Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, listening to this debate, it is not hard to understand why things in this body don't ever get done. Here is the deal. There are a lot of truths that are being spoken here. We do have a debt that is completely out of control. There is no question about it. The gentleman from Arkansas, the gentleman from North Carolina, and the gentleman from Utah are exactly right: $23 trillion we are leaving to our children and our grandchildren. It is outrageous. But my friend from Oregon is also accurate in that we are charging a fee for a purpose that is being diverted. It is not right. Mr. Speaker, if I ran a not-for-profit and decided that I was going to collect funds from the public, and I said I was collecting them for the purpose of providing healthcare to someone who needed it, and I decided to take those funds and spend them somewhere else, there is a word for that in the private sector. It is called embezzling, and people go to jail for it. In Congress, we call it budgeting, and it is wrong. Let me go back and just summarize this. Absolutely, we need to have a balanced budget. I would support it every single day. I support Members of Congress not being paid until we have one. This needs to be in the budget caps. But this has been a discussion that has been going on for years and years and years. As my friend from Oregon indicated, having a paper balance of $9 billion or $10 billion--and it is not like we don't have a need. We have channels that are shoaling up that we put draft restrictions on. We are not at the depths we need to be at to meet the new trends in shipping. So, yes, I am concerned about the debt, and I want to make sure we address this. But this has been going on for far too long, that these dollars have been diverted or embezzled. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this bill because we have to figure this out and figure out how to get it up under the budget cap where it belongs.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for yielding. Mr. Speaker, there are two sorts of Members: There are Members who have experienced and been through the devastation of disaster and the constituents they represent, and there are people who will. Those are the two types of Members we have in this body. The gentleman from North Carolina is one of those folks who has been through this. The people he represents have been through this. The current disaster process that we use oftentimes revictimizes the very disaster victims that we are trying to help, that we are trying to save. This legislation is very important and it is insightful. It is insightful because, number one, it brings newer ideas and newer technologies to the table on how we are actually going to quantify the damage associated with disasters. Let's not use these technologies and these techniques from the 1950s and 1960s when it is 2019 and 2020. We need to be taking advantage of these new technologies. What that does, Mr. Speaker, is it results in better, more accurate damage assessments where we are not contributing to the debt and wasting money, as we discussed in previous legislation; it results in faster recovery, faster response to those disaster victims who are out there. This legislation helps to ensure that instead of--we have had it in my home State of Louisiana. We have had our assessors out there doing work. We have had our State Homeland Security officials out there doing assessments. We have had SBA, we have had HUD, and we have had FEMA, and they all come up with different numbers, which is shocking to learn. The most efficient thing to do, the right thing to do, is to come up with a common set of principles: use new technology, quantify the disasters, inform how much money is needed and where it is needed, and let's help get response and recovery activities moving much faster, much better, and much more efficiently. Let me say it again. We have got to continue to stay focused on these disaster victims. So the faster, better, cheaper, that ends up benefiting them. We have had all of these disconnects in different programs because they are using different metrics and milestones. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina and I want to thank my friend from Oregon for working together on this. It is an important, insightful piece of legislation that is going to result in saving taxpayer funds; a better, more efficient response; stopping the tripping over each other; and, ultimately, moving in a direction where you have seamless sequencing of response and recovery activities. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, this is how legislation is supposed to work. I want to thank my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) and I want to thank Congressman DeSaulnier from California for introducing this bipartisan legislation and legislation that is in direct response to an NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board, recommendation. Mr. Speaker, as you have just heard the committee chair cover a story back at the San Francisco International Airport in 2017, there was an Air Canada flight that was coming in on an occupied--on an occupied-- taxiway. They had been given a notice they misread and didn't fully understand what they had been given or didn't fully abide by it, and there were four to five fully loaded airliners on that taxiway. Mr. Speaker, you can imagine the disaster that would have happened if there had not been a last-minute diversion of the disaster that was imminent in this case. There were four to five fully loaded planes waiting for departure with the Air Canada flight coming in. This area had been closed. They had been notified that it had been closed, but it was not a message that they had properly either understood or received. After the NTSB investigation, they found that we have got to find a better way of communicating to airmen under the NOTAM or, Notice to Airmen, alerts. So in direct response to what we have seen from the NTSB and in direct response to what we have seen in this incident, what this does is it brings together a group of experts in this field to ensure that we can find a better way to apply lessons learned to make sure that we get better and to make sure that these close calls do not happen again. So, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation. I want to reiterate the great thanks that I have to my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for leading this and Congressman DeSaulnier from California for working together in a bipartisan way to ensure that we are applying lessons learned. We are applying common sense. And that we are ensuring the safety of air passengers across the United States and the globe. