Richard Baker

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I just wanted to express a word of appreciation to the gentleman for revision of his amendment as it now appears before Members. He worked diligently with the staff in order to assure that some concerns that had been raised had been alleviated, and we find ourselves at a point where we have an amendment to which I do not believe there is objection. At some point later in the evening I assume we will agree to adopt it and then later we will take up the underlying bill and pass that as well. I assume that the gentleman has sufficiently consumed enough time to where the managerial matters of his earlier interests may have now been resolved, I hope.

Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. As I understand the amendment, it is to require a study, an inventory, and an assessment of our hydroelectric capacity that is under the Secretary's jurisdiction, further to examine the advisability of perhaps private ownership of those facilities for the public interest, or whether we should enhance the government-owned and - operated facilities. So it is an examination of our energy resources to determine how we should best go forward, and the Congress does not require today the expenditure of any new money for such purpose other than that to accomplish the study.

Mr. BAKER. I thank the gentleman. With that understanding, I would just express support for the gentleman.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time. I wish to express concern about the operative effects of the gentleman's amendment. For many outside the storm impact area, you would not have an understanding of how processes work. But if you were eligible under the Road Home program, that was the federally funded program to assist people to return to their homes, the maximum allowable money that you could receive regardless of your circumstance was $150,000. But under current rule, if you are eligible for $150,000 and you, for example, had purchased Federal flood insurance in the amount of $150,000 and got paid $150,000 pursuant to the flood insurance premium, you would get nothing out of the Road Home program. Because of that inequitable application of benefits, this House has already voted to eliminate the duplication of benefits in the flood insurance area. Now what is being suggested by the underlying bill is we should do the same thing with regard to an SBA loan. The argument here is even more persuasive. The person may have entered into the SBA obligation far in advance of the onslaught of Katrina. It might be several hundred thousand dollars of loans that were made available to this individual through the SBA. Under the current rule, any assistance that might be offered to that homeowner who happened to have the SBA loan would all go back to repaying the SBA obligation. So get the picture. The Federal Government puts a stamp on the check, drops it in the mailbox and sends it to the house. But before it gets there, another Federal agent picks it up and hauls it over and deposits it at the SBA. Do you see where the hole is in this argument? No money at all gets to the affected individual. So what the bill now provides is that without increasing the overall expenditure, the money made available to assist people via Katrina and Rita has been appropriated by the Congress. It is over, that is it. We are talking about available resources, not new dollars. Secondly, once the money gets to the individual, the individual is still capped by the rules of the Road Home program, and that is, there shall be no enrichment above that $150,000 level. This is a reasonable proposal. It will enable people to recover appropriately from the disaster which is so overwhelming. I suggest if any still have doubt whether this level of assistance is required and justifiable, walk the streets of New Orleans, as I did this past weekend. Sure, the business district and the French Quarter look terrific. The shops are empty, the restaurants aren't full and people are not coming back. But get out into the neighborhoods where the devastation still exists. We need this help, and we need it now.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady for her courtesy. I rise today to make observation that when a hurricane makes landfall, most people do not consider it a Republican or a Democratic event; that in the aftermath, when you have been devastated from life and property and someone comes to help, you don't ask, are you from local government, State government or Federal Government, and, by the way, are you a Republican or a Democrat? The only thing I observed that hurricanes and government have in common at this point as a Louisianian is that either one you touch, you are going to come away confused, disoriented and possibly hopeless. We can do better. I should be quick to add, however, lest these comments be misinterpreted, that it was President Bush's administration who came to this Congress and asked for the $100 billion of taxpayer money to begin the long, slow process of recovery. I also want to quickly add that it was Chairman Frank who discussed with me the administrative problems of the resolution and incorporated into the bill now before us important expediting processes which will make a measurable and financial difference to the people of Louisiana. I want to express my appreciation to Chairwoman Waters and Ranking Member Biggert for their continued effort to understand and respond. Not to dismiss that there are problems. In fact, a provision I was trying to include in the bill, which was made reference to during the debate on the rule, caused the CBO to express concern that we had a scoring problem. To make sure I say this the way I intend it, I learned that the CBO scoring process is mystical, algorithmic, nonsensical, opaque process intended to obstinately delegate common sense to irrelevance. Short-circuiting all of that, let me say I appreciate Chairman Frank's staff working diligently and the Rules Committee allowing that provision to be made in order and to be included in this legislation. That problem is not the only one for taxpayers. Let me explain to you that when you send us a dollar, we don't get a dollar. At best, we get 80 cents, because FEMA has been keeping at least 20 percent of all the money intended to help people recover for their operational expenses. The American public needs to know that, that we are not wasting $100 billion. Certainly we can be more efficient in rolling out a response to a devastation that we have seen never before in this country, 90,000 square miles. I would say where we are today is not a hopeless mess, but indeed it is a mess. My hope is that the small pilot program contained in this legislation, which will enable the collection of disparate tracts of property to be cleaned off and sold back into the private market, can be a way to kick-start a free-market recovery that to date has been impossible with government interference and obstinate regulation. There is a faster, better way, a more efficient way, to combat this scale of devastation and human suffering. Maximizing taxpayer expenditures while minimizing benefits to those in need doesn't seem possible to the extent that we have seen in the current circumstance. If there is to be any long-term benefit to the resolution of this matter for all the affected taxpayers around this country, it is to construct a response mechanism that when the next devastating event occurs, we will be able to deploy resources, get people the help they need in an efficient manner, and get government the heck out of the way and let free markets function. The bill before us today incorporates provisions that I believe will help get us closer to that goal. Are we there yet? Of course not. Webster charges this House of Representatives with a very clear mission: Let us develop the resources of this land, call forth her powers, build up her institutions, promote all her great interests, and see whether we also in this, our day and generation, may perform something to be worthy of remembering. Webster got it. We need to leave this place in a better condition than when we found it. We can do better than this. And before the next disaster strikes, we must.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I would just observe the gentleman is absolutely correct. There is FEMA-ese and HUD-ese and they don't apparently have a translator.

