Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce another dose of reality, something you have not heard many folks talk about today. Where is this money coming from? How are we paying for this initially--what is it?--$1.9 or $2.9 billion a year in mandatory spending? This is coming from offshore energy revenues. That is where the majority of these moneys are coming from, from oil and gas production. I want to be clear: from oil and gas production. Now, the majority at the same time and in the same breath is taking step after step to decimate or eliminate the domestic energy industry, therefore not making us get oil and gas from the United States but getting it from places like Russia, as we have seen over and over again when these drastic policies have been put forth. Now, Mr. Speaker, the other thing is, any time you have energy revenues like this produced on Federal land under the Mineral Leasing Act, 50 percent of the money goes to those States that host that production, and they can use it for whatever they want. They can use it for whatever they want to use it for. In this case, the Gulf States, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, we get about 4 percent right now. So, Mr. Speaker, I have a question. I have a question for my friends on the majority. Can they tell me what they are going to say to the residents of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida next time we have a huge hurricane come through because you have refused, under the bipartisan amendment that the Congressional Black Caucus and others advocated, you have refused to allow for a larger percentage of money to be invested back in the resilience of this ecosystem, the resilience of these communities? Tell me what you are going to say to them whenever we have another Hurricane Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, Florence. Tell me what you are going to say to them because you are taking their money, and you are spending it in other places, and you are saying this is for the environment, these environmental groups out there advocating for this, when it is a greater environmental investment to make it in the Gulf. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the bill. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record statements from the U.S. Farm Bureau Association and the Cattlemen's Association in opposition to this, from the American Energy Alliance in opposition to this, as well as the CRS report that analyzes from whence this money comes, whence it is going, and how much we probably won't have in the future. June 5, 2020. Hon. Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Chuck Schumer, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Senators: We the undersigned western state Farm Bureau organizations write to express our concerns and areas of opposition to the S. 3422, the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA). While we recognize the significant benefits that the GAOA would provide in addressing the extensive maintenance backlog for federally-managed lands, we also write to express our collective concerns with funding further expansion of federal land ownership in the west. Farm Bureau members are significantly and directly impacted by federal land ownership, land-use policies and decisions. Throughout the West, our members hold public lands grazing permits, own property adjacent to federal lands and engage in public and private land forestry. For many ranchers, access to public lands grazing is economically and ecologically essential to their operation and provides access to land that may not otherwise be available to new or beginning farmers and ranchers. Legislation or regulation that could be used to curtail viable multiple use access to these public resources is a threat to America's farming and ranching families. Historical experience illustrates, in many cases, that expansion of public land ownership over time leads to new policies that further limit multiple uses of land such as livestock grazing or create additional restrictions on access and rangeland improvements. Further, additional federal land acquisition does not adequately consider the reduction in economic activity and the loss of jobs in resource-dependent communities. For these reasons, Farm Bureau believes that it is essential for agricultural stakeholders to be represented on any sort of planning and/or advisory committees formed for federal land expansion especially in those areas where private or state land is proposed for purchase or exchange. American farmers and ranchers have always demonstrated their fortitude and resilience in adapting to the ever- changing landscape--both political and ecological. While the resources made available through federally managed lands provide opportunities for ranchers to add value to their businesses, availability of private land is essential for successful business and commerce. The federal government already owns over 640 million acres, which is approximately 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the U.S. Since enactment of the LWCF in 1965, Congress has appropriated $18.9 billion (not adjusted for inflation), of which $11.4 billion was for federal land acquisition. Over 5 million acres of private land has been purchased by USDA and DOI agencies. The Federal government already owns more land than it can effectively maintain and manage. In the west, the federal government owns roughly every other acre of land and many counties have more than 75% of their land in federal ownership. Further federal and ownership erodes the available tax-base and limits the ability of local governments to effectively provide critical government services. The second title of the GAOA establishes the Land and Water Conservation Fund as a trust fund with permanent authorization and without annual appropriations oversight. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the price tag for the first year of this legislation could be upwards of $20 billion. In this midst of the current pandemic and related economic crisis, we are concerned with the additional financial burden this legislation would create. We believe, at this time, that funds allocated by the Land and Water Conservation Act (LWCA) would be better utilized to manage existing federal lands and request Congress amend the GAOA to allow for LWCA funds to instead be allocated to individual state foresters for their use in fire suppression, fire management and conservation efforts instead of utilizing funds to acquire additional private property. We request that you consider the following amendment requests: 1. Sunset in five years. This would allow the Congress to evaluate the program and decide whether to reauthorize, modify, or eliminate it. A five-year sunset would conform the LWCF title of the bill with the $49.5 billion maintenance title. 2. Limit land acquisition to states with less than the collective average of those western states with federal owned/administered lands. 3. Require that all federal and acquisitions be subject to approval of the relevant state legislature, Governor, and county commissions. 4. Require notice of any potential land acquisition be given at least 90 days before title can be transferred to the state legislature, Governor, and county commissioners. Notice should include the annual loss of property tax revenues that will result; or if the land is already held by a tax-exempt owner, such as a land trust, the notice should include the tax revenues lost if the property were subject to property taxes. 5. Require that priority be given to the maintenance backlog, forgoing any acquisition requests in those instances when revenues are limited. Additionally, our organizations would welcome the opportunity for inclusion of additional maintenance and enhancement projects that would benefit critical natural resources to the West. We ask that you consider including the provisions of S. 2044, the Water Supply Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Utilization Act. This amendment would create an aging infrastructure account within the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to provide loans to local water managers to perform extraordinary maintenance on the federal BOR infrastructure they manage. Initially, $40 million per year over five years ($2 billion total) would be provided to this account from the Reclamation Fund. No taxpayer funds would be used to fund the account and water users would be required to repay the loans received to repair and replace water facilities with interest. The repaid funds would be available to BOR to fund additional extraordinary maintenance projects, essentially creating a revolving fund. The GAOA provides deferred maintenance for every federal asset agency within the Department of Interior except BOR. Yet, BOR is facing significant issues with deferred and maintenance needs at federal water supply facilities. 80% of BOR's facilities are more than 50 years old and are in need of major upgrades or replacement costs beyond regular maintenance. Since water managers do not own the infrastructure, they are unable to bond against it and therefore have limited access to other sources of capital for major repair projects. Creating this account within BOR would allow water managers to perform repairs, repay cost over time and ultimately ensure that our aging federal water infrastructure remains viable to serve the billions of dollars of agricultural and other economic activity that depends on it. Our organizations are happy to further discuss the GAOA, our recommendations and the opportunity for inclusion of additional maintenance projects. We thank you in advance for your consideration and look forward to continuing this important conversation. Sincerely, American Farm Bureau Federation, Alaska Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, California Farm Bureau Federation, Colorado Farm Bureau Federation, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, Montana Farm Bureau Federation, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Washington Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on Roll Call No. 141. We were doing a townhall meeting. The amendment infringes upon existing constitutional structure and safeguards in law.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers).

