come together in a bipartisan manner
and moved forward for the betterment of this Nation. I also thank Mr.
Pickering for his leadership and in working so closely with the T&I
Committee to put this together for what I think is going to be a very
positive outcome.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster) that
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4979, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________