Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, Americans are tired of two standards: a standard whereby private citizens are treated one way and a standard whereby the Federal Government treats themselves in an entirely different way. Nothing is more apparent in this situation than where the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers grants themselves one way of complying with wetlands regulations, yet they impose an entirely different standard upon our private citizens. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA go out and purport to be defenders of wetlands; good stewards of our wetlands. Yet the greatest cause of wetlands loss in the United States is actually caused by historic current and future actions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In our home State of Louisiana, we have lost over 1,900 square miles of our coast, and the majority of that land loss has been caused by the management or the mismanagement by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of our coastal resources and the river resources, particularly the Mississippi River. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it simply requires that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers comply with the same standards as anything else. If there are permits required, they have to get them. If there are mitigation requirements, they have to get them. They can no longer mismanage our coastal resources. This isn't a parochial. This is an issue whereby the Nation truly benefits from this. This is the area where fishery production occurs, energy production occurs. We literally power this Nation's economy and we feed American families. So this wetlands loss that we are experiencing actually increases the vulnerability of our coastal communities in south Louisiana and increases the demands upon FEMA and other agencies in response to disasters. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, this place works. Recently, we had a National Guardsman, Sergeant Florich, who perished along with a number of U.S. marines in the Gulf of Mexico as their Black Hawk went down. The Secretary of the Army is granted the authority to grant exemptions to allow these heroes to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Unfortunately, the initial decision by the Army was to reject Sergeant Florich's burial request and that of his family. He was a fourth-generation Armed Forces military man serving our country. Just today, Secretary McHugh reversed that decision. Along with the support of 120 Members of this body, on both the Republican and Democrat side, they all came together and asked the Secretary to review the decision. I want to thank the Members of this House, Republican and Democrat, Members that I want to ask that you all continue to keep the Florich family in your prayers as his wife is about to deliver their new child. Thanks again to the Members, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I am a big proponent and supporter of free trade. I think the American workforce is so productive. I think that American businesses and our industries are so productive and so innovative that we can compete in the global markets. I am confident that our innovation and that our workforce can compete and we can win, when given an opportunity, again, to compete in global markets. At home, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has determined that the State of Louisiana is the top export State in the United States. In fact, one out of every five jobs in our State is tied back to our waterways, and that is because we are home to 5 of the top 15 ports in the United States. We have an awful lot to export at home. We have a huge petrochemical industry, one of the largest ones in the United States. Large agriculture--in fact, over half the grains from the Midwest from American farms come down through our port system and are then exported around the country, around the world. We are home to all six class I rail lines, only one of two places in the United States that actually has all six class I rail lines in our State. Free trade can be good for America; it can be good for our country, good for our businesses, good for our families, if it is fair trade, and that is where my concerns come in, is our ability to compete fairly. The President said: ``High-standard trade helps level the playing field for American workers''--``high-standard trade helps level the playing field.'' The problem is that, when you compare the cost of compliance in the United States with environmental policies, with tax policies, and with labor regulations, it is not a level playing field in the United States. In fact, it is extraordinarily out of balance. The National Association of Manufacturers estimates that in 2012 alone, that the American workforce wasted 4.2 billion hours just complying with regulations, 4.2 billion. The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that $1.88 trillion in lost economic productivity and higher prices were experienced by the American workforce and by American families across the country, again, $1.88 trillion in 2014. CEI also did a study that estimated that, for every small business in the United States, for each employee that small business has, that they pay over $11,000 a year just complying with Federal regulations. If the total cost of the aggregate cost of Federal regulations were at GDP-- were at gross domestic product--it would rank behind Russia's economy and just ahead of India's economy. There are extraordinary costs. In fact, it is a backdoor way to tax our families. Eighty-eight percent of the manufacturers in the United States, according to a survey done by NAM, 88 percent identified Federal regulations as being their top concern in regard to their ability to compete on a level playing field. If you take, for example, tax compliance alone, tax policies are going to cost $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years, as proposed by the current administration, $1.7 trillion on top of all of these other extraordinary costs that I have covered to date. One of the huge costs that we have in the environmental world is the ozone standard. There has been a proposal to change the ozone standard. Some have said that the ozone standard being proposed, Yellowstone National Park couldn't comply with; yet they want the State of Louisiana, where I represent, to comply with this new ozone standard. When we had the top--or one of the top petrochemical industries in the United States, that standard is estimated to cost perhaps--it is estimated to be the most expensive Federal regulation in history. It could cost over $2 trillion to comply with the regulation--over $140 billion per year it could cost to comply with the regulation. In our home State of Louisiana alone, nearly 34,000 jobs are estimated to be lost on an annual basis. Mr. Speaker, I am a proponent of the environment. I spent years and years of my life, of my career, working to restore the environment, working to restore the ecological function of south Louisiana, of our coastal area, of our fisheries, and of our wetlands. I am a big proponent of the environment. But, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that, as we move forward with free trade, under the policies being put forth by this administration, American workers are going to have their hands tied behind their back in the cost of complying with environmental regulation, the cost of complying with the expensive tax regulation in the United States, and the cost of extraordinary labor regulation. I will say in closing, Mr. Speaker, I am a proponent of free trade, but it must be fair trade.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California for offering this amendment. We had the opportunity to discuss this in committee. I am very sensitive to the fact that we do things in a manner that sustains all of our fisheries and protects our ecosystem. However, as we discussed in committee, I did request of you, number one, that if you let us get together as Gulf States, continue to work together with the Department of the Interior--as I mentioned in committee, we have even larger concerns about the way that some of this important reef structure, such as rigs and reefs programs and others, have been handled by the Federal Government. I respect the gentleman for offering this amendment, but I am going to vote in opposition, giving us time to work together with industry, work together with the fisherman, and find the right way to do this to ensure that we protect the species.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to say that I appreciate Chairman Bishop's offer to move legislation that the distinguished chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee and I will be introducing soon that pertains to this exact issue and to have hearings on this as well.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. With that, I withdraw the amendment. Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Wittman

