Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the commitment and service of Brigadier General Cindy H. Haygood and her 36 years of service to the Louisiana National Guard. Brigadier General Haygood first joined the National Guard in 1988 and was commissioned in 1994 through the State Officer Candidate School of the Louisiana Army National Guard. Throughout her involvement in the Louisiana National Guard, Brigadier General Haygood has never shied away from an opportunity to serve. Brigadier General Haygood not only assisted in mobilization efforts for four major military operations, but she also simultaneously served as the Deputy Director of the Louisiana Military Department and the Assistant Adjutant General. BG Haygood was also a trusted member of our state and local community, and she was on speed dial during the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, Brigadier General Haygood assisted many agencies in crisis management planning, and under her leadership the Louisiana National Guard was able to save lives and ensure public safety in Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, Louisiana and our Nation have benefitted from Brigadier General Haygood's contributions, and we, along with her family, Bill, Madeline, and Lauren, are grateful for everything she has done. I thank Brigadier General Haygood.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Francine preparation, response, and recovery efforts require my presence in south Louisiana, causing me to miss the vote series today. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 416 and YEA on Roll Call No. 417. Personal Explanation

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 406.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 363. Stated against:

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me time. This legislation funds the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It funds efforts like resiliency in my home State of Louisiana. It funds hurricane protection. It funds flood control. It floods cultural restoration projects. One project in particular I thank the chairman for highlighting that is included in this legislation is the Morganza to the Gulf project. This hurricane protection project in Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes is for a community that has imposed a property tax on themselves. It has imposed a sales tax on themselves to help fund this project. They pulled together over $1 billion in funds, and this bill finally starts bringing more dollars to the table, partnering with the locals to ensure that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can fund this community, can fund this important project. Here is the reality, Mr. Chairman: We can either spend millions now building this project, or we can spend billions later picking up the pieces in the aftermath of a disaster, in the aftermath of a hurricane. This bill also, importantly, funds projects like the Upper Barataria project in Upper St. Charles and Lafourche Parishes on up to Ascension. It funds the Houma navigation channel and other critical projects for our community. It also funds the nuclear triad. As President Reagan said, peace through strength ensures that we have the strength here in America. This legislation ensures that the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, our oil reserve, that is now at some of the lowest levels in history is actually returned to appropriate levels. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, in regard to the previous speaker's comments, I remind the American public our Nation under the last 17 years has reduced emissions more than the next six or seven emissions-reducing countries combined. We have led the world in reducing emissions. Do you know what, Mr. Chairman? This wasn't done because of government. It was done because of entrepreneurs and because of innovators. That is how we have led the world. During this time, as we reduced emissions, for every 1 ton we reduced, China has increased by 5 tons. I thank the staff of the subcommittee, including Angie Giancarlo and the rest of the team, for their help in this legislation. I thank Chairman Fleischmann for his leadership.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, in this environment where Congress is sitting here fighting over everything, I take just a minute to reflect on this legislation. Every 2 years under Chairman Graves' leadership, we have seen this bill come up. This is a critical bill. It is everything from resilience, flood protection, in my home State hurricane protection, restoring our coastal wetlands, ensuring economic competitiveness of the ports all around the United States. This is critical legislation, and this is a rare opportunity where Republicans and Democrats are coming together to make the right decisions. I thank Chairman Sam Graves and Ranking Member Larsen. I thank my good friend Congresswoman Napolitano. I wish her the best with all her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren and keep going. I thank my friend David Rouzer for all his work on this and of course the Ryans and all the staff who have put in countless hours. From my home State of Louisiana, this is about our future. It is about resilience. It is about our ports and waterways. For example, in this legislation we have important legislation for the Morganza to the Gulf project ensuring the recognition of credit for the important work that the locals have done on that one. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the folks involved, and I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, had I been present, I would have voted AYE on Roll Call No. 237. Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Crane