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, just in closing, once again, I want to thank the bipartisan work on this legislation from Mr. Stauber and Mr. DeSaulnier. I want to thank the full committee Ranking Member Sam Graves and Mr. DeFazio, the chairman, for all working together. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during the first series of votes on September 25 due to illness. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on rollcall No. 542, and nay on rollcall No. 543.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Representative from Alaska for yielding me the time. I want to say it again. I want to thank the gentleman from Alaska, the sole Member representing all Alaskans in the House of Representatives, who joins with his Senators, the entire Alaska delegation, in opposing this bill. I heard Mr. Stauber come down earlier and talk about how we don't need people from other States, from California coming in and imposing their beliefs on Alaska. We have a Constitution. We have a structure here where Members from the State of Alaska, residents from the State of Alaska, they elect their Representatives. And their Representatives are unanimously supporting the development in the ANWR. They unanimously support it. Why do we have this structure where other people come in? It is fascinating to me that we can be here and have folks from California sit there and all the time ask for exemptions, ask for exceptions, ask for their own conditions or rules in California, and then they now come in and they know better, and they need to tell Alaskans what needs to be done. I just heard allegations that this was about oil company profits and other things. This is about what the citizens of Alaska want, what their elected Representatives are doing to represent their own constituents. Now, to give you an idea of how much of a farce this whole thing is, do you realize that this is the third bill that is using the same funding stream to pay for everything? We have taken $1 and we paid $3 with it. How do you do that? This entire thing is a farce. To take it a step further to let you know what a farce this is, when this bill came up in the Natural Resources Committee, I offered an amendment that said that if this bill results in greater greenhouse gas emissions, then this bill doesn't take place. It is not enacted. Do you know that my Democrat friends voted against it, meaning they want greater emissions and greenhouse gases, my environmentalist friends? This whole thing is a farce. This is going to result in greater dependence upon foreign oil imports.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I thank Mr. Young for yielding me more time. This is going to result in greater dependence on imports of energy. We have seen it over and over again. We had career officials sit right in front of us in the Natural Resources Committee and testify that when you stop domestic production, that you become more dependent. Look upon my friend's own State of California that has become increasingly dependent upon oil from Saudi Arabia, increasing their imports of oil from Saudi Arabia. Look at our friends up in the northeast that had to import natural gas from Vladimir Putin's Russia and burn heavy heating oil to help to warm the homes in the northeast because they similarly cut off their energy supplies. This makes no sense whatsoever. We are doing it under the auspices of an environment that this very bill threatens. Mr. Chair, I urge rejection of this legislation, and rejection of this entire farce process.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I thank the ranking member for the recognition to talk about this legislation. Madam Chair, we are talking about legislation that has to do with energy policy and energy production. We are talking about the goals here, as I heard different speakers talk about protecting our fisheries and our environment. I heard speakers talk about protecting our military mission, those military servicemembers and that military edge and the technology we have. I heard people talking about jobs and the threat of spills. Madam Chair, I support those objectives, and I know that this may sound counterintuitive: This bill undermines the very objectives that it is purported to advance. Let's go through them. Let's go through those things. Number one, talking about the environment, that this bill will cause damage to the environment and it will undermine ecological productivity. Madam Chair, if you take a look at this graphic right here, you probably think this is where energy infrastructure is. You probably think that is what this is. This depicts the intensity of energy infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico from the Texas coast to right there in Alabama. In reality, oh, my goodness, look at that, if it is not red snapper landings. This is actually where the fish are. This shows the landings of where the fish are. This actually increases ecological productivity by creating habitat for fisheries. I heard a speaker on the other side talk about how there was devastation of fisheries in the State of Florida after the spill, the disaster in 2010. In 2011, the State of Florida had 117 million pounds of fisheries. In 2011, that was more than the fisheries they produced in the most recent year recorded. Let me say that again. In the immediate aftermath of the spill, in 2011, there were more fisheries landed worth more money than there was in the most recent year recorded, which is 2017. I hate to sit here and continue to undermine all these narratives, but let's go on. We are saying that this bill is designed to protect our environment. Actually, Madam