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I have expressed my frustration about the fact that so few Republican amendments have been allowed to even be debated, yet this is the one en bloc amendment. This is block G, and there are eight Republican amendments--eight--eight Republican amendments where we actually get to debate. And, of course, they are all wrapped in. Our amendment is No. 349. And, as I have mentioned before, nearly 380 or 390 amendments on this bill. Our amendment amends page 1968 that I am sure everyone here has read, and what this does is it very simply--it very simply says that, in order for this brand-new urban park grant program that has not been through the committee of jurisdiction, the Natural Resources Committee, if you are going to take money from one area and give it to this urbanized park grant program, you at least need to make sure that the area where the revenues are coming from, which happens to be the area that I represent, that it is sustainable, that it is ecologically sustainable and the community is sustainable and that it would be a better investment for taxpayers to invest in the urban parks than it would be to ensure the ecological and the community resilience or sustainability of these regions. That is it, a very simple amendment. I would love to have anybody come explain to me why they are going to vote ``no,'' because we are going to see this amendment voted down in just a few minutes. I would love for anybody--and I would be happy to yield time, Madam Speaker. I would be happy to have anybody explain to me why they are opposed to this amendment and what they are going to explain to people next time we have a hurricane and these communities are decimated. That is what I would love to hear. So, Madam Speaker, I yield my remaining time to my friends on the other side of the aisle to explain to me the opposition to this amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this en bloc amendment. I want to put things in perspective. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned on the floor yesterday that there were approximately 390 amendments filed on this bill--390 amendments filed. There are approximately 148 Democrat amendments and there were 22 Republican amendments that were accepted and allowed to be voted on, but because of this distorted process, those were only being allowed seven votes. Mr. Speaker, en bloc B, there were 45 Democrat amendments; en bloc C, there were 34 Democrat amendments; en bloc D, there were 28 Democrat amendments; and in this bloc F, there are 25 Democrat amendments--zero Republican amendments in any of those blocs. The amendments in this bloc, there is another grab bag of the majority's priorities, many of which take a very generous view of what actual infrastructure is. This bill is supposed to be infrastructure legislation. The bloc includes everything from air-conditioning for postal vehicles to studying sinkholes, to unworkable vehicle mandates that have zero consideration for actual taxpayer funds. It mandates the acquisition of certain types of vehicles without looking at any type of economic analysis on the use of those taxpayer funds. It continues to ignore the need for reasonable bipartisan solutions to address our biggest infrastructure needs, and rather than looking forward at solutions, the amendment tries to eliminate longstanding bipartisan agreements that have addressed our infrastructure needs and, instead, put these left-leaning visions in place. It doesn't have to be this way. It didn't have to be this way. We could have come together and written an infrastructure bill that would have easily cleared this Chamber. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you, going back to TEA-21 when our distinguished chairman was around, TEA-21, the highway bill, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the vote coming out of this House was 337 ``yes'' votes--337--to 80 ``no'' votes. In SAFETEA-LU, our distinguished chairman emeritus, the dean of the House, led that effort. The vote out of the House was 417 to 9 ``no'' votes--417 ``yes'' to 9 ``no'' votes. MAP-21, 293 ``aye'' votes, 127 ``no'' votes, and I want to make note that our chairman, Chairman DeFazio, voted ``yes.'' He was in the minority but voted ``yes.'' And, of course, the FAST Act, once again, when the Republicans were in charge, a big four agreement, when Republicans and Democrats had to come together. The vote was 372 ayes to 54 nays. Right now, just to demonstrate this is doable, right now, Republicans and Democrats are working together in this very committee on the Water Resources Development Act, including both resilience and climate provisions in those negotiations. Mr. Speaker, this is a failure of leadership, and it is incredibly disappointing to watch this continue to happen when we have such urgent needs in this country. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, once again, 25 amendments, and we are being given 30 minutes to debate 25 different amendments. We just effectively approved $250 million--one-quarter of a billion dollars--in 2 minutes. These aren't our funds. These are taxpayer funds. This bill had, I believe it was around 1,300, 1,400 pages of text just airdropped in the bill. It wasn't marked up in committee. It was just airdropped in the bill, added to it, and now we are just going to appropriate trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds without adequate consideration. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, once again, I want to highlight what just happened. We just went and effectively approved an amendment that would allow for $20 billion in bonds to be issued. We just effectively approved the transfer of 2,500 acres of taxpayer property without the consideration of the Natural Resources Committee, the committee of jurisdiction. This is like Monopoly money we are sitting here playing with, but the reality is these are taxpayer funds. These aren't our moneys. These are funds of the taxpayers. This bill has not been through the proper process to ensure that we are actually and legitimately addressing the importance and the integrity of taxpayer funds. I will say it again: dating back decades, Mr. Speaker, we have had bipartisan legislation related to infrastructure--bipartisan. Dating back to the late 1990s, TEA-21, 337-80; SAFETEA-LU, 417-9; MAP-21, 293- 127. I will say it again: our distinguished chairman voted for it. The FAST Act got 372 ``aye'' votes. These were all House versions, Mr. Speaker, not the conference report. What we are seeing right now, what we are doing--I believe, again, the number is 148 Democrat amendments compared to, I believe it is 22 Republican amendments. This is not representation. This entire process is a farce. We just approved perhaps billions of dollars--or we are about to approve billions of dollars--by giving it 30 minutes' consideration. That is not what we were sent here to do. This process is fatally flawed. Three hundred ninety amendments distilled down to effectively allowing up to seven votes? This is a failure in leadership. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this en bloc. I urge rejection of the underlying bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate now for several minutes, listening to all this talk, and it really is just incredible to me to listen to some of the things that are being said. I have heard people say that we have resiliency provisions, but that doesn't address the cause of climate change. Well, let's be clear. You can stop all emissions today--all of them--and we already have momentum built up to where it is going to continue warming. You have got to make investments in resilience. Mr. Speaker, I heard our distinguished chairman earlier say it doesn't make sense to invest in roads because they are going to be underwater, which is why I offered an amendment in committee that actually invests in predisaster mitigation for roads. And I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment. So, we have led efforts to try to improve the resiliency of these infrastructure investments. Mr. Speaker, I also remind the chairman that the DRRA legislation that we just did last Congress, that I sat down in his office to negotiate with him, to talk through policy solutions with him--and I appreciate the time, and we made huge progress. I would say that as a result of that legislation and other actions that last Congress, we made more progress on resiliency than any other time. Mr. Speaker, this was done under a Republican Congress, but more importantly, it was done in a bipartisan manner. Mr. Speaker, now, I have heard people stand here and talk about, ``Oh, we have to reduce emissions.'' Mr. Speaker, for every ton of emissions we have reduced in the United States, China is increasing their emissions by tons, by multiple tons more. Climate isn't a national or a continental issue. It is a global issue. You can't reduce emissions by reducing them in the United States and having other people increase theirs