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for organizing this. Madam Speaker, I am going to read from the journal of Sidney Montz, who served as a lieutenant in Company D of the 8th Regiment of the 4th Infantry Division of the United States Army. The 4th Division was one of the five divisions that struck Utah and Omaha beaches on June 6, 1944, D-day. He was born in Louisiana in 1914 and served as an ROTC corporal at LSU. He enlisted in the Army in August 1942 and became a lieutenant. Montz was 29 years old on D-day, which was his first combat. He kept a diary from May 15, 1944, until July 31, 1944. The diary was donated by Montz' son to the National World War II Museum in New Orleans along with a trunk of personal belongings from his time in the European Theater during World War II. Madam Speaker, before I start, I am going to make note that the diary makes mention of the LCVP, which is the landing craft vehicle personnel, otherwise known as the Higgins craft, tens of thousands of which were built in Louisiana and often credited as being a game changer for the D-Day landing. May 16 through June 1. Took things easy, drew equipment, time off to Torquay, took a few short marches to keep in shape. A few days before June 1, we were briefed, shown maps, and sand table of where we were going. Everything in good shape. I was executive officer but will take 81 millimeter. Wittenberger does not know mortar. Officers in company: Buckles, Woodruff, Wittenberger, Levy, Buckalew, Olson, Executive Montz, CO Samson. June 2. Left camp at 10:20 for Torquay, got an LCVP to go to ship (the S.S. Dickman). On ship life was okay. June 4. Too busy to go to church--making final preparation--heard we sail today for landing tomorrow-- weather very bad so thing is called off. Spent most of the night in lounge, drinking coffee and listening to radio. Heard of the fall of Rome. In bed by 0200. June 5. Heard we sail at 1300, General Ike message read over the loudspeaker after we sailed. Told D-Day June 6, H- hour 0630. We anchor at 0200 June 6 and get in LCVP. Checked all equipment that was already in LCVP. Men in good shape and ready to go. Told that 10,500 planes would be in operation, 6,000 bombers. Did not know anything except we land on Utah Beach Red and Green with 12,000 paratroopers landing H-4 inland. Messed around, shooting bull and kidding each other. Channel pretty rough. Men will be fed at 2200, officers at 2400. June 6, D-Day. 2400: Eating a good meal, may be the last boat team. Sea very rough. Started loading one, went down to compartment with my men about 0230, went over side, down net, and it was really tough. Took off to rendezvous area, had a tough time finding it, made it okay. Started circling, finally the other boats came in. Planes lit up the beaches, AA fire starting, flares dropping, beautiful sight, but it scares the hell out of you. All hell broke loose from the beach, some boats hit by 88. We are near beach and 88 opened up on the boat on our right and almost hit us. Some boats hit land mines. Lucky we landed because much more we would have sunk. Water still rough. Jumped out in waist-deep water, about 500 or 600 yards from seawall, the longest I have ever seen in my life. MG, mortar, and artillery fire around us. Finally in shallow water and able to run, had to miss all types of obstacles in and out the water. Picked up six rounds of 81-millimeter ammo on the way. It seemed as though we would never reach the seawall. Men being blown up and hit all around me. You could hear them scream. It was horrible. Finally hit seawall, stopped to get a blow and bearing. General Roosevelt walking around telling everyone to clear the beach or they would get killed. Rockets hit the third section. Injured: Lieutenants Levy, Arps, Singer, Cole, Sergeant Hasting. Killed: Corporals Herr, Brandt, and Wadja. Time to move or they will kill us all. General Roosevelt gave me lots of courage. Under small arms and artillery fire. Navy left us 1000 yards too far left and the left outfit caught hell. Moved in very fast, every house and tree loaded with men. They fired at you from all directions. Very hard to see them as they use smokeless powder. Will get on to them soon, then they will catch hell. Madam Speaker, I just urge all Americans to remember the incredible sacrifice of so many before us that allowed us to have this amazing Nation. I thank my friend from Alabama.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that we are even here having to debate this, once again, about whether it is appropriate for people who are citizens of foreign countries, people who are here illegally, people who can vote for Vladimir Putin would also get to vote for the Mayor of D.C. It is unbelievable that people in this body who represent hundreds of thousands of citizens of this country believe that that is the appropriate path. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I will clearly communicate to the folks at home what it is that we are doing here. What we are doing is, we are talking about passing a law that prohibits citizens of foreign countries from voting in elections in D.C. It prohibits people that are here illegally from voting in elections. It prohibits spies from China from voting in elections. It prohibits people who are here from Russia that have wishes of ill will on the United States from voting in the elections in D.C. Now, I have heard my friends on the other side say that this would disenfranchise voters in Washington. Let's think through that for just a minute. If you are allowing people that are not citizens of Washington, that are not citizens of the United States to vote here, you are diluting the vote of the people that are citizens of this city. You are diluting it. Which policy disenfranchises? It is absurd to hear people make these allegations. Now, let's talk about some of the people that largely agree with what we are saying. The mayor didn't sign this. Even the Mayor of Washington, D.C., didn't sign this because she knows that this is outrageous. The Washington Post, that I wouldn't argue is a bastion of conservative thought, even said that ``voting is a foundational right of citizenship.'' Madam Speaker, I have heard my friends on the other side argue or allege that we are meddling. We are meddling. Madam Speaker, there is this pesky little document that we take an oath to called the Constitution and, of course, I say that in jest. In the Constitution, it says: Congress is granted exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over Washington. We are doing exactly what we took an oath to do. Let's summarize. If you want Chinese spies, if you want people who are here illegally that also can vote in their actual home country, then you would vote ``no.'' You would say no, we want the status quo. We want spies to vote. We want Russian Embassy employees to vote. We want people who are here illegally to vote. That is fine. You vote ``no.'' However, if you think that D.C. residents, that their vote should actually count for local elections, then you vote ``yes.'' Now, my friends are going to say: What about voting in Federal elections? I am sorry for anybody who moved here and found out by surprise that that is not how it works because this was established originally as a Federal District distinguishing it from the States. I am sorry if folks just woke up and realized that, or maybe after they bought their house.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a man who selflessly served his alma mater for more than 50 years. Coach Pete Boudreaux, Catholic High School track coach, teacher, guidance counselor, and legend, is a member of the Catholic High School Class of 1959. After a stint in the Army and an SEC Championship-worthy track career at LSU, Coach Boudreaux returned to his alma mater to begin his service career. Over his career, Coach Boudreaux brought home 52 state championships between cross country, indoor track, and outdoor track. He is the first man to be inducted into both the Catholic High School and St. Joseph's Academy High School Athletic Halls of Fame and is also a member of the Louisiana Sports Hall of Fame. Beyond his legendary coaching career, Coach Boudreaux is a man who passionately worked to get the most out of his students. Some of the constants in Coach Boudreaux's approach are to work to prepare his students for the future and mold them into good people. Coach Boudreaux's ability to evolve and contribute to the lives of young men over the course of generations is unparalleled, and Catholic High has been fortunate to have such a dedicated teacher, guidance counselor, and coach. As a former sprinter under ``Coach Boo,'' I join thousands of Catholic High graduates in wishing him a huge congratulations on his retirement and go Bears.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly respond to my friend from Texas and the comments about the offshore energy industry. I represent south Louisiana. We have six States that produce offshore energy: Alaska, California, Texas Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. You can add up the offshore Federal production in those five States combined, and you would have to multiply it times four to meet the amount of offshore energy production in Federal waters off the coast of Louisiana. Yet, our entire delegation, House, Senate, Republican, Democrat, are fully supportive of the crewing and manning provision in this bill because it does improve the safety and the security of operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it would not cause the shutdown of oil and gas or energy operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Let me say it again. On the contrary, it would actually improve safety and security. There are waivers and exceptions for foreign vessels that ensure these vessels operate in a way that is safe and secure for our country. I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, in August of this year, we are going to hit the 234th birthday of the United States Coast Guard. We have seen profound changes in the Coast Guard's mission. They perform the jobs of probably a dozen Federal agencies over water. They do a remarkable job. From drug and alien interdiction to maritime