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the distinguished chairman.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would like to include in the Record a one-pager that was released by the various groups that I cited, and I would also like to include in the Record a document that was written in March of this year by the five Gulf States that explains the management. The State-Based Solution to Gulf of Mexico Red Snapper In March 2015, the directors of the state fish and wildlife agencies from Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas announced an agreement for state-based management of Gulf of Mexico red snapper, which in recent years has experienced increasing privatization of this public resource and decreasing recreational fishing opportunities. Gulf of Mexico red snapper is presently managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, under the National Marine Fisheries Service. The states' agreement, which is predicated on transferring management authority away from the Council, describes the key elements of a plan in which the five Gulf states would coordinate management of red snapper throughout the Gulf of Mexico through the proposed Gulf States Red Snapper Management Authority. Numerous regional and national fisheries organizations have come out in support of the states' plan. The recreational fishing community has long had a strong relationship with state fish and wildlife agencies because of their ability to manage fisheries resources in a way that allows for healthy populations and public access. Most all of the nation's most popular saltwater recreational fisheries are managed by the states. Rarely, if ever, does overfishing occur in state- managed recreational fisheries. States are also tremendously successful at managing commercial fisheries. Nothing in the Gulf states' plan proposes to change how the commercial red snapper fishery is managed. It has become abundantly clear that the current Gulf red snapper management system cannot produce successful outcomes for recreational fishermen. Somewhere along the way of rebuilding the fishery, to where it's now at an abundance level beyond anyone's expectations, management went off the tracks. A new path forward is needed, the states' are to be commended for their willingness to take on this task. Representatives Garret Graves of Louisiana and Jeff Miller of Florida are championing this plan. They are working to ensure congressional action on this issue aligns with the five Gulf states.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is supported by the American Sportfishing Association; the Billfish Foundation; CCA, the Coastal Conservation Association; the Center for Coastal Conservation; the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; the International Game Fish Association; National Marine Manufacturers Association; Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation; Recreational Fishing Alliance; and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Mr. Chairman, I am struggling with understanding the concerns that I recently heard expressed by the other side. Mr. Chairman, this is identical to how the Atlantic striped bass is managed on our East Coast. Why is there not an amendment to withdraw that authority if it is so problematic to have the five Gulf States consistently manage the natural resources in their State waters, as they do today, and in the adjacent Federal waters? It has been proven through various hearings that the committee has had that the science being used by the States is much better than the science that is being used by the Federal Government. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, when I was a child growing up in south Louisiana, recreational fishing for red snapper, we were allowed to go out all year round. All year long, we could go out and go enjoy fishing with our family and access the bounties of the Gulf of Mexico. As a matter of fact, the Gulf of Mexico is so productive, we don't just have great recreational fishing in south Louisiana; we have great commercial as well. We have some of the best restaurants in the Nation. We have a very robust commercial fishing industry. In fact, Mr. Chairman, it is the second biggest commercial fishing industry only to the State of Alaska, which I think is unfair because they get to weigh their crab shells. Mr. Chairman, the reality is that we have seen the National Marine Fisheries Service, over the last several years, continue to use science that is not as robust as what the States are using to manage their fisheries. Mr. Chairman, access for the recreational fishermen went down from year round when I was a child. Even in the 1990s, it was nearly 200 days, down to this year, where the National Marine Fisheries Service says that it is limited to only 10 days for recreational fishing. Parents and their children can go out for 10 days. Meanwhile, for the first time ever, the National Marine Fisheries Service has split up the charter for hire and the recreational to allow the charter for hire to go out for 45 days and effectively allow the commercial fishermen to go out year round. I want to be clear, Mr. Chairman. This isn't about pitting the different fishing sectors against one another. What this is about is ensuring that we are using the best science and ensuring that we are providing access to all fishers--the recreational, the charter for hire, and the commercial. It needs to be based upon the best science. We can have much better management of that resource by ensuring consistency between State waters and Federal waters. The five Gulf States have come up with a plan. Unanimously, the five Gulf States have come up with a plan to manage those fisheries by the five fish and game agencies among the five Gulf States. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply codifies that agreement of the five Gulf States and allows those States to manage the red snapper fishery identical to how the striped bass fishery is managed on the Atlantic coast. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1987, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2015, reauthorizes funding for the United States Coast Guard through fiscal year 2017 at levels that are fiscally responsible and that will reverse the misguided cuts proposed by the administration. The President's budget would slash the service's acquisition budget by over 17 percent. This will only worsen the Coast Guard's growing gaps in mission performance, increase acquisition delays, drive up the costs of new assets, and deny our servicemembers the critical resources they need to perform their duties. Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard has become somewhat of the Swiss Army knife of the seas. They are responsible for law enforcement, dealing with fisheries, alien interdiction, drug interdiction, maritime law, and national security. Mission after mission has been heaped upon the Coast Guard without the corresponding resources for those servicemembers to do their job. H.R. 1987 provides sufficient funding to ensure these cuts do not happen and the service has what it needs to successfully conduct its missions.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. 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. 1987.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We, obviously, covered all the key points of this legislation, the important side. I would like to briefly highlight the fact that the U.S. Coast Guard's mission has fundamentally changed over the last several years in regard to the mission upon mission heaped upon this agency and the greater role they are now playing in regard to national security, cooperating with our other defense and Armed Forces. I want to make note that this legislation ensures that the Coast Guard is on a path to playing that role and being able to perform their responsibilities and their duties proficiently. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1987) to authorize appropriations for the Coast Guard for fiscal years 2016 and 2017, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to talk this evening about the 2016 President's budget request and energy policy in this Nation. Madam Speaker, there are a number of energy programs in this Nation whereby public lands resources are leased and energy is produced on public lands and in the offshore waters of this Nation. As you can see here, this is a table that explains some of the different programs that are out there today. Onshore, on Federal lands, when you produce Federal resources--or energy resources--like oil, gas, coal, and other resources, you can see that 50 percent of the funds from that energy production on Federal lands goes to the Federal Government and that 50 percent goes to the States under the Mineral Leasing Act. There are no constraints whatsoever in regard to how those States can spend those funds. So 50 percent of the money from energy production on Federal lands goes directly to the States. Right here, of the 50 percent that goes to the Federal Government, 40 percent of that 50 percent--or 80 percent of the Federal funds-- actually goes into what is called the reclamation fund to be used on water projects in the 17 Western States. In effect, 90 percent of the funds that are produced from energy production on Federal lands goes back and is invested, in many cases, in those same States where production occurs. There is one anomaly, and that is the State of Alaska, where 90 percent of the money goes back to the State with no strings attached whatsoever. You can see here on geothermal energy that 25 percent goes to the Federal Government, and 50 percent goes to the State. Even the counties share in 25 percent of the revenue. For offshore alternative energy, such as wind and wave energy and things along those lines, 27 percent of the revenues are shared with the adjacent States. I am going to come back to this one on oil and gas offshore, but I will just make note that there is an extraordinary disparity in regard to how these different resources are treated. I made reference to the Mineral Leasing Act. Again, except for in the case of Alaska, when you produce energy on Federal lands, 50 percent of the money goes directly to those States. Of the offshore dollars, up to $900 million each year goes into what is called the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which all 50 States benefit from, for national parks, for urban parks, for playgrounds, and for wildlife refuges that the States manage. You have $150 million that goes into the Historic Preservation Fund to ensure the preservation of historic buildings. You have 27 percent in the 3-mile zone offshore of the 6 States that produce energy, and they get 27 percent under section 8(g) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. Under the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, you also have 12.5 percent of the revenues given to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and then remaining funds go to the General Treasury. Let me just recap this disparity here. If you are producing energy on Federal lands onshore, 50 percent of the money goes directly to the State with no strings attached; 40 percent of the money goes into the reclamation fund; and only 10 percent goes into the U.S. Treasury. If you are producing energy in the offshore, effectively, all of that money goes to the Federal Government. I will show you another poster here that demonstrates some of the dollars that have been given to States that produce offshore energy. You can see here, in the case of Alaska--and this accounting mechanism came off of the Department of the Interior's Web site and from the Office of Natural Resources Revenue, and this pertains to different types of sales year data, so it will vary to some degree each year--that between 2009 and 2014, 97 percent of the funds that were generated from energy production on Federal revenues was returned to the State of Alaska. They received $158 million out of $163.6 million in revenue generated on Federal lands. In the case of California, 52 percent of the money went to the State of California. It was over half a billion dollars during that time period. To give you an idea on some of these amazing figures, you can go to the State of Colorado, where they produced nearly $2 billion in energy production on Federal lands, and they received over $900 million with no strings attached. Madam Speaker, there are two extraordinary ones. The State of New Mexico generated $5.5 billion in revenue between 2009 and 2014 from the production of energy on Federal lands. That State received $2.75 billion back, or approximately 50 percent. In the case of Wyoming, they produced $11.7 billion in revenue between 2009 and 2014 from energy production on Federal lands, and they received $5.8 billion--over $1 billion a year--with no strings attached whatsoever. I want to be clear that I think that is great. I think that is how Federal policy should work. I think the revenues should be returned and shared with the States that host such energy production, but here is the incredible, absolutely indefensible comparison of what happens with offshore energy revenues. This shows you that, in 2009, less than 1 percent of revenues were returned to the States that produced offshore energy. Those are the States of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, California, and Alaska. Those States in 2009 generated over $5 billion in revenue for the U.S. Treasury. Those 6 States--and in some cases shared with counties and parishes--received only $30 million of that, or 0.56 percent. In 2010, they received 0.06 percent. In 2012, they produced $6.5 billion in revenue for the Federal Government from energy production offshore of the coasts of those States, and those 6 States in 2012, on $6.5 billion in revenue, shared only $837,000. Unbelievable--less than $100,000 per State. If you take overall the comparison between 2009 and 2014, approximately $41 billion in revenue was produced from offshore energy production, and less than $50 million of that, or 0.12 percent, was shared. In the case of onshore energy, States, in some cases, are getting 90 percent of the revenues. In the case of offshore energy, the 6 States that produce all of this offshore energy are receiving 0.12 percent, not the 90 percent and not the 50 percent. They are receiving 0.12 percent. Madam Speaker, you have to ask: What roles do these six States play in our overall energy production? It is pretty amazing. With just 2 percent of the offshore Outer Continental Shelf actually leased, the oil production offshore accounts for 18 percent of all of the oil production in the United States. With just 2 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf offshore leased for energy production, that production is approximately 5 percent of the Nation's natural gas production. For example, in 2014, it generated incredible numbers--$7.3 billion. This is one of the largest recurring nontaxed revenue streams that goes into the U.S. Treasury each year. To add insult to injury, I guess it would be five of the six States that produce offshore energy only have 3 miles of State waters, which means they only get 100 percent of revenues from State water energy production, which would be between zero and 3 miles offshore of their coasts. In the cases of Florida, which doesn't produce energy, and the State of Texas, they actually have three times that--or 9 miles--of State waters. So you have disparity, and that onshore production gets 50 to 90 percent of the revenues. In the case of offshore production, the States only get 0.12 percent of the revenues to date, and you have the fact that the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, California, and Alaska only have 3 miles of State waters. In the cases of Texas and Florida, they have 3 marine leagues, or, roughly, 9 miles, of State waters. The disparity is