multiple times more than our reduction. That doesn't make sense. Why would we penalize--I will say it again--the poorest among us, those who can't afford it, in the middle of a coronavirus pandemic, in the middle of some of the highest unemployment rates we have seen in our lifetime? People have lost their jobs, and we are going to impose more costs on them. This bill doesn't make sense. Mr. Speaker, there is all sorts of talk about electric vehicles, about how we need transitional electric vehicles. Mr. Speaker, I noted earlier that we don't have the electricity infrastructure--and this bill doesn't address it--to power all of those cars. I will say it again: Where is the energy going to come from? Our current generation capacity, our current grid infrastructure, cannot support it. Another question: I hear my friends on the other side of the aisle often talk about the fact that we don't have enough investment in infrastructure. The highway program is paid for as a user fee. It is paid for by a gasoline tax. It is a user fee. Yet, this bill diverts billions of dollars out to things that don't have anything to do with infrastructure. You are exacerbating the insolvency. And I remind you, electric vehicles don't pay a user fee. They are freeloaders. So by forcing transition, you actually cause insolvency or bankruptcy of our national highway system investments faster. I will say it again: The bill doesn't make sense. Mr. Speaker, just this morning, the Speaker of the House and the Democrat members of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis released a 547-page climate report. Now, I saw it for the first time yesterday afternoon, and I will admit, I haven't had a chance to get through much of it yet. The New York Times has had more time than I have. They actually got it last week. Maybe I can call The New York Times and learn more about what is actually in there. How in the world can a report that was just released be represented in this bill? How does that happen? It doesn't happen. The bill doesn't include the recommendations. This House passed a rule to create a committee, and now they are being ignored. Mr. Speaker, in the committee, I offered an amendment to expedite the implementation of green energy projects, and I was told that the amendment was not germane because it had to do with aviation on airport property. Yet, in the en bloc amendments, part C, we have aviation amendments all over the place. We have amendments in there that force airports to give airport infrastructure funds to private entities that run sky malls. We have provisions in there that take the taxes, the user fee from the aviation fuels, and give it to local and State governments, not investing it back in aviation, therefore causing Federal taxpayers to have to put more money into aviation. We have a ``creating cash for clunkers program'' for airlines in this bill. Again, I was told that a green energy provision dealing with airports was not germane in committee. Yet, this bill now has 1,400 pages of text that was airdropped in here, never seen the light of day in our committee, airdropped in here, 1,400 pages of text. The bill that came out of committee, it may be 1,100 pages. It is extraordinary. It is absolutely extraordinary what is happening today. Mr. Speaker, perhaps most offensive to the people that I represent is that we offered amendments, for example, to clarify the eligibility of the $10 billion in Corps of Engineer funds that were airdropped in this bill, to offer language that just clarified that projects under the Mississippi River and Tributaries Program, one of the large construction programs the Corps of Engineers runs, each project has to be authorized by Congress. We just offered an amendment to clarify that, and I was told, ``Oh, no, you can't do that because those are water-resources related provisions.'' So, I was prevented from being able to simply make the Morganza to the Gulf project eligible for funding. Instead, we are going to spend billions of dollars picking up the pieces of these flooded communities over and over again instead of actually being proactive and protecting them. Mr. Speaker, it was a bipartisan amendment, and I was told: You have to do that in WRDA. However, if you are Conor Lamb, you get your Corps of Engineers amendments in here because those are included. If you are a vulnerable Democrat, you get your Corps of Engineers amendments. But if you are not, you are not allowed to get those. Maybe I should have given my amendment to Conor Lamb. Maybe that is what I should have done, if that is how those get in there. They have different standards for different people. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to represent the people that sent me here to represent them. Another amendment that is squarely within transportation jurisdiction is a bipartisan amendment--I will say it again, Mr. Speaker, a bipartisan amendment--that would allow us to expedite the process to build a crossing of the Mississippi River on I-10, just to expedite it, because we have one of the worst bottlenecks in the Nation in the Baton Rouge area. I was told once again: No, no, no. You can't do that, can't even offer the amendment up. So I will give the statistics again, Mr. Speaker. Of nearly 390 amendments offered up for this bill, in addition to the over 300 amendments offered up in committee--over 100 by Democrats in committee because they had problems with the bill--148 of these amendments are Democrat amendments, 148. And, that, of course, compares to somewhere around 22 Republican amendments that are being allowed to be offered. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this bill. Let's sit back down, as we have done in this Congress, in this Chamber, for decades, watching people on a bipartisan basis put infrastructure bills together that advance the interests of the American citizens, and address the incredible infrastructure needs that we have in this Nation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Oregon, and I do consider him a friend because, oftentimes, over the past few years since I have been here, we have had the opportunity to sit down and engage on constructive policy discussions. I know my friend does like to have those discussions, which is why I like him. Mr. Speaker, I don't like to devolve into partisan fighting, but to listen to the description of this bill and to actually participate in this process, there are a lot of things that need to be addressed, and the Record needs to be set straight. Mr. Speaker, this committee, the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has a long history of being a bipartisan committee. As you heard, there were nearly 390 amendments filed on this bill. Twenty-two Republican amendments are going to be accepted or voted on, and most of them are going to fail. They are designed to fail. Meanwhile, 148 Democrat amendments are being accepted and are going to be allowed to move forward--148 to 22. Mr. Speaker, each one of us represents somewhere around 750,000 people. Why should only certain people be able to be represented? Then, because of this crazy process we have here, we are going to take all of those amendments and combine them into about seven votes where they can take great policy, throw in one poison pill, and the whole thing dies. Mr. Speaker, this is not how you build legislation. I don't think I have to remind anybody here that we have a Republican President and a Republican Senate. This bill has always been bipartisan, and we should be working on this bill because everyone supports infrastructure. Now, on climate, let's talk about climate for just a minute because the United States has reduced emissions more than the next 12 countries combined. The United States has. As my friend from Illinois noted, we are the only country that is in line with our Paris accord, at this point. Number two, there has been this little thing called the coronavirus that has resulted in the largest reduction in history in emissions that is going on right now, which should cause us to reset and not impose more costs on the poor among us, those who cannot afford it, those who have lost their jobs. Mr. Speaker, the committee doesn't even have jurisdiction over climate. And you can't go out there and try and electrify all these cars and not address the fact that you are going to take three to four times the electricity to even power them. Where is the electricity coming from? We are just going to make it up? This bill doesn't address the problems. Mr. Speaker, just today, the bipartisan climate committee that was created by Speaker Pelosi issued their report. They were supposed to be providing the comprehensive plan for climate change. It was a partisan staff report. Was the committee clairvoyant, knew it was going to be in there and just pasted the climate committee's recommendation in this bill? No. This is completely disjointed. It is partisan. It ignores the fact that we had 390 amendments and tries to condense it down to seven votes. Our constitutional Republic is being hijacked right now, and we are not being allowed to represent the people who we were sent here to represent.