Mr. BAKER

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, at this time I would yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of this Committee on Transportation, Mr. Mica.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, at this time I claim 2 minutes. Madam Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the gentlelady and to the Chair for their diligent work in this area. Certainly, it is an arena in which there is a clear and established, well identified need for which there are too few resources available. It is also a problem which will require many, many years of dedicated work to ensure the delivery of a safe water infrastructure in the years ahead. I, regretfully, have observed that the debate which will occur over the establishment of Davis-Bacon in this legislation is the one point around which great controversy has emerged. In my own State, I can speak with authority as to our circumstance. Pursuant to the devastation of Katrina and Rita, we find our communities struggling to get back on their feet, and our infrastructure has been badly damaged. Water systems, pumping stations, sewage systems have been destroyed; and it will take, unfortunately, years for many communities to attain the status that they once had prior to the storms' impact. It is clear to us that, although the American people and this Congress have been very generous to our State in making resources available, those resources are going to be stretched to their maximum extent possible; and yet we still have incredible needs that will yet be unmet. For this reason, we feel, at least in the view of our own State's interest, that the application of the Davis-Bacon requirement, artificially increasing the cost of construction of these important infrastructure projects, will only ensure that we are years longer in achieving the necessary recovery. To state it quite simply, to spend more and accomplish less is not something we in Louisiana are comfortable in pursuing. For that reason, I join with my ranking Member, Mr. Mica, in expressing grave concerns over the inclusion of Davis-Bacon. In the normal operative circumstance, when funds are made available from the State revolving account to a State for a particular project, Davis-Bacon has applied to that first-round funding. This bill will now make Davis-Bacon provisions extend to all subsequent utilizations of those funds, and that is the expansion to which we strongly object.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, at this time I would like to extend to the gentleman from Florida, a valued member of the Committee on Transportation, the Honorable Congressman Connie Mack, 2 minutes.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, at this time, I would yield 2 minutes to the defender of the working man and hometown America, Congressman Tim Murphy.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to a gentleman who is a defender of the taxpayer's best interest, Congressman Pence. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to Congressman King.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica).