Chair, you can look at statistics, and as far as I understand, they use cars and airplanes and have air-conditioning in Florida. That requires oil and gas. Since you are producing it and need it, the safest way to transport is to produce it domestically and then put it in a pipeline. That is not my statistic; it is from the National Research Council. Once again, Madam Chair, you are not protecting habitat; you are actually preventing habitat from being established. You are not helping ecological productivity; you are undermining it. You are not protecting the environment or preventing spills; you are providing a greater risk for that. My friend from California (Mr. McClintock) made reference to the Valdez spill. That was a boat. Let's go on to the other one, the military. I heard a speaker say: Oh, we can't have energy production here because that is going to prevent our ability to fly and practice with weapons in the Gulf of Mexico. Madam Chair, when we go into war and go up against adversaries, do we say: Hey, we need you to take that building down so my missile can shoot straight in? No. That is absurd. You operate under real conditions, which includes, in some cases, obstructions. I want to make reference here that we are talking about thousands and thousands and thousands of square miles. You can produce here with very, very little surface infrastructure. Most of it is subsea, having zero impact. Now, Madam Chair, I heard somebody talking earlier about 2006 and how Congress stepped in and provided a moratorium. Yes. But do you know what that moratorium is provided in exchange for? Moving the Military Mission Line to the east. There was an agreement. The 181 leasing areas, that was agreed to. We actually added more production areas in exchange for a temporary moratorium. But what is being proposed now is a greater threat to the environment. It is putting a moratorium in place, and it is not doing any type of balance. We can step in and protect our military mission, we can protect our environment, and we can have jobs and energy production in the United States.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I also heard talk about the Land and Conservation Water Fund and, yes, the irony of the fact that there is legislation that the chair pushed that permanently authorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Legislation moving it permanently funds it at $900 million; $150 million a year goes to the Historic Preservation Fund. But in reality, the Land and Water Conservation Fund is not limited to $900 million. It is not. I have heard people say it over and over again. That is not accurate. There is an additional 12.5 percent that comes from revenue sharing that also goes to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, putting it over $1 billion a year. Plus, you add $150 million from the Historic Preservation Fund. Plus, just to put it in perspective, Madam Chair, when you add up just between 2011 and 2016, $55 billion--$55 billion--was generated for the U.S. Treasury from energy production on Federal lands and waters. Madam Chair, that doesn't just fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Historic Preservation Fund. That funds our veterans' benefits. It funds environmental programs. It funds healthcare for our elderly. It funds early childhood education. It funds infrastructure. This, according to the Government Accountability Office, is one of the largest nontaxed streams of revenue. And we are talking about stopping it. Production doesn't go on in perpetuity. You need additional layers. It takes 10 years to go from leasing to production, so we have got to start planning now to produce safely to ensure we can continue to have a vibrant economy, jobs, to continue having a safe environment. This bill undermines the very objectives that it was purported to advance. Madam Chair, I urge objection to this uninformed legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I am in its current form.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, we sat here for hours talking about the objectives of legislation to impose a moratorium on offshore energy production. I have heard the advocates for the legislation talk about the objectives of protecting our environment and preventing energy spills of oil. I have heard advocates talk about the objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I have heard objectives discussed regarding creating jobs, perhaps green jobs, and ensuring that we have economic activity here in the United States. Madam Speaker, I share those objectives. This bill doesn't do it. So let's go one by one and address the various objectives and address the facts associated with them. Number one: Madam Speaker, when we stop producing energy domestically, we don't stop using energy. We don't change the form of energy. What happens is, as statistics prove, as the Department of the Interior officials have reported to the Natural Resources Committee, we increase our dependence upon imports from other countries. When you import energy, they have lower environmental standards. You release greater greenhouse gas emissions, and by putting it on a ship, you have a greater chance of spilling the energy. The safest thing you can do is produce it domestically and put it in a pipe. Secondly, Madam Speaker, you have heard the discussion about ruining coastal habitat. You have heard the discussion about ruining coastal communities. Madam Speaker, when you look at the statistics, in 2017, California produced about 209 million pounds of seafood; the State of Florida, about 111 million pounds; the State of South Carolina, about 10.5 million pounds. Louisiana, which has four times more energy production in the offshore than all other States combined, we produced 90 times that of South Carolina, or 900 million pounds of seafood, valued at more than $360 million. In addition, these funds go toward--the revenue sharing under offshore energy production goes to the resilience of your coastal ecosystem and the resiliency of your communities. Madam Speaker, I shudder to think down the road, if we stop offshore energy production, what happens when a hurricane comes in and devastates communities, because