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot) for his hard work; and I thank the chairwoman, as well, for working together in a bipartisan manner. But most importantly, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my friend, for working together, for identifying the problems with the Paycheck Protection Program, in helping to perfect this program that is an incredible lifeline to small businesses and, importantly, Mr. Speaker, to the employees. Millions and millions of businesses, billions of dollars in loans in a program that didn't even exist. Within 1 week, they stood this program up, and within 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker, handed out more money than the SBA had done over the previous 14 years. It is absolutely remarkable what Treasury and SBA have done with this program. And, as I said, the work that Mr. Roy and Mr. Phillips have done to come together on a bipartisan basis to help to fix, to provide flexibility to businesses, to give them more time, to give them more flexibility on the use of funds, to ensure that these businesses aren't just open for 8 weeks but are truly sustainable businesses that can continue providing employment to millions and millions of Americans for years to come. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to pivot. The other legislation, the TRUTH Act, Mr. Speaker, looking at the comparison of numbers, here we are giving out billions of dollars and millions of loans, looking at the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program, the EIDL loan program. This program is a complete disaster itself. The program is not getting money out the door. Whoever is running this program needs to be replaced. Look at the statistics. They brought in an outside contractor to do the advances. The advances are taking off, but the loans, themselves, are not. We are not offering operating expenses and other needed loans to these small businesses. This bill doesn't fix a single problem that is out there that is delaying, that is preventing this program from actually providing operating expense assistance to these small businesses. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a complete whiff. I urge that we pull back the TRUTH Act. Rescind it. Let's sit back down again and work together on a bipartisan basis, as we have done on this bill, on the PPP Flex bill, and provide true solutions to where the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program can help these small businesses, can truly provide a hand up. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of that bill.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I look at the nutria, and I have to disagree with my friend from California. I feel like I see swamp rats on the floor all the time. But I do appreciate him bringing the actual species here to help folks understand what it is that we deal with. Madam Speaker, I have come on this House floor many times to describe the coastal challenges that we have in Louisiana. We have lost 2,800 square miles of our coast. And I remind my colleagues that if the State of Rhode Island lost 2,800 square miles of their coast, we would have 49 States today. Nutria is part of the problem. It is an invasive species. The population in my home State is nearly 4.5 million people, yet we have an estimated 20 million nutria. It is an extraordinary figure. If we could count them in the Census, we would have an additional 27 Members of Congress. We are having infestation without representation, and we need to do something about it. In Louisiana, we have a thing where if you can't beat it, you eat it. So, we have even tried. We have tried to do nutria fajitas. We have tried to fry it. We have tried everything. It is not my favorite, Madam Speaker, but this really is a huge problem. Very seriously, we have 20 million nutria, and they cause the destruction and damage of tens of thousands of acres of our coastal wetlands every single year. As my friends Mr. McClintock and Mr. Harder from California brought up, it is things like levees, productive estuaries, irrigation canals, and other things that have devastating consequences. This legislation does take some of the lessons learned from the programs in Maryland and Louisiana and expands upon the flexibility of dollars to actually not just work on eradication efforts but also do some restoration work. I thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Neguse, my friend from Colorado; Mr. Harder; as well as the ranking member, Mr. McClintock, for their work on this. This is a bipartisan bill. It is based upon and enacts improvements that we have seen as a result of this program being carried out in Louisiana and Maryland. I am looking forward to this going over to the Senate, and I strongly urge adoption of this important bill to help get this invasive species under control to help protect our communities.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for yielding me the time. Madam Chair, we are in a situation where we absolutely have needs in terms of disaster victims, whether it is Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Louisiana, and other States that have been impacted by disasters. We have had hundreds of billions of dollars in damages in those States in just the last 4 years. It is extraordinary. I had the chance to travel to many of those States and territories to see firsthand the impacts, and I wanted to be very clear. Virtually what everyone said on both sides of the aisle, they are right in terms of what the disaster victims are going through. But I do not agree in what folks are prescribing the strategy to be. We don't need to stand here and see who can out-Puerto Rico the other. It is not a money problem. I have been through this with millions and millions of people. We have policy problems. There are literally tens of billions of dollars in the bank today that we are unable to get to disaster victims. Dumping more money on top of the existing more than $40 billion in the Disaster Relief Fund, and the billions and billions of dollars available today for Puerto Rico under the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program, that doesn't solve the problem. There is an amendment coming up later today by our Members from Texas to put more money into a fund because some of the agencies have had trouble even getting law changes interpreted out. This isn't the solution. I want to thank everybody for coming here and trying to solve the problem for disaster victims. But when you investigate this, I assure you, every single one of you will come back and understand that this is a capacity problem. Getting the bureaucracy in both the territories, the States, and also at the Federal level, getting the dollars to the disaster victims, that is why we are having problems today. I want to say this again. There are tens of billions of dollars available. President Trump approved individual and public assistance for disaster victims of the earthquakes in Puerto Rico. We have got to make sure that the money is actually getting to the right people. Dumping additional money on top of the tens of billions of dollars doesn't solve the problem. We need to focus on real solutions and not stand here and practice politics with one another. I urge rejection to this bill. Let's take a step back and fix the policy problems.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw) for fighting for the disaster victims of the awful hurricanes that his constituents and others have gone through in Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. And I want to thank Congresswoman Fletcher for her co-sponsorship of this amendment and efforts to get this wrong fixed. Madam Chair, I want to very simply explain what is happening here. So you have people that have experienced disasters; that have been through some type of flood or other disaster. The immediate assistance that is available to those disaster victims, and this is for homeowners, for renters, not for businesses--but the Small Business Administration offers loans, disaster loans, to individuals. They offer it to businesses, too, but they offer loans to individuals. And that is the only money that is largely available in the immediate aftermath. There may be a small grant available from FEMA, but it is the only money. So if you want to be proactive, if you want to lean forward, those are the resources that are available. You apply for a loan. So that is one of your options. The other option that you have is that you can sit back in a FEMA- supplied hotel room, or you can sit back in a FEMA-supplied trailer. The trailers, by the way, cost about $150,000 a piece, under FEMA's ridiculous process. So you can have one option where your thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayer funds are paying for your hotel room. You can have another option where $150,000 is going toward a trailer to house you temporarily, while you sit back and wait. The other option is you lean forward, you get the loan, and you help to rebuild. You help to get your community back on its feet. You help to get the tax base. Under our ridiculous Federal policies, the people that were proactive are penalized. The gentleman from Texas, the gentlewoman from Texas, they are exactly right. The people are penalized that are trying to get recovered faster; that are trying to get their community recovered faster; that are trying to not spend more taxpayer funds on hotel rooms or trailers. Yet, our Federal policy penalizes them for it; tells them that when grants are available, grants that you don't have to pay back; that they are ineligible. We are rewarding the wrong type of behavior. So, with the help of many people in this room, we changed the law. The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 changes, section 1210(a). We fixed this. The problem is, it took HUD over a year to write guidance, and they totally missed it. They invented criteria that is not in the law. They totally missed it. They introduced discriminatory criteria and make it virtually impossible for many people to get assistance. So what this amendment does, it is adding money to help fix a wrong. It shouldn't have to be done. I urge adoption of this amendment. But most importantly, Madam Chair, we have got to fix these policies that are causing the Federal Government to re-victimize disaster victims. That is not why we are here. That is not representing. I will say it again; I urge adoption of this amendment. I want to thank my friends from Texas for their work on this. We need to move forward and fix this long-term.