[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.

                          ____________________