we put a moratorium in place preventing the availability of revenues to protect those very communities. In regard to the emissions, the United States has reduced greenhouse gas emissions more than the next 12 countries combined. We have done it without mandates, without requirements--more than the next 12 countries combined. A BOEM report says emissions could increase in the absence of a new OCS leasing program. Madam Speaker, that was a report under the Obama administration. This bill does just that. It prevents additional leasings in new areas. Case in point, when the State of California tried to impose their renewable energy portfolio, they have increased their dependence upon oil from Saudi Arabia. In New England, they have imported natural gas from Russia. These policies don't make sense as evidence has proven. In regard to creating jobs, when President Obama was in office in 2011, one-half of this Nation's trade deficit, one-half, was attributable to us importing oil from other countries. Those countries do not have the safety record, the safety regime we have in the United States. I join the Laborers' International Union of North America's president in believing that this bill is purely for political purposes. The union members working in the energy sector are being targeted. Instead of working to enact real job-creating infrastructure legislation, union members see their jobs, once again, being denigrated and belittled. Energy development can coexist with environmental stewardship. Lastly, Madam Speaker, this motion to recommit is about gasoline prices. A run-up in world oil prices is effectively a tax on every American family's discretionary budget, except that the money goes to the OPEC cartel rather than the U.S. Treasury. Let me say that again. A run-up in world oil prices effectively attacks every American family's discretionary budget, except that the money goes to the OPEC cartel rather than the U.S. Treasury. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of Senators Cantwell, Menendez, Markey, and Schumer. This amendment ensures that this legislation does not result in a disproportionate impact on the poor by raising gasoline prices and energy access to Americans across the board; of course, again, disproportionately impacting those of low income. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about energy policy; we are here today to talk about jobs and national security; and we are here today to talk about the environment and climate change. We have three bills that this rule addresses: We have an Alaska bill; we have an eastern Gulf of Mexico bill; and we have an Atlantic bill. The idea here is that we are going to carry out policies that stop energy production in the United States for the purpose of protecting the environment. That sounds like a laudable goal: Let's protect the environment. I fully agree with that. Here is the problem: When you look at evidence from the Obama administration, it shows that, by shutting down domestic energy production, it increases greenhouse gas emissions--increases, not decreases. It increases imports of energy from other countries, not decreases. It threatens our national security. Mr. Speaker, do you want to see how this plays out? Case in point, let's go up to the Northeast last winter. In the Northeast last winter, because they obstructed and prevented natural gas pipelines from being built into the Northeast to provide cleaner natural gas fuels to help warm these homes, heat these homes, they had to import natural gas from Russia. The policies that these bills are advancing, all this is is a gift for Vladimir Putin. This is billions of dollars. This is American jobs. You are not helping the environment. You are not helping the trade deficit. We, very simply, came in and just said: Do you know what? We want to offer some amendments to help clean these up. Let's help these bills achieve their objectives. We offered 10 amendments. All 10 amendments were rejected by this rule. If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, fine. I am with you. Let's do that. If you want to improve the environment, fine. I am with you. Mr. Speaker, opposition to this rule is necessary. These bills do not achieve the objectives that are set.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's statement about energy production today. I want to remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that as we produce energy, we are extracting something. Therefore, new development in these areas is necessary in order to replenish the areas that are producing today. I also want to remind the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that, if the United States is not providing energy to these countries where we are exporting today, in some cases, countries like Russia come in and fill that void. So it doesn't make sense for us to shut down these areas, to stop these areas, particularly in the eastern Gulf of Mexico where you have adjacent production. You have production attempts in Cuba, production in Mexico. This doesn't do anything to help to protect this environment. I really think we need to look at this a little bit more carefully.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that there are several provisions contained in H.R. 3409 to ensure that the Coast Guard stays on the cutting edge of readiness. I appreciated the inclusion of the Coast Guard Shore Infrastructure Improvement Act, which I introduced with my colleague, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell of Florida. This legislation will ensure that the $2.6 billion backlog of shore infrastructure needs are prioritized strategically so that our Coasties have the high-quality on-shore facilities to support their numerous missions. I also want to thank Mr. DeFazio and Mr. Maloney for working with my staff to include in H.R. 3409 a provision to prepare a demonstration program for the use of wing-in-ground vessels in the Outer Continental Shelf. Mr. Speaker, this provision emphasizes the dramatic advancements in new transportation technologies over the past few years and urges the Coast Guard to begin preparing to oversee their use. A demonstration program will support the Coast