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I promise to conserve time and conserve the lake. Mr. Speaker, Lake Pontchartrain is perhaps not a very well-known lake. It is actually the second largest saltwater lake in the United States, but it wasn't always this way. Lake Pontchartrain, as a result of coastal land loss in Louisiana, has had this intrusion of saltwater that has fundamentally changed the ecosystem of that lake and the communities. This is a lake that serves as a watershed for 16 parishes in Louisiana, 4 counties in Mississippi, and most importantly, this lake takes the brunt of the surge from 2 Canadian provinces and 31 States. Mr. Speaker, what happens is each time we have these high-water years on the Mississippi River system which drains 31 States and 2 Canadian provinces, there is an emergency relief valve that sends water through the Bonnet Carre Spillway into Lake Pontchartrain. This isn't water that is coming from Louisiana. In fact, less than 1 percent of the water is even coming from the State of Mississippi. It is water coming from all of these States, from Montana, to New York, to Canada, and all of these States in this large watershed funnel in- between. And so on average, the Bonnet Carre Spillway had been operated once every decade; once every 10 years. Yet, in recent years, we have had to open it four times, including last year. Last year, for the first time ever, it was opened in January, and for the first time ever, it was actually operated twice in 1 year. And so this is in the State of Louisiana. This is this lake, this basin, this watershed that has been taking it on the chin for the rest of the country. The reason this is important, Mr. Speaker, is because this lake is an incredibly productive ecosystem with recreational and commercial fishing. You see lots of folks out there in sailboats and other boats out there enjoying the lake. What has been happening as a result of all the Nation's water's drainage coming into here is that the health of the lake has been compromised and challenged, which therefore affects our fisheries, both recreational and commercial, and the millions of pounds of crabs that are harvested out of the lake. This lake bounds New Orleans and Jefferson Parish. It bounds the north shore and the river parishes, such as Saint John Parish and Saint Charles Parish over on the west side. This is an important part of Louisiana. Because of the coastal land loss that we have experienced and the change in this ecosystem, we must make investments to maintain this as we help to manage this rapid and unfortunate transition from a freshwater lake into a brackish and saltwater lake that we now have. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my good friend from California, the chair of the subcommittee, Congresswoman Napolitano, and her staff, Ryan. I want to thank Congressman Westerman, the ranking member of the subcommittee; Ian Bennitt as well as Maggie Ayrea on our staff for all the work they put into this; and, of course, Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves for all their work in ensuring that we get this bill right and that we have the right caps on here to ensure that the money goes to actually investing in the lake, as Congressman Mitchell mentioned, as opposed to going toward bureaucracy. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bipartisan legislation that we have introduced with my friend, Congressman Cedric Richmond of New Orleans.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, this week the House considers important pieces of legislation related to the global race to 5G. 5G is the newest iteration of wireless technology, and as telecommunications companies and service providers begin deploying their digital cellular networks, I want to take a moment to discuss an important aspect of the 5G rollout: consultation with local governments and homeowners. Last year, the 5G rollout began in my district in parts of Baton Rouge. The utility poles needed to support the new small wireless facilities and other 5G infrastructure are being installed in public rights of way in front of homes. While it is absolutely an economic and national security priority to win the race to 5G, it is vital that Congress consider the impact that this rollout will have on communities across America. In June, I sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai outlining my concerns and urging service providers to work closely with local stake holders as they install this new technology infrastructure. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record the following letter to the FCC from June 13, 2019. Congress of the United States, House of Representatives, Washington, DC, June 13, 2019. Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Pai: Recently, telecommunications service providers have begun installing the new wireless broadband infrastructure that is necessary to support 5G in cities across America, including Baton Rouge. While I share your appreciation for the tremendous role that technology plays, both in the economy and in the lives of its users, I am concerned by the roll out of these small-cell facilities in homes and neighborhoods across my district. A technological transformation of 5G's magnitude requires a massive support structure, but that deployment cannot come at the expense of property values and neighborhood aesthetics, especially in historic communities. America's 5G leadership is an important national priority, but even a national priority demands consultation with local stakeholders. I respectfully ask you to encourage wireless carriers to collaborate with municipalities on the placement and design of these new transmission systems. Additionally, recent reports by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) suggest that the 5G network could interfere with satellite data, reducing the accuracy of weather forecasting by as much as 30 percent. I urge you to work closely with the NOAA, NASA, and any other stakeholders to investigate any potential effects of 5G on our nation's ability to forecast and prepare for severe weather events. As the FCC continues to oversee the deployment of the 5G network, we must remember that the rollout is not happening in isolation. It is crucial to consider the effects that these innovations will have on existing technologies and communities across America. Thank you for your prompt attention to these important issues. Sincerely, Garret Graves, Member of Congress.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Utah for yielding. Madam Chair, I was sitting in my office in a meeting and looked up at the TV screen on C-SPAN, and I watched our distinguished chairman put up a chart that said that for every $1 you invest in proactive predisaster mitigation, you get $6 in cost savings. I was somewhat shocked because I have used that statistic over and over again, and I have also used the statistic that the Congressional Budget Office has a study that says you get $3 in cost savings for every $1 you invest. The Corps of Engineers has a study that says you get $7.92 for every $1 you invest. The National Institutes for Building Standards says you get $11 in cost savings for every $1 you invest. You know what? Every single time I have tried to do this, my good friend has voted against me--every single time. This bill is designed to send out press releases. Let me be clear: Right now, we have well over $100 billion in resiliency projects that are needed across the Nation. Just last year, under a Republican Congress, we put tens of billions of dollars into funding those resiliency projects through the Corps of Engineers, through FEMA. So taking an existing program that manages our coastal resources and expanding the eligibility, expanding the uses of funding without adding new funds, all that is doing is further complicating the very mission that the majority is trying to achieve. The bill goes on further to give USGS permanent authority, or at least authorizing them over the long-term, for fisheries management-- you know, USGS, our fisheries agency. No, they don't manage fisheries. That would be NOAA. This program also takes funds and does a set-aside of authorization for Tribes under a coastal zone. We have learned over and over again that the way that you manage your coastal resources is by integrated management, not by breaking it up further and further into smaller and smaller pieces. We already have 35 coastal States and territories. We need to have integrated management. We don't need to have Louisiana doing something to mess up Mississippi or Texas. We need to make sure that we are looking at it holistically as a Nation. I have been one of the biggest advocates in this Congress for being proactive and making investments in our communities. I represent south Louisiana, one of the most disaster-impacted areas in our entire Nation. The people I represent have been through it all, Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, Isaac. We have had high water on the Mississippi River 4 years of the last 6, record high water draining from Montana to New York to Canada on down. This is not the right approach. This is a flawed approach. I can't even believe I am standing here. My friends have voted against me every single time we have tried to do thoughtful, integrated approaches to protect our coastal communities, protect our ecological resources. To come in and do this in a partisan manner and do it in a way that is totally hypocritical over previous actions is ridiculous. Madam Chair, I urge rejection of this bill and ask that we sit down in a bipartisan manner and work out bipartisan solutions.