Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Stauber from Minnesota for introducing this legislation and working together with Congressman DeSaulnier from California. As Ms. Norton, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, noted, in 2017, at San Francisco International Airport, a NOTAM had been issued, a notice to airmen, which is usually sent to notify pilots about changes in airspace or construction conditions or changes of conditions at airports. One was issued that indicated that a runway was under construction and an alternative runway was open. They had an Air Canada flight that came in while four occupied planes were on the taxiway, and there was a near miss where this Air Canada flight nearly landed on a taxiway that they mistook for the alternative runway. It would have caused widespread death in the event that those five planes ultimately would have collided. The National Transportation Safety Board, as noted, did find that the lack of comprehension, or possibly even reviewing this NOTAM, was a primary cause. This legislation creates a task force to look at better ways of informing, of connecting with pilots, to make sure that they have accurate information and that they actually read or are aware of these changing conditions which could, as in the 2017 incident, be the difference between life and death. Again, I want to thank Chairman DeFazio. I want to thank Ranking Member Sam Graves. I want to thank Mr. Stauber, the author of this bill, with his partner, Congressman DeSaulnier from California. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Guest).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, the back up at the useless security screening onto the House floor was backed up preventing me from making the vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 104.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Yea'' on rollcall No. 59.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Arkansas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have listened to our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about their desire for protecting wilderness areas and our natural resources, and I want to commend them for that. I agree with them, we need to do a better job doing that. As we have had an opportunity to talk in the past, Mr. Speaker, in a previous life I taught mountaineering courses, I led climbing trips, I led mountain biking trips, kayaking, and was a river guide. I spent more time out in these very areas that they are talking about than every single one of them sitting there combined. It is what I did. It is how I lived for years. And, Mr. Speaker, listening to this talk, I see an extraordinary disconnect, and let me be very clear. I have heard people saying that this is going to promote economic development and promote recreational opportunity. Mr. Speaker, that is not true. It is not fact. As a matter of fact, what happens under this legislation in these designations is that those very recreational opportunities that create economic activity are actually eliminated. They are prohibited under this act. You cannot do things like mountain biking. I will say, they finally came back and made some adjustments on wilderness areas where you can leave descending devices--thank you--but you can't do these things. So how in the world are you going to make more money and have more economic activity? Are they going to offer unicorn rides? You can't do that. This doesn't work. It doesn't make sense. We are not following the regular process you do to evaluate wilderness areas. What happened last Congress--we have a new Member of Congress who represents three-quarters of this area and she wasn't given an opportunity to be consulted. Amendments to allow local governments and maybe the citizens were rejected. Let them make a decision here. Mr. Speaker, why were those ideas rejected? I had an amendment that simply said that we should allow best practices in wildfire management. That was prohibited. We have had seven million acres of this very area burned and we are prohibiting the best practices in wildfire management. Mr. Speaker, I want to know what they are going to tell their constituents and other people's constituents when these areas burn because of their irresponsible activities. Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, Mr. Johnson, for yielding and for organizing this. Madam Speaker, I sat here and listened to all of these people talk about Luke Letlow, and I don't know who they are talking about. Luke was a redneck. There is this iconic picture of Luke where he is wearing this hat, and it says: ``Start Fire.'' The only thing that comes to mind is this is parent material, right? Luke was a good ol' boy, and I know, in many instances, that term is associated with negativity. That is not Luke. Luke was a force for good, and he did that before the Navy even coined that term. I have known him for 15, 20 years. We staffed together up here in Congress. We worked together in the Governor's office in Louisiana. Luke was always a workhorse, always, not a show horse. Madam Speaker, Luke was a public servant. He wasn't a politician. He had a heart for the public. He had a heart for fixing things, and he was good at it. Luke brought folks together, and he got things done. There wasn't a prejudiced or discriminatory bone in his body. Everybody was a friend. Everybody Luke met, he looked you in the eye, he gave you that little grin, which was a little bit cockeyed, and he truly wanted to