Guard in conceptualizing how these new technologies will be used to support commerce in U.S. waters and how such vessels will be regulated. We cannot wait for these technologies to be fully matured before we contemplate their safe application in our waters or airspace. Again, I appreciate the inclusion of these provisions in the underlying authorization and support its adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio, our ranking member of the subcommittee, for all of his work on this. I want to thank Congressman Sean Patrick Maloney from New York, our chairman; Chairman DeFazio and the ranking member of the full committee, Sam Graves, for all their work on this. Mr. Speaker, this is a bill that is a bipartisan bill, and I do appreciate everyone working together to make sure that we are doing the right thing. The Coast Guard, in many cases, is not held to the level of regard and respect that they deserve. Let's think about all of the things that the Coast Guard is responsible for: They are in charge of drug interdiction on our seas; they are in charge of alien interdiction on our seas; they are in charge of enforcing all U.S. laws on our waterways; securing our maritime borders; defense readiness; port and coastal security issues; search and rescue; marine safety; maintaining aids to navigation; icebreaking; marine environmental protection; oil spill prevention and response; and many other things. Mr. Speaker, I often refer to them as the Swiss Army knife of the Federal Government. They have an incredibly broad jurisdiction. These are men and women who are serving their Nation on a daily basis. I want to thank all of the leaders of this committee for the work in the committee, where we took the Coast Guard Parity Act and added it to this bill. The Coast Guard Parity Act recognized that the men and women of the Coast Guard were treated differently from all of the other armed services whenever the Federal Government goes into a shutdown. Mr. Speaker, when the government shuts down, it is because Congress failed to do its job together with an administration. The men and women in the Coast Guard do not deserve to be punished. There is something that is really important to point out: the men and women of the Coast Guard can't just go say: Hey, I am going to go work for another job. I am going to leave this one because I am not being paid because the government is shut down. I am going to go work and do this other job. They are contractually obligated to continue doing their work and their service for our Nation. So the Coast Guard Parity Act was added to this bill in committee, and I am very disappointed that it was pulled out. I know the chairman and the ranking member were both very supportive of this. We need to address this issue. Let me say it again: the men and women of the Coast Guard are not responsible for when the government shuts down, and they should not be penalized for it either. I hope that we can continue to work together to solve this. But going back, Mr. Speaker, the Coast Guard does an incredible job in an incredibly broad mission. This bill helps to recapitalize an antiquated network or system of equipment, antiquated vessels that have lasted well beyond their intended service life. It helps to ensure that we can authorize the appropriate vessels, whether it is the national security cutter, the offshore patrol cutter, the fast response cutter, and the helos and winged aircraft that the men and women of the Coast Guard depend on on a daily basis. We know that the other side--the drug traffickers and the alien smugglers and others--are using new and updated technology. We need to make sure that we continue to provide the men and women of the Coast Guard with the upper hand with the best technology and with the best equipment to deal with their daily mission of protecting our Nation and enforcing all laws on the seas of the United States. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Graves, Mr. Gibbs, and Mr. Maloney for all of the work that they have done to ensure this bill moves forward. It is a bipartisan bill, and I urge adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina for hosting this event tonight. Madam Speaker, this is really important because it impacts every single American. Energy is one of those pervasive issues that, if you drive a car, if you ride in a taxi, if you take public transit, if you have a house or you have an apartment, you have to pay the energy bills. It affects every single one of us. Madam Speaker, we have options before us. We can choose to go down this path of ignoring the energy abundance that the United States has; we can pivot in this direction of blindly seeking these lofty goals or ambitions without any technological basis, without any basis in infrastructure or reality; or we can move in a direction where we can produce American energy, and we can produce it safely and we can produce it affordably. Madam Speaker, let's go down the paths of what these options look like. If you look back in 2011, Madam Speaker, one half of this Nation's trade deficit, one half of it was attributable to us importing energy from other countries--one half. That means that we are sending hundreds of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of jobs, we are sending them, we are empowering them in countries like Iran, in countries like Venezuela and other Middle Eastern and African nations in many cases, Madam Speaker, that don't share our values. They are taking those dollars and coming back and directly challenging American interests around the globe. This doesn't make sense. You don't arm those who wish harm upon you. But that is what our energy policy was back in 2011. Again, one half of this Nation's trade deficit attributable to us importing energy. Now, more recently, Madam Speaker, you have seen folks who have come in and said: Hey, we want to migrate to no fossil fuels whatsoever. Think about it. If you were running a business and if your greatest asset was this abundance of American natural gas, of oil, of coal, think about if that is what your asset was and if you had this objective of achieving environmental sensitivities or this objective of reducing our emissions