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I want to be upfront. I have caught dozens of sharks in my life. I have released every single one of them intact. I have never gone shark fishing. It was unintentional catch. I have never eaten a shark, never had shark fin soup, nor have I any intention or desire to have any of this. But I do represent a State that does have a shark industry that sustainably harvests those. Mr. Speaker, I think that it is our obligation to actually go to scientists and to go to fisheries managers to get their opinion on what it is that we ought to be doing here. So, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from our Democratic Governor's administration where they talk about this bill. State of Louisiana, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Baton Rouge, LA, July 7, 2017. Re Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017, S. 793, H.R. 1456. Mr. Acy Cooper, President, Louisiana Shrimp Association, Grand Isle, Louisiana. Acy: As requested by you on June 7, 2017, the department has reviewed the text of Senate bill 793 and House Resolution 1456, also known as the ``Shark Fin Trade Elimination Act of 2017'' and the ``Shark Fin Sales Elimination Act of 2017'', respectively. The bills, in their current form, would place unnecessary economic burdens on Louisiana shark fishermen. As long as responsible management is in place, which is currently the case for sharks in the Gulf of Mexico, there is no need for this legislation. The purpose of these bills as stated by the authors is to ``curtail the act of `finning' sharks while reducing the U.S. contribution to the global shark fin market.'' The practice of shark finning is already illegal in the United States and Louisiana and has been since the 2000s. All sharks landed in Louisiana must have their fins naturally attached until landed. Once a shark is landed in Louisiana, these fins may then be removed and processed separately. Information available on NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service commercial statistics website shows that in 2015, 17,059 kilograms (37,530 pounds) of shark fins were exported from the United States to other countries while 24,016 kilograms (52,835 pounds) of shark fins were imported from other countries. The total estimated global shark fin trade, was an estimated 17,500 metric tons (according to a 2015 F.A.O. report on the state of the global market for shark products). These U.S. total imports and exports amount to less than 1% of shark fins traded globally. This bill will likely have little impact on the global trade in shark fins, especially the illegal trade of shark fins. The majority of shark fin exports do not move through the United States. The majority of fins exported from the United States, in the past, moved through California to the Hong Kong Market. However, since the California ban on shark fins in 2015, the shark fin trade now mainly flows through Mexico and Canada in North America. These bills will do little to reduce global trade or curtail illegal practices on the high seas, but will economically impact responsible U.S. fishermen. Data for 2016 were not yet available. Sharks are indeed a vital part of the marine ecosystem, however those sharks harvested in the United States, along with their fins, are sustainably harvested in accordance with regulations and quotas established by the NOAA Fisheries Highly Migratory Species Division and the State of Louisiana. By eliminating a domestic market for legally harvested fins, this legislation will only have adverse impacts on Louisiana fishermen who legally harvest sharks and their fins as well as the coastal fishing communities where they live. These bills will create unnecessary regulatory waste of legally harvested shark parts by not allowing fishermen to sell fins from a legally harvestable shark species. These bills ban one part, the most valuable part, of an otherwise legally harvestable animal creating a situation in which an entire fishery would effectively be shut down. They will either not affect global shark fin markets, or at worst, will encourage further development of unregulated harvest to replace the regulated US landings. The shark fishery is an important winter fishery in Louisiana as it provides a critical seasonal source of income to a number of commercial fishermen until other fisheries open later in the year. Possible alternative measures to allow the legal shark fishery of the U.S. to continue to harvest and sell legally obtained fins while working to reduce illegal finning practices: 1) Legislation mandating tracking and traceability of legally harvested fins as opposed to an outright ban. 2) Provide for tracking and traceability measures of imported and exported fins to determine legal origin of those fins originating from or entering into the U.S. 3) Prohibit the importation or exportation of shark fins that can't be verified to have come from legally landed sharks. Sincerely, Jack Montoucet, Secretary.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. They say: ``As long as responsible management is in place, which is currently the case for sharks in the Gulf of Mexico, there is no need for this legislation.'' They say: ``The practice of shark finning is already illegal in the United States and Louisiana and has been since the 2000s.'' ``These bills will create unnecessary regulatory waste of legally harvested shark parts by not allowing fishermen to sell fins from a legally harvestable shark species.'' These bills ``will either not affect global shark fin markets, or at worst, will encourage further development of unregulated harvest to replace the regulated U.S. landings.'' Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a National Geographic article from this year that has quotes from the Mote Marine Laboratory in Florida. Shark Fin Is Banned in 12 U.S. States--But It's Still on the Menu Shark fin bans, intended to reduce instances of shark finning, are difficult to enforce, leading some to question if they're worth it (By Rachel Fobar, Jan. 16, 2019) But that would be against state law. California is one of 12 states that bans the sale of shark fins--measures to help prevent further declines of shark populations and to deter finning, which has been illegal in U.S. waters since 2000. Although demand for shark fins for soup is greatest in Asian countries, there's significant demand for them in the United States too. A man who identified himself as the China Gate Restaurant owner's brother says the online listing is a mistake and denies that the restaurant serves the dish. Finning involves slicing fins off live sharks and tossing the wounded animals overboard, where they sink to the bottom and, unable to swim and pass water over their gills, suffocate, die of blood loss, or get eaten by other predators. ``It's without doubt, the worst act of animal cruelty I've ever seen,'' says celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay in his television documentary on the shark fishing industry. Every year, the Animal Welfare Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that supports a national ban on shark fin, updates its list of restaurants that serve shark fin soup and notifies the relevant state enforcement agencies. But so far, according to the institute, the bans haven't stopped restaurants in at least 10 of the 12 states. During the past two years, at least five bills relating to the country's shark fin trade have been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. All five died before becoming laws, leaving the fate of sharks in the U.S. uncertain. Many countries don't regulate shark finning, says Peter Knights, CEO of WildAid, an environmental group that strives to reduce consumption of wildlife products. What this means, activists say, is that Americans could be getting their fins from countries that catch and mutilate sharks, diminishing their already dwindling global populations. Because of overfishing and the demand for shark fin for soup, more than a quarter of the world's sharks, rays, and chimaeras (a cartilaginous fish also known as ghost sharks) are considered to be threatened. In a 2012 study, researchers found the DNA of eight different sharks, including the endangered scalloped hammerhead, as well as vulnerable species like the shortfin mako and the spiny dogfish, in soup samples collected from around the U.S. Shark fin soup has long been a status dish in Asian countries, notably China, where its use can be traced back to an emperor from the Song Dynasty (960-1279) who is thought to have invented the dish to show off his power and wealth. Shark fin eventually became exalted as one of the four treasures of Chinese cuisine, along with abalone, sea cucumber, and fish maw (swim bladders). Today, it's a luxury dish served at weddings as a sign of respect for guests. Preparation of the soup involves boiling the fins and scraping off the skin and meat, leaving behind softened protein fiber, which is sometimes shredded before it goes into the soup. What is a luxury to some is a headache to understaffed enforcement agencies in the U.S. states that ban shark fin. They say that cases against shark fin vendors in those states can be hard to make. Because the shark fin trade tends to go underground, it has been compared