know you. He truly wanted to get to know people, to find out what you were about. He loved finding out about the background or history of people, their ancestry, their relatives, where they were from, what they did, what they cared about. Madam Speaker, the people in the Fifth District of Louisiana saw that as well. There are 24 parishes that comprise the Fifth District, and Luke won 23 of those, 23 of them in the election. This district, his predecessor used to brag, and Luke serving as the chief of staff to Congressman Ralph Abraham used to brag, has more acres of row crops than any other district in Congress. This wasn't an urban area. This wasn't New York City or even New Orleans. This was a rural area. Madam Speaker, these were the people that Luke had a heart for. I have never in my life been as excited as I was to have a colleague like Luke. Years and years ago, I told him, I said: ``Luke, look, if Doc, if Ralph Abraham, ever steps down, you have to run. You have to do it.'' There are a lot of people up here that are good. Luke would have been great. Madam Speaker, you look at this place, you watch the network TV, the news, and you wonder why in the world anyone would want to come to do this. You have really got to question people's sanity, looking at how dysfunctional, how partisan, how divisive this place is. One of the previous speakers hit it on the head when they said Luke is exactly what we need. He is exactly what we need here. I will say it again: Luke is a workhorse, not a show horse. He brings people together. He doesn't care about your race, your ethnicity. He doesn't care about your political party. What he cares about is doing things right. Luke's dream was to find a good life partner, and knowing him when he was a little younger, I think many of us thought that was a pretty lofty goal for Luke. But, man, he nailed it. He did. Julia, his partner, his life partner, his spouse, his wife, is just amazing, and Luke was just so excited, so giddy, about that relationship. Luke's dream was to be a good son, and he is. He is a great son. He is a great brother. Before I leave you all with the wrong impression, I should have clarified that his dad actually started the volunteer fire department in Start, S-t-a-r-t, where he was from. I didn't mean to suggest that he was a pyro. He was a good son. Luke's dream was to be a Member of Congress, and he did that, too. He won the election. His dream was to be a good father to Jeremiah and the apple of his eye, Jacqueline. He loves them, absolutely loves them. And his dream was to be a good Christian. Look, all of us are sinners, but Luke was a difference-maker. He didn't run for Congress for the name recognition, for the ego, or for the popularity. He did this, he ran, to represent the underrepresented, to stand up for these small communities, like Start, Louisiana, and the people of these small communities so they would have a voice, so they would be represented. I will never in my life forget when we were at the burial, following the hearse to the burial ceremony, seeing that hearse driving and the water tower of Start right there in the background, and this just ominous sky. All I could think about is Luke doing what was right and wanting to be here because he really cared. He did. It was so genuine. Madam Speaker, people often talk about term limits, and term limits make a lot of sense. There are some people that should be term-limited after they have been in Congress for about 2 months, and there are some people that should be term-limited after 40 years. Luke was one of those people who should be here forever because you couldn't change his genuine heart and care for the people and doing what is right. So, Madam Speaker, I want to thank, again, my friend from Louisiana for organizing this. It was absolutely well deserved. Filling the void Ralph Abraham's retirement created was a big void, but, certainly, Luke was absolutely up for that task. He was going to do an amazing job. To Julia, to Jeremiah, to Jacqueline: Luke is looking down at us from heaven right now probably playing Xbox or PlayStation, and he is looking over this place. He is looking over this family. What Louisiana lost was heaven's gain. God bless you, brother.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was absent for votes on December 16-17, 2020. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 244 (S. 2216); and YEA on Roll Call No. 245 (H.R. 3250).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was en route from my district to the Capitol but was not able to arrive in time for the December 10 vote series. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 242 (S. 906); and YEA on Roll Call No. 243 (H.R. 5040).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was notified that I was exposed to COVID-19 and am following quarantine guidelines set by the CDC. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 240 (HR 8900); and YEA on Roll Call No. 241 (HR 5758).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was notified that I was exposed to COVID-19 and am following quarantine guidelines set by the CDC. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: on Roll Call No. 233 (S. 2981)--NAY; on Roll Call No. 234 (MTR for H.R. 3884)--YEA; on Roll Call No. 235 (H.R. 3884 )--NAY; on Roll Call No. 236 (H. Res. 512)--YEA; on Roll Call No. 237 (S. 461 )--YEA; on Roll Call No. 238 (H.R. 6395)--YEA; and on Roll Call No. 239 (H.R. 8354)--YEA.