unbelievable. This House has taken many efforts dating back decades ago, with some of the more recent ones in the mid-nineties, to try to rectify--to try to address--this disparity. Dating back to the mid-nineties, the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, known as CARA, brought together such diverse interests as those of Congressman Don Young of Alaska and Congressman George Miller of California, who are two Members who, I am quite certain, agreed upon nothing except for this. It was really amazing to see this House pass legislation bringing together everyone from the oil and gas community to the environmental community in order to ensure that these resources were reinvested back into coastal States that produced energy and back into ensuring that we conserve and protect our outdoors and opportunities for future generations. Unfortunately, that legislation, despite passing the House with a strong margin, didn't pass in the Senate. Rolling forward to the early 2000s, in 2001, as I recall and I believe again in 2003, additional efforts included in the Energy Policy Act, during a conference report, passed the House of Representatives, once again, with a strong margin to share offshore energy revenues with the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, California, Alaska, and those States that produced offshore energy. Unfortunately, those efforts died in the United States Senate. Then you roll forward to 2006. In 2006, the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act--in December of that year--was enacted. What that did is that largely replicated an offer that President Truman made to the States decades ago whereby President Truman offered those States that produced offshore energy 37\1/2\ percent of all of the revenues generated from energy production in Federal waters. Those States, apparently, turned down that offer from President Truman and asked for a higher share. Despite that being offered decades and decades ago, it was not until 2006 when Congress finally acted and enacted again what is known as the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, which would share 37\1/2\ percent of revenues from new energy production. I want to be clear on that distinction--new energy production--which is energy production that occurs prospectively after December of 2006. It is not 37\1/2\ percent of all energy production. It is not 37\1/2\ percent of these numbers you see here, of the overall energy production, the billions of dollars. It is merely a fraction of that. So it is not anything close to parity with what happens for onshore revenues, but it is a start; and it is establishing parity in onshore and offshore policy, and it is a movement in the right direction. Mr. Speaker, in the State of Louisiana, we actually passed a constitutional amendment with an amazing margin that dedicated every penny of those revenues from the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, GOMESA, here, dedicated every penny of it to hurricane protection and coastal restoration, to making our coastal communities and our coastal ecosystem more resilient, ensuring that we don't see a repeat of what we all witnessed from Hurricane Katrina, where in our home State of Louisiana we had over 1,200 of our brothers and sisters, of our neighbors, of our friends, of our coworkers lose their lives--over 1,200. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 caused or resulted in gasoline price spikes nationwide to the tune of 75 cents a gallon--nationwide average. And again in 2008 we saw price spikes $1.40 a gallon on average in the 50 States--$1.40--constituting the largest price spike in gasoline since the Arab oil embargo. Mr. Speaker, you may be wondering the reason I am here tonight. The reason I am here tonight is to talk about the President's budget request. This year, when the President submitted his budget request, he submitted a request where he proposes to withdraw the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, to withdraw the pittance--or in 2014, the $8.6 million--that was split among the four Gulf States that produce offshore energy, trying to prevent that from ever happening again. In the President's budget request he says: This proposal generates $5.6 billion in savings over 10 years through legislative reform proposals, including oil and gas management reforms to encourage diligent development of Federal energy resources while improving the return to taxpayers from relative reforms. Well, let's talk about that for a minute. He says that it is going to generate savings. He says that its management reforms on oil and gas production are going to encourage diligent development. Mr. Speaker, by withdrawing revenue sharing and potentially discouraging offshore energy production, that is not encouraging diligent development. It results in us having to import more energy from other nations. I remind you, nations like Venezuela, nations like Nigeria and many countries in Africa and the Middle East that don't share America's values, we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars to those countries. In 2011, over one-half of this Nation's trade deficit was attributable to importing energy from other nations. That effectively is sending jobs. It is sending hundreds of billions of dollars to those other countries that in many cases are taking those same dollars and using them against the United States' interests around the globe. It doesn't encourage diligent development of Federal energy resources, as the President's budget request suggests. They also say that it improves the return to taxpayers. I am struggling with how this improves the return to taxpayers whenever study after study is crystal clear that proactive investment in things like coastal restoration, hurricane protection, hazard mitigation investments, according to the CBO it returns $3 for every $1 invested; according to a FEMA study, it returns $4 in cost savings for every $1 invested; and many, many others have estimated that the cost savings are multiple times that. Now, what is incredible to me, when we had the Secretary of the Interior, who I asked for a meeting, I believe it was, on February 4, and here we are on May 18 and we still have not been able to get that meeting, including offering to meet with the Deputy Secretary or anyone else who can speak intelligently on this issue. I will take the receptionist, if you are watching. We have asked for that meeting. In their budget request, it specifically says this cut has been identified as a lower priority program activity for purpose of the GPRA Modernization Act. Now, that is the Government Performance Results Act. So I said: Well, wow, they did an evaluation. So let's go ahead and ask the Secretary, Madam Secretary, could you explain to me how you did an evaluation and what the outcome of that was? Well, her first response was: What is GPRA? Well, this is in her budget request, and she asked me what GPRA was, despite the fact that it said they did an analysis and it determined that it was a low-priority program. After I explained it, they were unable to answer the question. I asked if they would provide us their calculation here to show how it is a lower priority program and how it may compare with other onshore programs. Of course, here we are months later, and you will be shocked to learn that we still have not received that information that simply doesn't exist. Politics, Mr. Speaker, at its best. Unbelievable. You can't justify it from a policy perspective; you can't justify it from a financial perspective; you can't justify it from a resiliency perspective; you can't justify it from an environmental perspective. Absolutely incredible. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a quote here from the Environmental Defense Fund, from the National Wildlife Federation, and from the National Audubon Society, where they note, let's see: ``This proposed budget undercuts the administration's previous commitments to restore critical economic infrastructure and ecosystems in the Mississippi River Delta, where we are losing 16 square miles of critical wetlands every year--a preventable coastal erosion crisis.'' ``We urge Congress to fund the President's commitments to coastal restoration and conservation by maintaining GOMESA funding that is vital to the Gulf Coast and by identifying additional funding for . . . other priorities.'' That is a quote from the environmental community. This is the administration, I guess, attempting to win accolades from the environmental community, who turned around and criticized him for that. Now, the irony goes even further in that in 2013, Secretary Jewell actually sends out a press release saying how great these dollars that are being shared are. It talks about how these revenues were distributed to State, local, and Federal tribes to support critical reclamation, conservation, and other projects. So here they are taking credit for it, saying how great it is, and then they come back and make an about-face that they can't explain, justify, can't even meet on, and haven't even been able to provide any documentation as to how they came to their decision. In December of 2014, once again a press release from the Department of the Interior giving all sorts of accolades to themselves for sharing these revenues and all the great investments that they will result in, yet in the fiscal year 2016 budget request we have seen them attempt to withdraw those dollars. Now, what is interesting in the press release, the administration said that this should be done because these resources, these public resources, these energy resources offshore, should be shared by all Americans. Well, okay, let's talk about that. As we noted here, for onshore production, 50 percent of the money goes to the Federal Government, but of that, 80 percent of this actually is returned back to the States; 50 percent goes directly to the States with no strings attached. So the Federal Government only gets 10 percent. The Federal Government only gets 10 percent, yet they didn't cut this program. So I am struggling with how they have determined that these resources should be shared with all Americans, yet they are only doing it for this one program and leaving this other program entirely intact. Once again, the disparity cannot be defended. Let's go ahead and take their idea that resources should be shared with all Americans, and let's apply it to other Federal resources. What about a national park? What about a national wildlife refuge? What about some BLM land somewhere? These facilities that charge entrance fees, they take all those dollars, and they give it right back to that park. The State of Louisiana doesn't get any of it. It goes back to the park. We don't get any disparate benefit from that. The State that hosts the national park and hosts the national wildlife refuge, it benefits from that in the form of tourism and economic activity and a place for their citizens to recreate. Explain to me that disparity. Once again, it simply can't be done. Mr. Speaker, I want to make note of the problem in coastal Louisiana and why it is so critical that these dollars be invested, that the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act be continued. In coastal Louisiana, prior to the Federal Government building levees on the Mississippi River, the Atchafalaya River, and our coastal region of the State, the State of Louisiana was growing to the tune of three-quarters of a square mile per year, on average. Our State was accreting; it was growing in land. When the Corps of Engineers came in and built levees on our river system, we immediately went from growing, or accreting, to losing land. In some decades, we have lost an average of 16 square miles per year. In other decades, we have lost closer to 26 or 28 square miles per year. In 2005, we lost nearly 200 square miles of our coast per year. To add it all up, the total figure, we have lost 1,900 square miles of our State since the 1930s. To put it in comparison, if the State of Rhode Island lost 1,900 square miles, the State of Rhode Island wouldn't exist anymore. If the State of Delaware lost 1,900 square miles, it would consist only of its inland waters. Nineteen hundred square miles is an extraordinary amount of land. Then to watch this administration come out and say: You know what? We are going to propose this new waters of the U.S. definition, because waters of the United States are so important and wetlands are so important to us, we have got to protect them. Yet the Federal Government is causing the greatest wetlands loss in the United States--prospective, ongoing, and historic--the Federal Government, the same agency, the Corps of Engineers, that actually is supposed to be enforcing wetlands laws. So the State of Louisiana said, yes, we are going to take these dollars whenever they finally begin flowing in some degree in 2017 and 2018, we are going to take those dollars and we are going to invest them. We are going to protect them by constitutional amendment. We are going to complement them with billions of dollars and other State- controlled spending, and we are going to invest them in making the coast of Louisiana more resilient, making our communities more resilient, making the economy of this Nation more resilient. I remind you, in 2005, because of hurricane impacts to the State of Louisiana, prices spiked 75 cents a gallon nationwide, on average. In 2008, when hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast and Louisiana, prices spiked $1.40 a gallon, on average, nationwide. This is a national issue. Mr. Speaker, following the 2005 hurricanes, the Federal Government expended over $100 billion--by some estimates, perhaps close to $130 billion or $140 billion--responding to these disasters. If we had taken somewhere in the range of $8 billion to $9 billion, we could have prevented the 1,200 lives that were lost that I referenced earlier. We could have prevented the expenditure of well over $100 billion in taxpayer funds, the majority of that going toward deficit spending. It doesn't save money to cut the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, it is going to cost our Nation more dollars; and history has proven that, studies by Congressional Budget Office, studies by FEMA, and many others have proven that this is penny-wise and pound-foolish. It will result in additional deaths. It will result in additional flooding. It will result in additional economic disruption in this Nation, and it is the wrong approach. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am going to say it one more time. Onshore energy revenues are shared 90 percent between the Mineral Leasing Act and the Bureau of Reclamation funds, 90 percent; offshore energy revenues, we get well less than 1 percent, well less than 1 percent per year today. And as we try and slowly begin addressing the disparity but nowhere close to what happens for onshore production, when we try to do the right thing and make sure that these funds are constitutionally protected to be invested in making the communities more resilient, making the ecosystem more resilient, and addressing the wrongs of the Federal Government, addressing natural resource flaws of the Federal Government, we now have this administration who is supposed to be the environmental administration coming out and taking these dollars away, which is once again why the Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Audubon Society, and many, many others came out against this. So, Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge, as we continue to move through the appropriations bills and continue to work on energy policy, that we truly seek to do what the President says in regard to an all-of-the- above policy, which includes conventional fuels, to ensure that the States that are producing these energies receive some type of mitigative funds or revenue sharing, to ensure that the State of Alaska, that the East Coast and other States that are bringing offshore production online are treated fairly, and to ensure that these dollars are reinvested back in the resilience of these communities and in the ecosystem. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I support wetlands, and I support clean water. I spent much of my career actually working to restore coastal wetlands in Louisiana. The irony here is that the agencies that are proposing this rule are actually the same agencies that right now are the largest cause of wetlands loss in the United States on the way they manage the Mississippi River system. The hypocrisy here is absolutely unbelievable. This proposed rule goes outside the bounds of the law, the law which states ``navigable waters.'' Read this definition. It clearly goes beyond the scope of the parameters of the law. It goes outside the scope of jurisprudence. Taking a pass right now would be a dereliction of duty. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We know what this rule is. We have had the EPA; we have had the Corps of Engineers before our committee, and it is crystal clear the direction this is going in. Even the sister agency of the EPA and the Corps of Engineers, the Small Business Administration, has indicated that the cost estimate complying with this regulation goes well beyond the higher cost than that done by the EPA and the Corps of Engineers.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. The home State I represent, Louisiana, the watershed goes from the State of Montana to New York and comes all the way down. You can take this proposed definition, and you can basically apply it to 90 percent of the lands in south Louisiana. This bill simply requires consultation with stakeholders, consultation with the property owners. This is a tax. This is a taking of private property. Mr. Chairman, I want to state: This is private property; this is people's homes; it is people's farms; it is people's small businesses, and it is impeding their ability to achieve the American Dream. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bill.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk for a little while tonight about some challenges that we are facing as a nation. Mr. Speaker, I have never run for office before, and I will tell you I never had intentions of running for office. After sitting home watching from my home State of Louisiana, watching what is happening in Washington, and watching the dysfunction in this Nation, I think that the major motivation for running for office was more out of frustration than anything else--the disparity, the inconsistency in policies, decisions being made that lack, I think, the public interest and are being made more so as a result of political decisions. Unfortunately, what I am going to talk about tonight I don't think will be the only subject that I end up coming back and talking about over the next several months. It seems that, oftentimes, the Federal Government's decisions, their policies, their regulations seem to lack any type of connectivity to what is actually happening on the ground--decisions being made in a vacuum, decisions lacking, I think, the true expertise. What I am going to talk about tonight is an example of that. This picture right here is a picture or the result of bad Federal policy. Now, the administration would lead you to believe that this picture is what is going to happen by building the Keystone pipeline. This is oil, Mr. Speaker. This is oil in all of these bags that was recently picked up, but the administration would make you think that this is what is going to result from constructing, from building the Keystone pipeline. The irony is that these bags don't have anything to do with the Keystone pipeline. This was actually oil that was picked up just in the last few months from an oil spill that happened in the Gulf of Mexico, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill 5 years ago--5 years ago, Mr. Speaker. This administration has been asked over and over and over again by the State of Louisiana and by the coastal parishes in our State to force the responsible parties to go clean up the oil, and it is not happening. It hasn't happened. They haven't been held accountable. It is unbelievable to me that we have an administration out there talking about their opposition to the Keystone pipeline because they are concerned about the environmental consequences at the exact same time--and over the last 5 years--allowing this to continue. It is hypocrisy. It is absurd, and it is obviously not in the public interest, Mr. Speaker. The only reason that the White House, the only reason that the State Department is involved in any decisionmaking whatsoever in the Keystone pipeline is a result of the fact that the pipeline actually crosses the border between Canada and the United States. That is the one thing that actually introduces the Federal Government into this decision. For the most part, pipelines can be permitted and built by States, with State approval. They don't need interaction or approval from the Federal Government. Now, by not building the Keystone pipeline or not approving it, many folks in the administration would lead you to believe that that is actually going to benefit the environment, that it will result in less oil consumption, that it will result in less greenhouse gases being released into the environment, into the atmosphere. The reality is that that is not accurate at all. The reality is that, first of all, if you don't build the Keystone pipeline, you are still going to transport that oil. The Canadians will still be producing that oil, but what is going to happen is they will use other modes of transportation. They will use things like barges. They will use things like rail. I think it is noteworthy to look at the statistics, to look at the historic performance of these other modes of transportation, which clearly indicate that transporting by pipeline is actually the safest means, the safest mode of transportation to get this product into the United States. It is safest in regard to different incidents. It is safest in regard to spills, impacts on individuals, on communities, on the economy, on the environment. The safest way to transport is doing it by pipeline. I mentioned that the oil will still be transported. Here is an example of what happens when you transport through other modes, when you don't transport by pipeline. This is an example of what happens. As a result, you have had additional oil being transported by rail lines. Look at the extraordinary spike. Look at the extraordinary spike in the spills and the impacts to the environment as a result of transitioning to that mode of transportation. Mr. Speaker, we have all seen in the news the various accidents that have happened all over the Nation as a result of this flawed policy of refusing to allow for this pipeline to proceed. The State of Louisiana is a logistics--it is an intermodal hub. We have five of the top 15 ports in the United States. We have enough pipelines in our offshore region that they would go around the Equator if you put them end on end. We have an extraordinary network of pipelines, demonstrated right here. You can see this high concentration of pipelines that are all over our State and in the adjacent State of Texas and in all 48 States in this graphic here very, very clearly. I will say it again. The only reason the administration is involved in the Keystone pipeline decision is because that pipeline crosses the U.S. Canadian border. It is the sole reason. All of these pipeline networks in here probably did not include Federal approval in regard to crossing over international borders. Take a look at this, Mr. Speaker. Take a look at, as I recall, 1.5 million miles of pipelines across the country. The reality is that major components of the Keystone pipeline are actually already built or can be built without the approval of the Federal Government. That 1-foot section crossing over our Canadian border on the north is the only reason, again, that the administration is involved in this. The fact remains, number one, by building the Keystone pipeline, it will not result in additional greenhouse gases being released. The Canadians are going to continue to produce the oil. The oil will be sent either through other modes of transportation in the United States, or it will be sent to other countries. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, the Clean Air Act regimes of these other nations, in most cases, is not as stringent or as strict as it is in the United States, so resulting in a net increase in the greenhouse gases that this administration is so concerned about. I will say it again. By not approving this pipeline, you are going to force the oil onto barges, onto trucks, onto rail, or other less safe means of transportation. I certainly have nothing against those other modes of transportation. They are all critically important, but to see this administration hide behind the oil spill or the suggested oil spill impacts of the pipeline is simply absurd. Facts prove otherwise. As you see here, the majority of this pipeline, by far, can be built without the Federal Government's approval. It is simply nonsensical. It is nonsensical to watch this administration hide behind false excuses to drag this decision out for years, whenever it is contrary to our economy. What is going to happen if we don't build this pipeline? In addition to using other means of transportation, we will be importing oil, not from the North American continent, but from other countries like Venezuela, like Nigeria and Middle Eastern nations that make up the top 10 nations that export oil to the United States. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, I will say again, Venezuela, countries that don't share American values; yet we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands and thousands of jobs to other countries. Who is running this place? Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed a bipartisan bill that was going to allow for the pipeline to be approved, for us to put this behind us and move towards other things, towards higher priority things that actually should have the attention of the United States Congress and the White House, as opposed to these things, decisions that should have been made years ago, and we should have passed on from there. As a result of these ridiculous decisions, all these tortured reports, all the involvement of various agencies--including the EPA, the State Department, and other agencies--we are continuing to go through this long process, dragging this out, resulting again in less safe means of transportation. Whether it is coming in through ships from other countries, across the Atlantic Ocean, or it is coming in on rail lines, it is coming in tugs and barges on our waterways, it is being transported to the United States, through less safe means of transportation. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say, in closing, that this is what happens when you have bad Federal policy, when you are making bad Federal decisions. This is what happens. You result in thousands of pounds of oil, in miles and miles of shoreline, tens of miles of shoreline, still oil in our home State of Louisiana, as a result of bad Federal policy. We are watching a similar bad Federal policy unroll right now as the administration continues to invent impediments to what makes sense, to what statistically makes the most sense--by approving a pipeline and getting out of the way--and obstructing our economy development, jobs for Americans, and North American energy independence. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman Abraham for bringing this amendment up. I strongly support resiliency efforts, making our communities more resilient and our ecosystem more resilient. In this case, we are taking a standard that is universally considered to be a 100-year standard and bumping it, in many cases, to a 500-year standard. In the State of Louisiana, FEMA has gone through and tried to establish maps to determine a 100-year standard. We found areas where they are 6 feet off where they should be, yet we are going to try and go to a 500-year standard. I remind you, our Nation hasn't even been around that long. Most concerning, Mr. Chairman, is when you combine this proposed executive order with the Waters of the U.S. proposal that clearly states that flood plains are within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, you suddenly grossly expand the Federal Government's jurisdiction over private property and prevent or obstruct or increase the cost of development on that private property. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I just want to state that in December of last year, Congress raised strong concern about this, about the huge implications of this and, therefore, they put a provision in law that required that input from stakeholders occur before this executive order be put forth, and that was ignored.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember the lives and service of eleven Guardsmen and Marines who were lost to us on March 10, 2015, when their UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter crashed off the coast of Florida during a training exercise. The lives of these brave service personnel, who perished while serving our country, are remembered by my colleagues Congressman Walter Jones of North Carolina and the North Carolina delegation, the state which is home to those Marines who trained at Camp Lejeune, and Congressman Jeff Miller of Florida and the Florida delegation, the location of the sad incident. I am joined by the Louisiana delegation on the House floor today to share with our colleagues the memory of our Louisiana Guardsmen, to stand silently in a moment of prayer, and to state for the record the poignant words of Louisiana Adjutant General, Major General Glenn Curtis, who eloquently memorialized the honorable service of our Louisiana Guardsmen in his March 16, 2015, statement, which is submitted for the Record herein: Four Louisiana National Guardsmen from the 1st Assault Helicopter Battalion, 244th Aviation Regiment who died in a training accident, March 10, have been identified. Chief Warrant Officer 4 George Wayne Griffin Jr, 37; Chief Warrant Officer 4 George David Strother, 44; Staff Sgt. Lance Bergeron, 40; and Staff Sgt. Thomas Florich, 26; died when a UH-60M Black Hawk they were riding on crashed into the Santa Rosa Sound, Florida. ``These Guardsmen represent the best of us,'' said Maj. Gen. Glenn H. Curtis, the adjutant general of the Louisiana National Guard. ``These are brave men, true men. These Heroes' names will forever be etched on our hearts and in our minds.'' Griffin, of Delhi, joined the Louisiana National Guard in 1994. He deployed to Iraq in 2004-2005 and again in 2008- 2009. He also served during state deployments during Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Isaac as well as in support of Operations River Guardian and Deepwater Horizon. Griffin commissioned as a warrant officer in 1999 before going on to become the battalion standardization pilot with over 6,000 flight hours, including more than 1,000 combat hours. ``G Wayne Griffin was born to be an Army Aviator,'' said Chief Warrant Officer 5 Reggie Lane, commander of Detachment 38, Operational Support Airlift Command. ``As one of the most talented and respected Warrant Officers in the Louisiana National Guard, he had a tremendous passion for flying, and a God-given natural ability to fly both helicopters and airplanes and to teach others to be the best aviators and crewmembers that they could be. ``He was a great friend and brother to all. With his loss, there will be a void that may never be filled.'' Griffin is survived by his wife, four children and father. Strother, of Alexandria, served in the Louisiana National Guard from 1988-2007, and again from 2009 until his death. He deployed to Iraq in 2004-2005, Afghanistan in 2011 and Kosovo in 2014. He also served during state deployments for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Isaac. Strother commissioned as a warrant officer in 1994 before going on to become an instructor pilot with over 2,400 flight hours, including more than 700 combat hours. ``To describe Dave Strother as a big personality would not be accurate. He was more like a force of nature that could best be observed and marveled at, never opposed or altered,'' said Maj. Andre Jeansonne, commander, F Co., 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation Regiment. ``His huge heart touched the lives of all he met.'' Strother is survived by his wife, son and step-daughter, and mother. Bergeron, of Thibodaux, enlisted into the U.S. Marine Corps in 1998 before joining the LANG in 2001 as a Black Hawk repairer. His extensive experience as a qualified enlisted flight instructor, graduate of the aircraft crewmember standardization instructor course, aircraft maintainer course, and warrior leader course made Bergeron a crew chief others aspired to be, according to members of his unit. The combat veteran deployed to Iraq twice, in 2004-2005 and 2008-2009. Bergeron also served during state deployments for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Isaac and Operation River