to the illicit drug trade. ``I know it's going on, I know it's out there,'' says San Francisco marine warden William O'Brien. ``But it's a very private matter--it's not the kind of thing that, you know, people are selling to the public.'' In addition, according to several law enforcement agents, fines and jail sentences for violating the shark fin ban are generally light and have little deterrent effect. Knights says a U.S. ban on sales of shark fin would be a significant step forward because it would send the message that selling and consuming shark fin isn't acceptable anymore. The sale of shark fin, he says, ``continues to increase the sort of pressure on sharks worldwide.'' But, argues Robert Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at Mote Marine Laboratory, in Sarasota, Florida, given how difficult it is for some states to enforce their shark fin bans, a nationwide ban would just drive the shark fin market underground--as it's done in San Francisco. California has about a third of the country's Asian population and is one of the largest consumers of shark fin outside Asia. When the shark fin ban passed in California in 2011, San Francisco marine warden William O'Brien says he was ``charged up.'' He'd been keeping a list of restaurants to inspect once the ban went into force. Almost immediately, he and his team received a tip about a supplier, and they confiscated more than 2,000 pounds of shark fin from a warehouse near San Francisco Bay. He estimates that the haul was worth at least $500,000. The accused, Michael Kwong, a shark fin wholesaler and vocal opponent of the shark fin ban who said his family had been in the business for four generations, pleaded no contest to violating the shark fin ban. According to court records, he spent 30 days in jail, paid a court fine, and received three years' probation. Since then, O'Brien says, the leads have dried up. He suspects restaurants and market owners are now storing their shark fin supplies off premises--perhaps in their homes, which would be off-limits to law enforcement without a search warrant. ``Essentially, the market has gone so far underground that it requires more specialization than I have to dig it up,'' O'Brien says. O'Brien's overall responsibilities include monitoring for illegal ivory, the pet trade, and illegal animal products in medication, and he must also check hunting and fishing licenses almost daily. He reckons that in any given month, he's able to devote only about two days to shark fin. ``It would be great if I was like, the shark fin guy, and that was all I did,'' O'Brien laments. A complicating factor is that a restauranteur accused of selling shark fin soup may claim it's imitation or made from a species of shark exempt from the ban. Spiny and smooth dogfish sharks, for example, are exempt in New York State. It's possible to identify a species from a freshly cut fin, but once a fin is dried or absorbed in soup, the only way to prove it's a species in violation of the law is through DNA testing. To ascertain whether a crime has been committed, authorities must establish whether the DNA in a seized sample of soup is actually that of a shark. The specimens Ashley Spicer tests and analyzes as a part of her work in the Wildlife Forensics Lab at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife vary from suspected shark fin soup in plastic to-go containers to frozen fins in vacuum-sealed packaging. Spicer examined California's 2018 shark cases--all four of them. Only two of those cases were specifically shark fin; the others were a shark attack case and a poaching case. In all, the two shark fin cases she handled in 2018 involved about 20 different shark fins. Low test numbers don't necessarily represent every California shark fin case that comes to the attention of authorities. If, for example, a case elicits an immediate confession on the part of the accused, authorities may decide that testing isn't necessary. DNA testing proved successful in a recent case in Plano, Texas, one of the states where shark fin is banned. Mike Stephens, a game warden with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, went into a local dim sum restaurant--in uniform--with a colleague and asked for the ``special'' menu. And there it was: shark fin soup. To assure them the shark fin was real, not imitation, the restaurant owner's wife led the wardens to a walk-in freezer where they found about six bags of shark fins. Stephens assumes that the owner, Qi Zhou, and his wife didn't realize the real reason behind the wardens' visit until it was too late. Before they left, Stephens says, Zhou's wife told them they weren't the only ones selling shark fin. The supermarket next door was offering it too, she said. Sure enough, when the wardens went to the supermarket, Tao Marketplace, to investigate, they found nearly 40 shark carcasses, the tail fins removed, on display in the fresh fish aisle and in storage. Wearing rubber gloves so as not to contaminate the evidence, they sealed the fins from both places in separate containers and overnighted them to a lab in North Carolina for DNA testing. The case against the supermarket is still pending, but the restaurant owner was found guilty of selling shark fin and paid a fine: one dollar. The court also ordered Zhou to make a donation to the Animal Welfare Institute, which totaled less than a thousand dollars, Stephens says. According to the institute, in Texas and most other states, prison sentences for shark fin transgressions are rare and usually don't exceed six months for a first offense. Fines are usually less than a thousand dollars. By contrast, a single pound of dried shark fin can sell for $400, and shark fin soup can command anywhere from $50 to $200. ``It's tough to get jail time on wildlife cases,'' says Jesse Paluch, a captain with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's Bureau of Environmental Crimes Investigation unit. In New York, he says, judges and prosecutors ``see so much crime, so wildlife crime is a little bit lower on the spectrum.'' In October 1988, when Robert Hueter was getting his start at the Mote Marine Laboratory, he heard from a colleague that a group of fishermen off the Florida Panhandle had been caught harpooning bottlenose dolphins, whose meat and blood they used to bait sharks. Killing bottlenose dolphins was and still is illegal under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972. When the fishermen caught sharks, they sliced off their fins and threw the mutilated animals, still alive, back into the water. This is sick, Hueter says he thought at the time. He'd never heard of shark finning, so he contacted Nelson Bryant, a reporter he knew at The New York Times, who wrote a pioneering story about the practice. Today, shark finning is the subject of documentaries, public protests, and Facebook posts. Hueter says the fishermen were handed minor fines for killing the dolphins--and no penalty for finning the sharks. ``There was no crime in what they'd done with the sharks,'' he says. Since then, Hueter has been an advocate for sharks. Which is why, he says, he's against a national shark fin ban. ``The folks that are pushing the fin ban campaign want to simplify it to this very simple message--that if we ban the fin trade in the United States, we save sharks all around the world,'' Heuter says. ``That is so simplistic and so wrong.'' He says that of course he's against finning and overfishing but that cutting the fins off a legally caught dead shark isn't cruel, and banning a specific dish won't stop shark finning because shark finning is already illegal in U.S. waters. But, he says, a ban will ensure that fins from dead sharks are wasted. ``It would cause [fishermen] to have to throw the fins into the dumpster. It goes totally against our doctrine of full utilization of fishery products--that when we harvest fishes from the sea, we don't want to throw stuff away. We want to use absolutely everything we can.'' David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist with Simon Fraser University, in Vancouver, Canada, and the man behind the popular Twitter account @whysharksmatter, says it's unreasonable for people to criticize using shark fins for soup when they may eat shark meat in other forms. ``There are people who are outraged at the idea of consuming a bowl of shark fin soup who are not outraged at the idea of eating a mako shark steak on the grill,'' he says. ``From my perspective, as a shark conservation biologist, either way you've got a dead shark. Shark fin soup has sort of become this boogie man of ocean conservation.'' As an alternative to a national ban, in 2018 Hueter helped draft the Sustainable Shark Fisheries and Trade Act, which Representative Daniel Webster, a Florida Republican, says he plans to reintroduce this session. This bill, Hueter says, would allow imports only from countries that prohibit finning and promote shark conservation. But Susan Millward, director of the marine animal program at the Animal Welfare Institute, says a blanket ban is still the best answer. ``Even if you have a sustainable shark fin trade, there's still going to be a trade in shark finning,'' she says. ``There's always going to be people who want to flout it.'' Chinese basketball star Yao Ming pushes a white ceramic cup of shark fin soup across a table. In an aquarium tank to his right, a bleeding computer-generated shark sinks to the bottom. ``Remember,'' he says, staring into the camera lens, ``when the buying stops, the killing can too.'' Since 2011, consumption of shark fin soup in China has fallen by about 80 percent, both because of national bans on serving shark fin at government