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, please excuse my absence. I was notified that I was exposed to COVID-19 and am following quarantine guidelines set by the CDC. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 230, PQ, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 231, Rule, and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 232, HR 1380.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was notified that I was exposed to COVID-19 and am following quarantine guidelines set by the CDC. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 228.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly make note for the record that Hurricane Katrina was largely the result of the Federal Government's actions, the devastation that was caused, the loss of life. The Chief of Engineers of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers acknowledged their fault in that incident. Yes, it was unique. I also want to make clear that I said that I don't necessarily object to the outcome of the legislation, but I think the way of getting there is inappropriate. We need to have consistent standards on how to achieve the right cost share for different disasters.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer), my friend, for yielding. Look, I understand I am in the minority on this legislation in more ways than one. Mr. Speaker, years ago, there was a movie called ``Brewster's Millions.'' ``Brewster's Millions'' featured Richard Pryor, John Candy, and others. In that movie, Richard Pryor was tasked with spending $30 million in 30 days in order to get access to $300 million in inheritance. So what he did in that movie is he just went out there and carelessly spent money hand over fist, just spending it irresponsibly and recklessly because it wasn't his money. He didn't have to really care about if it was spent in a wise or principled manner. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that perhaps we are doing a little bit of that here. I want to be clear: I agree that our local governments and our State governments deserve relief, but, Mr. Speaker, in 2018, just 2 years ago, we actually passed, we enacted, section 1232 of the Disaster Recovery Relief Act that requires that FEMA look at the cumulative impact of disasters in a region to determine what the cost share should be. So, the law already provides a mechanism to reduce the cost share. I agree that they have not done a good job implementing it, but I do believe it is important for us to ensure that local and State governments have some concern with the dollars that are being spent, some skin in the game. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, look, whether it is a State or local or Federal Government, you have three options: you can reduce spending; you can raise taxes; or, you can incur debt. All we are doing is we are probably going to incentivize this irresponsible spending, and we are going to increase the Federal debt. I think that the better way to address this would be forcing FEMA to implement section 1232 of the DRRA law of 2018 the way that we intended, therefore achieving a similar objective. Mr. Speaker, I urge that we revisit this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I really can't dispute many of the previous speakers' comments. The bottom line is that the aviation industry, the aviation mode of transportation is the safest mode of transportation. It is the safest way to travel. And the United States has the gold standard in regard to aviation safety. However, we are all aware of two very tragic accidents that resulted in 346 lives that were lost, 346. Just because we have the best, we have the safest, does not mean that we should ever stop striving for better, we should ever stop striving for perfection. Mr. Speaker, we had five hearings on this legislation. There were numerous expert panels that were put together to review this, to extract every single lesson learned. I thank the acting administrator at the time, Dan Elwell--and I want to congratulate him on his retirement--for his steady hand in ensuring that, as we move forward, we base our decisions on facts. I thank him for some of the changes within the FAA to ensure that we apply lessons learned. Mr. Speaker, as previous speakers noted, this legislation is the result of all of these nonpartisan, independent expert reviews. We took the lessons learned and we adapted it into legislation to make sure that we can, as I said, continue to strive for perfection; to continue to focus on, as my friend Mr. Larsen noted, the families; to keep a face on this; to ensure that we never subject future families to the same losses that we had in this case. And that is just what we did. I thank Michael Stumo, one of the leaders of the families who called us often and reminded us what it was that we were doing. We were focusing on safety because this is about people, about real lives. Mr. Speaker, this bill has a number of improvements, as I noted, including ensuring that safety management systems are applied by manufacturers and better controls over project management. The bill integrates project review within the FAA to make sure that different entities within the FAA are aware of what the others are doing. The bill ensures that there is disclosure of safety critical information in systems, including close inspection and review of new or novel technologies that are introduced into the design to ensure that we fully understand the impact of those. It ensures that there is conformance with the FAA design type; meaning that you