Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Heck recently brought up the shellfish industry. Just this week, the Louisiana Oyster Task Force is coming to town. We are going to be meeting with them, talking to them about this and a number of other priority issues because their industry has been impacted by water quality and many other challenges. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that this legislation helps to make sure that all of the various levels of government, together with our nongovernment partners in the private sector and the not-for-profit organizations that are out there, that we are all working together; that we are ensuring that the regulatory structure that is out there is actually complementary to this effort to help ensure clean water not just now, but for generations to come; that we are using better technology; that we are using better mechanisms, such as vegetative plantings and buffers and other things, to ensure that we are not polluting our waters but that we are cleaning them; that we have safe drinking water; that we have safe, productive ecosystems for generations to come. Mr. Speaker, I again want to thank Congressman Heck, Congressman Katko, my friend Congresswoman Napolitano, and many others who were involved in this legislation. This is going to help us to ensure that the various funding streams that are out there, that we are using them in a complementary manner, not in a stovepipe manner. Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 3906, as amended, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 314, and YEA on Roll Call No. 315.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, although I don't intend to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the concerns raised by the gentleman from Alaska. I am committed to working with the gentleman and to working with my friend from California in trying to get this amendment in a better posture. I do want to work together with both the gentlemen to make sure that we get this done in a way that does not cause injury to other places. In response to my friend from California, I do want to be clear that this is information. All this is is information that our committee, that this Congress, would then have the option to act upon. I don't think information in this case, on such a contentious issue, that does have a very unclear future--we have dealt with contentious issues and bought ourselves 2 years. Beyond that, we are going to be right back in the same situation. We are trying to get additional information. I want to say, in regard to the conflict issues, in regard to the balance of commercial and recreational, that is good feedback, and I am happy to adopt those changes to the amendment, to include those as we work through the process. I will say it again. I am committed to working with the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I sent the gentleman the text of the amendment--the first person I sent it to--to ensure that I had input from both sides. We did make some modifications as a result, the changes requested by Mr. Young, but I am committed to working together with the dean and with the gentleman from California to perfect this as we move forward. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply authorizes a GAO study, a Government Accountability Office study, for the purposes of evaluating how we currently manage the red snapper species in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic. I want to be very clear, Mr. Chairman. This amendment does not affect any other region of the Nation. It doesn't affect any other species. It is a unique scenario that we are facing in the Gulf of Mexico and the South Atlantic pertaining to the red snapper. This is a species where the increased demand from both recreational and commercial fishers has resulted in contentious debate and challenging situations for resource managers across the Gulf Coast and the South Atlantic. This amendment is designed to have the GAO perform a study that would provide information to resource managers. We have been able to work through EFPs for the past 2 years, but in the future we are not guaranteed any type of solution. When I was a child, we could fish for red snapper year-round. We are no longer allowed to do that. We were limited by as many as 3 days-- proposed--by the Federal Government in recent years. This is designed to provide better information, better tools for how we manage these species moving forward in a sustainable manner. Mr. Chairman, the modifications that I made to this amendment were a result of discussions with Members near me right now. As a matter of fact, someone sitting near me may or may not have threatened to fillet me with a butter knife if I didn't change some text in the amendment, so some of the text has been changed to reflect the very narrow scope of this amendment. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that a modified amendment at the desk be considered.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the dean of the House, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman emeritus, I think, for most committees in the Congress and many other great accomplishments for yielding time and for all the work on this bill. Mr. Chairman, I find this whole debate interesting in that I have heard speaker after speaker come up on the other side of the aisle talking about the importance of their fisheries, talking about how this bill is going to ruin resource management and sustainability of fisheries. Mr. Chairman, I ask you to take a look at this poster right here, and I will also spout out just a few statistics. Between my home State of Louisiana and the dean's home State of Alaska, I believe we have more than half of the commercial fisheries landings in the United States, and as demonstrated here, we have more than half of the recreational fishing in the United States. I appreciate the concerns that are being raised, but I am not sure whom they are representing. We represent the recreational fishers. We have the largest commercial fishing industries in the United States. What this bill does is this bill simply updates the science. It allows for updated science. It allows to build upon successful practices that have been carried out by States for coastal fisheries, for inland fisheries, allowing for better techniques, allowing for better science to ensure the sustainability of the fisheries. Mr. Chairman, how rational is it that someone who represents Louisiana--and I also want to point to the comments that my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) made a few minutes ago. We both represent the coast of Louisiana. How rational is it that the two of us and the gentleman who represents the entire State of Alaska would come out and advocate for policies that would undermine the sustainability of fisheries in two incredibly important industries in our State? That is completely nonsensical. That is why, Mr. Chairman, this bill is bipartisan. It is why we have bipartisan