Guardian. According to Sgt. 1st Class Brian Marquez, platoon sergeant, A Co., 1-244th AHB, Bergeron was one of the most qualified crew chiefs in the Guard, with more than 1,300 flight hours, including 377 combat hours. ``Lance was one of the most dedicated crew chiefs that I have ever had the pleasure of serving with during my leadership,'' Marquez said. ``As the senior most standardization crew chief instructor in the Battalion, he was a subject matter expert in his job who exhibited an excitement of learning new skills and educating new unit members on the UH-60 aircraft, pilots and crew chiefs alike. ``Lance was a very family oriented father and husband, and he impacted many in the ranks. He will be greatly missed.'' Bergeron is survived by his wife, two children and his parents. Staff Sgt. Thomas Florich, of Fairfax County, Virginia, enlisted in the LANG in 2007 as a Black Hawk repairer. He was posthumously promoted from sergeant to staff sergeant. Florich served during state deployments for Operation Deepwater Horizon and Hurricane Isaac. He earned more than 125 flight hours and was a graduate of the warrior leader course. ``Tom was full of life, and his personality could light the room,'' said Marquez. ``He was `family' with unit members and felt at home working with his brothers in Alpha Company. His dedication to duty and loyalty was without equal, always ready to accept any mission and extra duty in order to help the unit meet the mission. He will be greatly missed by the unit and the flight facility.'' Florich is survived by his wife, father and stepmother. ``These are not ordinary men. They were extraordinary people, as well as amazing aviators and crew chiefs,'' said Lt. Col. John L. Bonnette II, commander of the 1-244th. When I say they were heroes, I mean it many times over. They risked their lives under difficult conditions flying in combat, and during national emergencies, to ensure our security and help save thousands of people. I don't have the words to sum up their lives in a few sentences. You just can't. ``Our whole aviation family is reeling from this loss, the hole that is left is enormous. They were part of the fabric of this unit, the difference they made with everyone they served with will be a lasting legacy. Personally flying with all of them was a privilege and honor--I am a better person for having known them.'' These aviators had a camaraderie that was second to none in the military. ``This crew was made up of larger-than-life men who had a passion for Army Aviation that was so evident in the dedication that they had towards their profession,'' said Col. Patrick R. Bossetta, commander of the State Aviation Command. I know this as I have personally flown with each one of them. They were driven by their intense desire to selflessly serve their country, fellow Soldiers and Marines. ``Whether flying in combat or during national emergencies, this crew arose everyday with a fever to serve and keep safe the citizens of this great Nation. While their families and our aviation community are heartbroken and immensely suffering over their tragic loss, these heroic men would want us to catch their fever to honorably serve the citizens of this Nation and continue to grow.'' ``These brave men died doing something they loved. May we all be so lucky, and may they always fly high,'' said Curtis. The Louisiana Army National Guard was participating in a routine night-time training exercise with the Marine 2nd Special Operations Battalion. The Black Hawk carrying the four aircrew and seven Marines crashed into the Santa Rosa Sound in Navarre, Florida, March 10. Griffin's awards and decorations include the Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal (2nd Award), Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (6th Award), National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, Iraq Campaign Medal with two Campaign Stars, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal (2nd Award), Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Silver Hour Glass and M Device, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award), Army Reserve Component Overseas Training Ribbon (4th Award), Louisiana War Cross (2nd Award), Louisiana Emergency Service Medal (3rd Award), Louisiana General Excellence Ribbon and Louisiana Longevity Ribbon. He had earned the Combat Action Badge, Senior Army Aviator Badge and Basic Aviation Badge. Strother's awards and decorations include the Air Medal (3rd Award), Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award), Army Reserve Component Achievement Medal (7th Award), National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star, Iraq Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Silver Hourglass and M Device, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (3rd Award), NATO Medal, Louisiana War Cross (3rd Award), Louisiana Cold War Victory Ribbon, Louisiana Emergency Service Medal (3rd Award), Louisiana General Excellence Ribbon and Louisiana Longevity Ribbon (4th Award). He had earned the Combat Action Badge and Master Aviator Badge. Bergeron's awards include the Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal (3rd Award), Army Good Conduct Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (3rd Award), National Defense Service Medal with Bronze Service Star, Iraq Campaign Medal with 2 Campaign Stars, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Armed Forces Service Medal, Humanitarian Service Medal (2nd Award), Armed Forces Reserve Medal with Bronze Hour Glass and M Device, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award), Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon, Sea Service Deployment Ribbon (Navy), Louisiana War Cross (2nd Award), Louisiana Emergency Service Medal (3rd Award), Louisiana General Excellence Ribbon (3rd Award) and Louisiana Longevity Ribbon (2nd Award). He had also earned the Combat Action Badge and Senior Aviation Badge. Florich's awards include the Army Achievement Medal, Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal (2nd Award), National Defense Service Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Army Reserve Components Overseas Training Ribbon, Coast Guard Special Operations Service Ribbon, Louisiana Emergency Service Ribbon (2nd Award), Louisiana General Excellence Ribbon and Louisiana Longevity Ribbon. He had also earned the Basic Aviation Badge.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. And lastly, Madam Speaker, I will just say that this President for years has embraced an all-of-the-above energy strategy, all-of-the-above. This pipeline fits that criteria--it is all of the above. Perhaps I misunderstood and they were talking geographically above. It is coming from Canada. It fits that one too. Madam Speaker, this project needs to move forward. It has been delayed far too long. All it is going to do by not building this project is cause us to rely upon Venezuela and other non-allies for energy to power this Nation's economy.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my soon-to- be-friend from New Jersey for bringing up the oil spill issue. In my home State of Louisiana, we actually have hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil that are unaccounted for as a result of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. We have tens of miles of shoreline that remain oiled as a result of an oil spill that happened over 4 years ago, and this administration is doing absolutely nothing to hold the responsible parties accountable for removing that oil. To hide behind some of these issues, such as the threat of oil spills, is absolutely absurd when at the same time they are not doing anything to protect the environment and hold responsible parties accountable. Secondly, there is nothing that this pipeline project is going to do to further threaten the environment. In fact, it is going to make it worse if we don't build it because the oil will be transported by barge, by rail, and other less safe means of transportation. We saw recently where the EPA released a letter contrary to what the State Department's EIS found, stating that this was going to cause a greater impact to climate change. Whatever the reality is, this pipeline does nothing to address consumption of oil. It does nothing to increase consumption. It is an absurd approach.