banquets and the effect of celebrity-backed awareness campaigns such as Yao Ming's, seen by millions of Chinese. According to a 2018 WildAid report, when WildAid began its Chinese anti-shark fin campaign in 2006, 75 percent of consumers didn't realize the soup they were eating was made from shark, and many who did know mistakenly thought that sharks' fins grew back after they were cut off. Many conservationists believe that similar awareness- raising efforts in the U.S. would curb demand. People generally don't give much thought to what they're eating, Millward says. ``It's just a lack of connecting the dots with where this product came from, how it started with a live animal and how much suffering was endured to reach this finished product . . . These animals are dying painfully, and their whole ecosystems are being affected--for what?'' Her question begs another: Why shark fin? It's widely known that the fin adds no taste or health benefits to shark fin soup; rather, it gives the soup a crystalline, noodle-like texture, which can be replicated almost indistinguishably with mung bean paste or melon. What's more, because shark fins are cartilage and rigid protein fibers, they need to be cooked for hours, even a full day, to soften them enough to be edible. ``If you cook my belt for 24 hours, it would be edible too,'' Knights says. Ironically, as conservationists, chefs, and even consumers themselves acknowledge, the flavor of shark fin soup--a dish that has ignited international controversy, spurred people to write countless letters to the United States Congress, and led to a massive awareness campaign--comes not from the fins but from the chicken broth used as the soup's base.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. In fact, the director of shark research for that institute says, ``The folks that are pushing the fin ban campaign want to simplify it to this very simple message that if we ban the fin trade in the United States, we save sharks all around the world. That is so simplistic and so wrong. It would cause fishermen ``to have to throw fins into the dumpster. It goes totally against our doctrine of full utilization of fishery products, that when we harvest fishes from the sea, we don't want to throw stuff away. We want to use absolutely everything we can.'' David Shiffman, a marine conservation biologist with Simon Fraser University, also talks about how this is a flawed approach. He lays out an alternative, which my friend from Florida, Congressman Webster, and the Mote Marine Laboratory director of the shark institute there have advocated for as well. Mr. Speaker, there is no one in this body who supports the concept of shark finning. But let's be clear on that. No one here supports this concept of finning a shark and just letting the rest of it drop to the bottom and die. No one does. But we have to understand that our entire fisheries management practice, the State of Louisiana having one of the largest commercial fisheries in the Nation, that this is part of the overall consideration.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. This is part of the overall consideration. Yet this bill attempts to gut legally sustainable shark harvesting that is part of the overall fisheries management process and doesn't take into consideration what impact that will have. In closing, this bill is not the right approach. I agree with the objective, but all we are doing here is pushing illegally harvested species to other countries, as opposed to truly stopping the problem. There are successful efforts out there that are demonstrated to work, whereas this simply, again, promotes illegal harvesting.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas, the gentlewoman from Missouri, and everybody working on this. We have had one of the most intense periods of disasters in American history in recent years: Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, Michael, and Florence pounding Texas, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. We have seen impacts in South Carolina and Georgia, as well. But there is not another State that has been as disaster-impacted as south Louisiana, there is not another State: Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, Ike, Isaac. We have had record-high water in the Mississippi River 2011, 2016, 2018, and, this year, 2019. There is not a more impacted State, which means there is not a more experienced State in terms of dealing with disasters. Number one, Mr. Speaker, the committee in this Congress that has jurisdiction over disasters is the Transportation Committee, and the Transportation Committee had no consideration of this bill whatsoever-- none. We made some major reforms just last year in the Disaster Recovery Reform Act that made major changes in how we handle disasters. You see people out there advocating this legislation who do not represent disaster victims, and I don't mean that in a mean way. I am just telling you that the folks who have actually dealt with disasters understand this is flawed, and let me explain why. In the immediate aftermath of disasters, what happens is the only funds that are available are FEMA funds. You have FEMA funds that are available for disaster response and direct assistance to individuals. So you may be able to get some immediate money, you may be able to get some immediate housing assistance, hotels, or other things, just an immediate small downpayment, then you get a loan from the SBA, a second agency we are bringing into it. Maybe then you pursue your FEMA claim through flood insurance with a different division of FEMA. And, at some point in the future, you may get these funds, maybe--maybe--appropriated by Congress, and this is for the long-term recovery. Now, let me give you the timeline under this bill. They have 60 days to actually allocate the funds, whatever that means. The funds that Congress appropriated is based upon an allocation. You have 90 days to file a plan. You have another 60 days, I believe it is, for consideration of the plan after it is submitted, for plan approval, and then another 60 days for the grants. And then you still have the certification of the State's program. You still have the actual hiring of a contractor. You have accepting applications, approving applications, and actually giving the grants. Mr. Speaker, you are talking about a year after a disaster, at least, under this bill. Further, in my home State of Louisiana, where we have received $1.7 billion from a 1,000-year storm in 2017, we ended up having to give a contractor $350 million to hand out $1.2 billion. That is, roughly, a 22 percent administrative cost, money that should be going to disaster victims. This doesn't make sense. It just doesn't make sense. One of the reasons I am so frustrated is because we had a bipartisan agreement with leadership that this bill was going to move in tandem with another bill, voted out of the Transportation Committee unanimously in March.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. It passed out of the Transportation Committee--I will say it again, the committee with disaster experience, with disaster jurisdiction--passed out of that committee unanimously. Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we all need to be focused on is the disaster victims. That is what we need to be doing. We need to be focused on the disaster victims and focused on getting assistance to them, not revictimizing the disaster victims through our own government inefficiency--and I am concerned that that is exactly what this bill does. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me give you a statistic to prove my point. We had a hearing a few months ago where we had the Economic Development Administration, through the Department of Commerce, come testify. They told us in the meeting that, within 1 year, the disaster funds that were given to them for disaster recovery activities, within 1 year, 79 percent of the money was out the door. Comparatively--to look at how HUD has handled this program, and this bill does nothing to fix it--comparatively, HUD has only given out 79 percent of the program after 6 years for 50 percent of the grants that were issued. They still have money sitting around for Hurricane Sandy. This is not helping disaster victims. I urge opposition.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, at the end of the day, what we need to be doing is we need to be looking at this through the eyes of the disaster victims. We need to be looking at this through their eyes. Having a bill that codifies under law, locks in that you are talking about 270 days, not from the aftermath of a disaster, but 270 days from when the funds are actually appropriated by the Congress, which could be a year later. It could be 2 years later. That doesn't make sense. There is no connectivity between a FEMA hotel program or mobile home program and getting money in the bank to actually help disaster victims. The bill says that the funds have to be spent in 6 years. Mr. Speaker, how about if we subject Members of Congress to being homeless for 6 years? How about if we make them be homeless for 270 days? How about we make them homeless for 27 hours or 270 minutes. I don't care. This doesn't make sense. It is an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. The program has proven to be inefficient. The agency has proven that they cannot administer this, and it just doesn't make sense. We need to continue to look at this through the eyes of the disaster victims. Look at the Government Accountability Office report that found all sorts of flaws in here, and let's actually fix the real problems. I urge opposition to this legislation.