support for this legislation by those who have cosponsored it. It is why the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation; the National Coalition for Fishing Communities; the National Marine Manufacturers Association; the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership; the Coastal Conservation Association, or CCA; Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation; Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission; Center for Sport Fishing Policy; Freezer Longline Coalition; Mississippi State Legislature; Johnny Morris, who is the CEO of Bass Pro Shops; American Scallop Association; Garden State Seafood Association; West Coast Seafood Processors Association; Lund's Seafood; North Carolina Fisheries Association; Florida Keys Commercial Fishing Association; Gulf Coast Seafood Alliance; Southeastern Fisheries Association; and many, many others that have a genuine stake in the sustainability of our fisheries, some of the leaders in conservation in our fisheries, are supportive of this legislation. So let me say it again, Mr. Chairman, this bill improves science. It uses updated science. I am not going to point to the decades-long tenure of my friend, but I think the original legislation perhaps could use some updating, and so this updates the science, and it provides for more transparency in the science and allows for public participation. These are all good things that we need to be supporting. I do appreciate the input by my friend from California on this legislation, and I do hope that we can work together to get this to a posture to where everyone is supportive; but I do think it is important to refocus the fact that we are the ones who represent the majority of this economic driver, the majority of these jobs around the country, and they are the ones that represent these families that, for generations, have fished recreationally and that we want to ensure can fish for generations to come. Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank the gentleman from Alaska for including our Modern Fish Act, which I think helps to update some practices where there is increased demand for recreational and commercial fisheries and providing a little bit better balance there. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this important bill. It moves our science and transparency and public participation in the right direction. It is going to improve the sustainability of our fisheries, the jobs associated with recreational and commercial fisheries, and the economic activity that these sustainable fisheries support.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Florida for bringing this issue up. The lionfish has certainly, according to many reports, been a species that is causing an adverse impact to red snapper. The solution that he proposes here is a solution whereby States could submit a modified or a new exempted fisheries permit, where they could provide for additional access, on top of their existing allocation, to red snapper in exchange for harvesting a certain number of lionfish species, which are predators to the red snapper. As folks will see, there is a lot of handwriting on this amendment. We did sit back and make some changes to this, so there is an excellent chance that there are some imperfections here. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for working with us on this. I thank my friends from Florida and California for working with us on this as well. It is likely that we are going to need some additional work on this as we move forward. There are some enforcement issues; there are science issues; and there is introduction of a new mechanism that causes some significant concern in the form of tags, in some cases. But I, again, thank the gentleman from Florida for raising this issue, for working to ensure that we continue to have access to red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico. I look forward to working with my friend from Florida, as well as the folks across the aisle, in perfecting this as we move through the conference committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I am proud that the House is taking urgent action to help people affected by opioid abuse, and I'm confident that many of the solutions put forth in this legislation will result in more people finding recovery. For treatment centers and providers, the IMD exclusion creates an obstacle to their ability to deliver substance abuse patients the level of treatment needed for full recovery. However, through state waivers in managed-care systems like we have in Louisiana, patients in many cases are still able to obtain better care than the IMD exclusion otherwise allows. I'm concerned that H.R. 5797's limited scope and its 30-day cap could mean less flexibility for providers and may actually result in inferior patient care compared to what is currently possible through waivers. In reality, recovery often takes more than 30 days. Limiting costs and rewarding outcomes would offer more flexibility for providers than a one-size-fits-all, 30-day cap. As the House considers broader proposals to affordably address the IMD exclusion, we should work to identify solutions that give more autonomy to frontline providers and that foster evidence-based care at the regional, state and local levels.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, in service to my constituents in Louisiana, I was meeting with Department of Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson during the vote series on June 13th. This meeting centered on HUD's administration of the $1.2 Billion appropriation for flood projects in Louisiana, as well as RESTORE programs and general flood recovery in the state. Had I been present, I would have voted Yes on both Roll Call 263 and Roll Call 264.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this amendment is designed to largely address, I think, a flaw that this underlying bill addresses in the cost-to-benefit ratio calculations used by the Corps of Engineers, by OMB, and others. This particular amendment is focused on emergency repairs. What this does is it allows the non-Federal entities to pay a higher non-Federal cost share for repairs to levees. There are many issues with how OMB and the Corps calculate cost-to- benefit ratios. This is a fix for emergency repairs while we work on the underlying bill for the larger fixes. Madam Chair, I want to thank Mr. Bost for offering this amendment. We are prepared to accept it. I urge adoption, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this amendment directs the Comptroller General to conduct a study and report on the Army Corps of Engineers' ability to comply with Federal stormwater requirements. This is an issue that affects districts across the United States. I want to thank the gentleman from Washington for bringing this amendment up, for raising this issue, and we are prepared to accept it. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this amendment expresses the sense of Congress that projects in Puerto Rico in the aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria be expedited, that these be considered a priority, and that the Corps of Engineers advance these projects as quickly as possible. My friend from Puerto Rico hosted myself, Mr. DeFazio, Chairman Shuster, and others in Puerto Rico in the aftermath of the storms, and certainly the devastation there was extraordinary. It is important to advance projects like this because as folks are looking at whether they are going to reinvest back in their communities, whether they are going to stay in their communities, whether they are going to rebuild their homes and businesses, knowing that things aren't going to be back in the same degree of vulnerability is very important. We have got to send a message to these victims of hurricanes in 2017 and other disasters that these communities are going to be built back smarter, they are going to be safer, and the investments they are putting back in their homes and businesses are wise investments. I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment. I want to thank her for her tireless work in the recovery of Puerto Rico. We are prepared to accept, and I urge adoption of the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for yielding. I want to thank the gentleman from California for offering this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I actually want to discuss some of the provisions that were included in the manager's amendment that I think are very, very important. Number one, there is a provision in the manager's amendment that provides for the Corps of Engineers to take a fresh look at the old river control structure, a structure that diverts 70 percent of the water on the Mississippi River system down the Mississippi, and 30 percent down the Atchafalaya. That is a rigid structure that dates back decades and decades. It has not been revisited. The science has not been updated. It does not reflect the fact that we have additional monitoring stations; and so the plan, a rigid 70/30 split, doesn't maximize benefits to the lower system. We could be maximizing crawfish production, coastal restoration, navigation features, flood control, and others, and it is not happening. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to address that, to direct the Corps of Engineers to modernize this, to ensure that current best science is being applied; to ensure that the monitoring stations are being used and that we are having the best outcomes for ecological productivity, for coastal restoration, for navigation, and, importantly, for flood control, and then stop this rigid, antiquated system of an artificial 70/30 split. Secondly, the amendment also provides for a pilot program for 5 years for an operations and maintenance contract, a 5-year operations and maintenance contract; instead of coming in and offering dredging contracts only when there is a shoal that has developed, instead, coming in and offering a longer term contract, over a 5-year period, and ensuring that navigation channels are certain that the navigability of these channels at the port facilities are accessible. In many cases, vessels may actually start weeks in advance trying to get to the United States, and if these NAV channels aren't maintained, these boats don't have options but to divert to other ports that are lighter. It is expensive. We need to ensure the predictability and the certainty of our navigation channels, and the manager's amendment addresses that as well. I want to thank the chairman again, Mr. Shuster, for including that. I want to thank Mr. DeFazio and Ranking Member Napolitano for their work with us on that manager's amendment and those important provisions.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio for offering this amendment. DMMP's dredged material management plans are plans to manage the sediment that results from dredging activities. It can hold up the navigation of channels for ships and vessels. It can obstruct activity at ports. This is what the rest of the world would call common sense. It ensures that we are not collecting redundant information, we are building upon information that exists, and that we have a limit or goal of 2 years in completing this. This makes sense. I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forth, which we are prepared to accept. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I want to thank the gentlewoman from California for yielding. Mr. Chair, I do want to thank the gentleman from Texas for raising this issue. I actually agree with him that there are fundamental problems in the levee safety program right now: number one, the fact that the Corps produces these worst-case scenario outcomes that they apply to levees without publicly making the data available on how they came to those conclusions; number two, the fact that they fail to provide alternative improvements with associated cost estimates on how these systems could be improved and ensure the resiliency and performance of these systems. There are many, many other concerns. I think the amendment does attempt to address some of those, but I think the gentleman also understands that there are some concerns that have been raised that I think are legitimate. Mr. Chair, I do want to ask the gentleman if he would be willing to withdraw the amendment. I would certainly be willing to work with the gentleman through that process to see if we can find something that everyone can agree to that makes sense without threatening the safety of our communities, which I know no one here wants to do.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith) for offering this amendment. There was something that the gentleman noted in the end that I wanted to make sure legislative intent is preserved here, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Missouri stated that the amendment is intended to restore floodways after they are opened up, such as Bird Point-New Madrid, as opposed to perhaps in south Louisiana where a crevasse could open up that would provide fresh water and sort of mimic that natural process that created coastal Louisiana and would currently restore coastal Louisiana wetlands. Mr. Chairman, I want to ensure the intent of the amendment and that we have in legislative history here memorialized that this is intended to address the restoration of floodways as opposed to crevasses that may open in the aftermath of a flood.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, this amendment intends to cut through the bureaucracy to expedite decisions that are being made. In the case of this amendment, it is designed to address an issue in Texas where you have high-volume port projects and there are safety and navigational improvements that are needed. We support the intent of the gentleman's amendment to cut through the bureaucracy to ensure that decisions are expedited and cost savings result, and urge support of the amendment. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I don't plan to oppose the amendment.