and providing more clean energy solutions, would you just go and say: Look, we are just going to ignore all these resources? No. You would develop technologies on carbon capture and storage, on utilization to where you could take that resource and you could actually market it and make products from it or you could sequester it. That way you can continue to have a robust economy; you can continue to have affordable energy; you can continue to have American jobs without harming our economy. Now, Madam Speaker, when you look at the option that some have chosen where they have chosen we are going on an aggressive renewable strategy, let's look at the State of California where you have double or triple the cost of electricity as you have in my home State of Louisiana--double or triple. On top of that, Madam Speaker, look at what the State of California has done. They have increased--increased--imports of oil from countries like Saudi Arabia and others, increased their dependence upon foreign energy, exporting jobs, exporting untold dollars to these other economies. It is fascinating. Let's go over to the Northeast, where, recently, you have seen them object to transmission sitings, object to natural gas pipelines. Madam Speaker, what they have done there, in doing so, they had to burn heating oil to warm the homes in the winter, one of the least efficient means of emissions. They had to import gas from Russia--from Russia-- putting who knows how many dollars in Vladimir Putin's hands to challenge U.S. interests around the globe. Madam Speaker, these strategies are flawed. By rejecting some of these policies of the past, by pursuing the U.S. energy dominance agenda, we have been able to reduce emissions in the United States more than the next 12 countries combined, while continuing to have a robust economy, some of the lowest unemployment rates we have seen in decades, and ensuring that the United States can export energy like we are doing with liquified natural gas right now to 35 countries, rather than being dependent upon those other nations. We have two choices, Madam Speaker. I urge American energy dominance. I want to thank, again, the gentleman from South Carolina for yielding.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to complete the vote series on July 12 as I needed to return to my district to support preparations ahead of Tropical Storm Barry. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 468, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 469, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 470, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 471, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 472, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 473, and ``yea'' on rollcall No. 474.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment is pretty simple. Section 117 in division C of the base text of the bill prevents the Department of the Interior from carrying out a NEPA review, a National Environmental Policy Act review, for the planning of offshore energy production. Mr. Chair, we just heard a few amendments back, debate about the importance of science, the importance of data. Let's be clear what this provision does. This provision prevents the Federal Government from opening up the plan for an environmental review, from subjecting it to public feedback. It prevents data and information to make informed decisions. Mr. Chair, there is a process under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act where you go do an offshore plan. It is a pretty clear process. If folks have a problem with that, amend the law. Amend the law, don't use the appropriations process to prevent the public from getting access to information and access to data so the Federal Government can make an informed decision. This is flawed text of the amendment. Our amendment simply helps to address it, to allow for an open, public process so we can make the right, informed decision with the right science and the right data, as my friends were recently speaking about. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, let me run through a few points here to see if I can clarify a number of the remarks. The base text of the bill actually prevents the Department of the Interior from carrying out the steps that are required. Think about the concept of what was said, Mr. Chair. It was said that they want the Department of the Interior to follow the law. Well, what would they be doing otherwise? The provision in the bill, section 117, prevents them from carrying out pre-leasing activities. This text prevents them from being able to follow the law. I am baffled by this, and I am happy to have a much longer discussion on how an offshore plan and leasing program is put together. What the base text of the bill does is it tries to force the Obama- era plan from ever being changed. The base text prevents the process that is in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act from being allowed to go forward. Mr. Chair, what is really important to talk about here, when you go back to look at what energy policies and different administrative policies have done, do you know that back during the Obama administration in 2011, one half of this Nation's trade deficit was attributable to us bringing in energy from other sources, bringing them in from foreign countries, empowering their economies, creating jobs in their countries? I am an American. I represent people here. I am trying to help make sure that we have a healthy economy and that we have affordable energy. Mr. Chair, folks are going to try and say, oh, this affects emissions and climate change. Our gas, which is replacing the dirtier Russian natural gas, is actually reducing global climate emissions, which is part of our strategy that has resulted in the United States having greater emissions reduction than any other country in the world. It is really fun to go out and talk about all these things, but we have to keep this based in facts and statistics. This amendment makes sense. It simply does allow the Department of the Interior to follow the law, making sure we maximize our resources. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the amendment.