Mr. BAKER. I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is important to understand the operative nature of the State Revolving Fund and the results of the legislation before us on that operation of the fund. If a community in Florida, the ranking member's State, which has no prevailing Davis-Bacon requirement, borrows money from the revolving fund, there is a match associated with that which is State dollars. There is also interest that accrues on that loan. When the State repays the loan, the State repays the interest, that comes back into the revolving loan account. Each year, as the Federal funds are made available, assume $500 million would be made available of Federal resources for the revolving fund account, only that $500 million under current rule would be subject to Davis-Bacon application. All of the repayment made by the State of Florida, including the interest, would be exempt from the applicability of a Davis-Bacon requirement. ``For the first time,'' and I read from the statement of administration policy, the White House statement on the matter, ``For the first time ever, projects financed by funds contributed solely by States and moneys repaid to the State Revolving Fund will be subject to Davis-Bacon requirements.'' So let there be no mistake about this, this is not merely voting to sustain Davis-Bacon as we currently know it. This is to expand the requirement for State-generated funds into States that have no Davis- Bacon requirement at the State level, and it will diminish those States' abilities to meet their identified water infrastructure needs. That is why this debate is occurring. It is not just about whether big business or big labor or the beneficiaries of some legislative initiative. This is about the real world in back home America, and are we going to provide the resources to help small communities get their water systems in decent and safe operating condition? We all agree that is a worthwhile goal. The question is: How do we want to achieve it? Do we want to constrain a free market system with arbitrary Washington rules that artificially drive up prices and give taxpayers less? Most of us think that is not advisable.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairwoman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. BAKER. I have a speaker on his way, and so I would like to I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chair, I only have one remaining speaker. May I inquire if the gentleman has multiple speakers remaining.

Mr. BAKER. Correct, sir.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of the time. I wish to express sincere and deep appreciation to the gentlewoman who is the Chair of the Water Resources Subcommittee and, of course, to the distinguished chairman of the full committee, Mr. Oberstar. In thinking back over my tenure on the committee, it really is hard to remember a time when there has been significant partisan difference. It truly is one of the committees of the House that works in a unified way and produces a consistent, unified voice. We share the vision that America's infrastructure is the key to our Nation's economic future and that where infrastructure is damaged or inadequate, economies lag behind, employment is high, and circumstances are not good. So we really are joined here together in an effort to do what we believe is right and best for communities we represent. In this one instance, we find ourselves on the opposite side of a policy which has, over time, divided this Congress, the requirement by government to tell those engaged in a business endeavor what you should pay your employees in meeting essential public need. It is clear to me that in my home State, the economic dislocations because of the tragic storms is immense and widespread and felt deeply and unfortunately will be likely felt for many years to come. We all know that there aren't sufficient resources to solve every problem in every community and certainly not even in our own State. Despite the generosity of the American people and this Congress, there will be billions of dollars of unmet need. The question, as we go to Dr. Boustany's district in southwest Louisiana to a small, small rural parish in Cameron, where there isn't even a municipality, where after the storm's terrible surge went across the land, you could stand on the northern edge of the parish and look all the way to the gulf coast and not see a structure standing. We don't have enough money to build it all back. We can't even tell people even when we are likely to build it back, but we are going to send some money, now in the form of a State revolving fund intended for the restructuring and rebuilding of critical water infrastructure. What are we going to do with that $10? Are we going to artificially increase the cost of that project just to make it more difficult for rural Cameron parish to recover? I don't think we really want or intend to do that, but that is the consequence of this provision in this bill. It makes recovery more difficult. It will take recovery longer. It will cost more to build less. We all pride ourselves in America on our strong free enterprise beliefs. Let's turn free enterprise loose. Let's let Louisiana rebuild. Let's do it in the most efficient and expeditious way possible. Let's strike Davis-Bacon provisions from this bill.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am not in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, I would yield time to the chairman of the full committee if he so chooses to claim time.