can't come in and simply amend the design type if you are making significant changes to the aircraft or if the aircraft design evolves over time to where if initially it couldn't simply be an amended design. Mr. Speaker, it also includes something that is very important. It integrates human factors, ensuring that we understand how humans, how pilots and others will behave in the instance of some type of safety issue on aircraft. Mr. Speaker, when an aircraft has a problem, you can't simply pull it over to the side of the road and check it out. We have to make sure that this continues to be the safest mode of transportation. We have to continue to ensure that the United States truly has a gold standard. I thank Chairman DeFazio and my friend, Chairman Larsen, as well as full committee Ranking Member Graves of Missouri, for the work on this bill because this bill didn't start out as something that was bipartisan that everybody was on board with, but it did evolve to this point. Candidly, there are few perfections in here that I would like to see, but this is a really good bill, and it does simply take the recommendations, the findings of the expert reports and it does turn this into legislation. I thank all my friends for working together on this. I thank Holly and Hunter, whose baby Theo didn't comply with our schedule in this legislation, for all of their hard work here.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank my friend from Michigan, and I want to thank Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop for their work on this legislation, the DESCEND Act. Mr. Speaker, years ago, the Federal Government tried to tell our communities--all of us grew up fishing and, many, for sustenance and for recreation. It is our outdoors. The Federal Government told us that we would only get 3 to 9 days to fish for red snapper. Mr. Speaker, when I was a kid, we did it year-round. That is our recreation. As much as I would love to have them, we don't have mountains and the other recreational opportunities that go along with those types of elevation changes. I will say it again: Fishing is our outdoors. It is what we do at home, and that was being taken away from us. Congressman Huffman from California and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we totally disagreed on the solution there. He and I butted heads for years trying to work through a solution. On this bill, my most-of-the- time friend Mr. Huffman and I are in lockstep. We are joined as cosponsors on this bill and are moving this one together because we believe this is the right solution, as you heard Mrs. Dingell just explain. What happens is that we do have a season on red snapper. You can only fish for a certain number of days a year, yet you can't tell which fish is going to bite your line when it is down under the water. Red snapper spend the majority of their life at 100 feet or below. They have a swim bladder, as was explained, that operates somewhat like a ballast and allows them to stay at certain depths. When they are caught and reeled in, they are brought up too fast. The ballast does not exhaust, and, therefore, you have a fish that cannot go back down. They have technologies, Mr. Speaker, as simple as ones like this, a descending device like this, where you can release the fish back down at the proper depth. They have venting tools that look like a fortified straw that also can help release the pressure. They are very easy tools to use. Mr. Speaker, we are talking about 2\1/2\ million fish every 5 years that are discarded or lost. If we are having conflicts between recreational and commercial fishers in terms of the access to the fisheries, the pounds, the days, and we are discarding 2\1/2\ million fish every 5 years, it is a huge opportunity for us to actually grow the pie, and, as my friend from Michigan (Mrs. Dingell) stated, to actually ensure the sustainability of these fisheries not just for us, but for our children and grandchildren for generations to come. It is a better management tool, and it is successfully used in other areas. This legislation would provide for the use of descending and venting tools as well as freeing up additional research dollars associated with red snapper and descending tool use and the further management of the fisheries. So I want to thank, again, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop for their work. I want to thank Bill Ball, Christine Sur, Lora Snyder, and all the staff that did a great job working on this, as well as Dustin Davidson in our office. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to thank my friend from Georgia. I appreciate him bringing that cute little picture of the fish for us to see the size. Of course, that fish was actually born in Louisiana and swam over there. I did notice, Mr. Speaker, in the picture, my friend from Georgia appeared to be more slim than he is today, and so my explanation earlier of the swim bladder, perhaps my friend from Georgia's swim bladder is a little elevated right now from not being able to go to the gym. In any case, Mr. Speaker, I do seriously want to thank my friend from Georgia, all the Republicans and Democrats, and Mr. Wittman from Virginia, everyone, for coming together and working on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the American Sportfishing Association, Angler Action Association, BoatUS, Center for Sportfishing Policy, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, International Game Fish Association, Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, and Wild Oceans that expresses support for the legislation. September 29, 2020. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, Washington, DC. Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Republican Leader of the House, Washington, DC. Dear Speaker Pelosi and Republican Leader McCarthy: On behalf of the nation's recreational fishing and boating community, thank you for bringing H.R. 5126, Direct Enhancement of Snapper Conservation and the Economy through Novel Devices Act of 2020 (DESCEND Act), to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. The DESCEND Act unanimously passed the Committee on Natural Resources on March 11. We urge final passage of this bill sponsored by Congressmen Garret Graves (R-La.) and Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and thank them for their leadership in support of Gulf of Mexico reef fish conservation. The Gulf of Mexico's recreational fisheries contribute $13.5 billion to the economy annually and support 138,817 jobs. The region's recreational fishing community is comprised of 2.6 million saltwater anglers and thousands of fishing-dependent businesses who strongly support healthy marine resources. Part of this commitment to conservation includes minimizing bycatch and maximizing survival of released fish to ensure the health of our fisheries for generations to come. Red snapper and other reef fish are often thrown overboard for a variety of reasons (e.g., being caught out of season or undersized). Due to the rapid change in pressure from being brought to the surface from depth many of these fish cannot swim back down and end up dying at the surface. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Gulf red snapper are wasted each year. This is an economic and conservation travesty. Unfortunately, a bureaucratic roadblock related to an important oil spill recovery-funded project has prevented regulation from moving forward at the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council that would address this problem. For fisheries as important and valuable as Gulf reef fish, we should be doing everything we can to conserve these fish stocks. By requiring reef fish fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico to possess devices that help fish avoid the fatal effects of barotrauma, and by clarifying that oil spill recovery funds can be used for related projects, the DESCEND Act would be a tremendous step toward reducing wasteful discard mortality and ensuring the sustainability of the iconic Gulf red snapper and other reef fish. Furthermore, it would align Gulf regulations with several West Coast states and South Atlantic federal waters where descending devices are required on board. We are grateful for the many victories during this Congress benefiting natural resource conservation, and we hope you will add to that legacy by passing the science-based conservation measures included in the DESCEND Act. Sincerely, American Sportfishing Association, Angler Action Foundation, BoatU.S., Center for Sportfishing Policy, Coastal Conservation Association, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation. Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation, International Game Fish Association, Marine Retailers Association of the Americas, National Marine Manufacturers Association, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Wild Oceans.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank a number of people who were really instrumental in helping us to strike this bipartisan balance: Mike Leonard with the American Sportfishing Association; Cmac, with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; David Cresson and Rad Trascher with the Coastal Conservation Association; and Jeff Angers with the Center for Sportsfishing Policy. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman DeFazio and Ranking Member Sam Graves for their work on this legislation. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this is a demonstration of bipartisan cooperation, what we were sent here to do, as opposed to the politics that we have all seen that have hijacked our government in recent months. The reality is that they are real needs of the American public, and this is an example of that. This legislation is very simple. Airports are not like traditional roadways. You have a runway that is usually, at most airports, one runway, and that is it. So when that runway goes down, that airport can't function. You can't have flights come in. You can't have commercial or general aviation operations. So this legislation, very simply, allows for incentive-based contracting, where you can reduce the amount of time that it takes you to do your construction project. It diminishes delays on vacations, family visits, business travel, and all the important things that are facilitated by our aviation infrastructure by airports. Again, it simply allows us to more quickly address safety issues, capacity issues, and expansion issues in airports. The bottom line is this ultimately is a saver for taxpayers, because if we can resume operations, it allows the traveling public to advance and the economy to flow, and it allows aviation taxes to also continue flowing. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. DeFazio, Congressman Larsen, Congressman Sam Graves, and all those who worked together on this important legislation, and I urge adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let's look at this process. Here we have a bill that was a bipartisan bill, H.R. 4447, that passed out of the committee on a bipartisan vote, and it was eight pages. It was eight pages. Today, this bill is nearly 900 pages. Miraculously, from committee to the floor, it just exploded and became nearly 900 pages of text. This bill is now scored to cost the American taxpayers $135 billion. This is an issue that we agree that we need to be discussing. We need to be discussing America's energy future. We need to be discussing the fact that Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, and other countries are trying to decimate the American energy industry. They are trying to force our dependence upon them. Unfortunately, while there are some good components of this bill, much of it plays into the hands of those very countries by forcing the use or pushing the use of technologies by manipulating markets, by distorting costs, that forces us to play into the hands of those countries and become subject or dependent upon them for different resources. Mr. Speaker, the United States, as I have heard people talk about emissions, we are the leader in the world in terms of reducing emissions. The United States has reduced emissions more than every other country. People talk about emissions reduction. Under President Obama, there was the Clean Power Plan. We have actually hit the Clean Power Plan target established by President Obama, but we have done it 10 years early. We haven't done it by distorting markets. We haven't done it by forcing the use of technologies. We have done it by letting the market do what it does, by letting innovators innovate, like they do. So to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I will say it again: We absolutely would love to engage with you on America's energy future, on how we ensure the use of clean energy technologies moving forward, but also on building upon the success of the United States and how we are the global leader in reducing emissions. We don't have to have a Democrat bill. We have got all these amendments. They have been thrown together en bloc, where maybe we have a great amendment, but it is paired together with nine others that are awful. This distorts the process, and it really makes us unable to even represent our constituents at home. So I want to urge: Let's sit down and engage in this bill in a bipartisan way. Let's not take a bill that was 8 pages and add over 800 pages to it in the dark of night. Let's have a transparent process. Let's let us vote on amendments that make sense, that ensure America's energy future is based upon our resources, not those of Russia, not those of China, as this bill does. This is a fatally flawed process. It is not in the interests of America. It is not in the interests of our children's and our grandchildren's future, and it ignores the fact that America is the leading reducer in emissions.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Oregon for yielding. Madam Speaker, first of all, I respond to comments earlier from my friend from New Mexico (Mr. Lujan), who noted that the Congressional Budget Office's score on this bill was zero. Madam Speaker, as we all know, this bill authorizes $135 billion in new programs. And so if my friend from New Mexico is suggesting that this whole thing is a charade and that my friends across the aisle do not anticipate actually seeking appropriations for this legislation, then it would be very interesting to hear those comments, but I think to suggest that the bill does not implicate appropriations is simply misleading, and I would urge that we have more transparency in this process. Madam Speaker, we have two amendments that are in this en bloc, and what they do is, they focus on the critical minerals, the rare Earth minerals that are important components of renewable energy. It is what is used in solar panels. It is what is used in energy storage technology. You can't suddenly say, Hey, we are going to use renewables, and not address this component. What happens is the United States has become energy independent, and we have done that because of the policies that have been enacted over the last few years. What this bill does is, by not addressing the critical minerals, we become energy dependent again. We become dependent upon China, dependent upon Africa, and other nations where China controls the resources. Why would we do that to ourselves? So we have an amendment in this en bloc that helps to address that because we have those minerals right here in the United States. Why in the world would we go mine them in other countries that have lower environmental standards to where you have a net adverse impact on the global environment? Madam Speaker, this is trying to nationalize California policy--the 8th worst emissions in the United States is in California, twice the electricity costs of my home State of Louisiana. Why would we want to do that to Americans, disproportionately impacting the poor? So we set up this farce process where this amendment goes down to where we miss the opportunity to ensure that we truly advance an America-first independent energy policy. Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this underlying legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend Republicans and Democrats for coming together. This bill is a bipartisan bill. It doesn't mean it is perfect, but it means that we all came together and we worked together to ensure that we are advancing our Nation's water resources. Mr. Speaker, this bill does everything from ecological restoration, to our navigation channels, to flood control, to hurricane protection. This is about the resilience and sustainability of our community and the resilience and sustainability of our ecosystem and our economy. These are projects that we need to be working together on. I want to thank my friend, the chairman, Mr. DeFazio; the ranking member, Sam Graves; as well as the subcommittee--friends--chairman and ranking member, Grace Napolitano and Bruce Westerman. Mr. Speaker, this bill advances important priorities like ensuring section 1043 can be expanded to allow our State and non-Federal sponsors to be a partner with the Corps of Engineers--a true partner-- and lead some sections of the projects; allowing our continuing authorities programs to be expanded; incorporating tools like natural infrastructure into the toolbox of achieving these objectives that we all share; ensuring that we attack--and I want to thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Mast) for leading on this--the harmful algal blooms off the coast of Louisiana, which I represent, largest dead zone in this Nation on a national basis; and importantly, ensuring that we maintain and take a different sustainable approach to the authorized depth of the Mississippi River system, which is America's commerce superhighway, connecting 31 States with the least expensive and lowest emissions form of transportation; putting shipments on barges and on oceangoing vessels so America can compete globally with the great products that we develop here. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all the great staff who worked on this, including Ian Bennitt, Victor Sarmiento, Ryan Seiger, Maggie Ayrea, Paul Sawyer, and all the folks who helped put this bill together. I urge adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding. ``Quick, there is a global pandemic. Let's spend billions of dollars repairing fences, putting up new signs, and fixing toilets at our wildlife refuges, parks, and forests,'' said no one ever. Ever. I have been sitting here listening to this debate over the last several minutes, and I have no idea what planet people are on right now. There is a global pandemic right now. What this legislation does is it takes everything else and puts it on the back burner. That is right. Unemployment assistance goes behind this; job opportunities go behind this; improving our schools and getting our kids actually educated go behind this; medical care for our seniors goes behind this because this is mandatory spending. Mr. Speaker, I have heard Members sit here and say that we have a $20 billion maintenance backlog. Do you know why that is? Because we failed to appropriate the money because we have determined it is not a priority in the appropriations process. Why are we now stepping in and circumventing that whole process again, Mr. Speaker, in the middle of a pandemic to determine that this is the greatest priority? Mr. Speaker, let me give you an analogy of what this bill really does. This is like someone going over to their neighbor's house, taking their credit card, and going out there and using that credit card to get a new address sign in their front yard and maybe to get a new coating of paint on their house. Meanwhile, that person who took the credit card has multiple cars and has an expansive real estate holding and never thought once about their own financial situation but instead took the credit card of their neighbor who is maybe up to their neck in medical bills because their spouse is on their deathbed. That is what this bill does. I have heard people say: ``Well, oh, this is not taxpayers' money.'' Whose money is this? What dream world are you living in? This absolutely is funds that are taxpayer funds. ``Oh, but it comes from energy revenues.'' Where do those go? They go into the general treasury. This isn't excess money. This isn't some money tree. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about one of the most offensive things about this bill that my friend Cedric Richmond, Congressman Richmond, talked about. And he tried to address this in committee by proposing a bipartisan amendment with Congresswoman Sewell, with Congressman Bennie Thompson, with Congressman Scalise, with myself, and others, a bipartisan amendment to fix this. Virtually all of the money that this bill is spending comes from energy production off the coast of Louisiana. This bill, as many have said, this goes on in perpetuity. In 5 years, we are spending $1 billion a year; in 10 years, $1 billion a year; in 50 years, $1 billion a year; in 100 years, $1 billion a year. Mr. Speaker, do you realize that today 28 percent of this country is owned by the Federal Government--28 percent? The sensible thing to do is to look at those assets, determine which of, for example, the nearly 75,000 different National Park's units and assets still make sense today. You just heard my friend talk about how 40 percent of these funds historically have been used for projects that don't advance the mission of the very agency they are supposed to be advancing. This is a tone-deaf piece of legislation. It is mandatory spending. It is putting this as a higher priority than everything else, including that we are in a global pandemic. We have record unemployment. Whose idea was it to do this? This is absolutely crazy. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this legislation. I urge common sense, and I urge that we sit down and actually address some of the priorities.