security and maritime safety, they do absolutely everything. I will say it again: What a dozen agencies do on land, the Coast Guard is responsible for over water. It is absolutely remarkable. The brave men and women that we refer to as the coasties have served our country with incredible honor and distinction. Mr. Speaker, we refer to them as the Swiss Army knife of the Federal Government. They do so much. They conduct search and rescue missions, support safe navigation in our waterways, and help to defend our maritime border from nefarious actors. Now more than ever, the Coast Guard's missions don't go unnoticed, and it is important that we provide the Coast Guard with the resources that they need to conduct their operations. China is maneuvering to overtake the United States' maritime supremacy. Today, China has the capacity to manufacture 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States. Let me say that again: Today, China has 232 times the shipbuilding capacity of the United States, and these ships aren't being used for honorable activities, Mr. Speaker. We have seen that China is now fishing approximately 42 percent of its fishing in what is known as distant waters. That means in someone else's exclusive economic zone. Said another way, they are illegally fishing in other countries' waters. They are overfishing. China is the worst IUU--illegal, unreported, and unregulated--fishing nation in the world. This isn't limited to just China or Chinese waters. We recently had a major bust of IUU activities in the Gulf of Mexico on one of my favorite entrees, the red snapper. The Coast Guard is vital to protecting our waters and national security, particularly, here in the United States, in the area that you and I share, Mr. Speaker, the Gulf of Mexico. The Coast Guard plays a critical role in protecting our maritime boundary from drugs and migrants. While we rightfully focus our attention on the southern land border with Mexico, we cannot ignore the maritime border. Countless migrants enter unnoticed via boat, and often they are accompanied--or should I say they are accompanying dangerous drugs, such as fentanyl. Louisiana's overdose death rate is nearly double the national average, largely thanks to massive influxes of fentanyl coming undetected through the southern border, including the maritime border. Over the past year, a sheriff's office in my district removed nearly six times the fentanyl that they recovered in just 2022. Wouldn't it be amazing if the Coast Guard could help to stop the drug interdictions, stop these illegal drugs and migrants from coming across our maritime border? Our coasties can't be successful in defending our national security without the proper resources. As China seeks to insert itself in the Pacific, this bill authorizes two fast response cutters that will be used to support missions with partners in the Indo-Pacific. Furthermore, as the world and Russia move into the Arctic, this bill authorizes the second polar security cutter, or heavy icebreaker, for the Coast Guard. It is imperative that we fund the Coast Guard at the levels authorized in this bill. It will protect our people, environment, and fisheries and continue to push back on nations such as China and Russia. I am proud to have contributed to and supported this bill in committee, and I look forward to voting in favor of this bill on the House floor. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the Members who have been involved, especially Ranking Member Webster, and I am thankful for the leadership of our fearless chairman, Sam Graves, as well as the ranking members who have worked on this bill for months and months. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the bill.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, we passed a bill out of the House in July of last year in a strong bipartisan manner, a vote of 351-69, despite the fact that we have been in this incredibly challenging and polarizing Congress. We came together because of the importance of this legislation, and since 2018, the last time we did an FAA bill, we have seen profound changes in the aviation industry. For example, in 2018, there were approximately 100,000 remote pilot certificates that had been issued by the FAA. Today, there are nearly four times that many at 400,000. In all of 2018, there were 33 commercial space launches that were licensed by the FAA. This year alone so far, in the first 4 or 5 months, there have already been 47. For the first time in nearly 20 years, we have had a national ground stop, and just weeks ago, we had a facility incident where there were ground stops at three of the Nation's largest airports. We have seen profound changes in the aviation industry over the last 6 years. This bill brings fundamental solutions into areas like aviation safety that is so critical, ensuring that we have an entire title on innovation, looking at unmanned systems, and advanced air mobility ensuring that general aviation is treated in a way that is appropriate and integrating to the airspace and efficient. We are ensuring that we have the workforce that is needed, not for yesterday's aviation industry, but truly for tomorrow's. This bill reorganizes the FAA in a way that recognizes newer technologies, the need for the FAA to move faster, to move more seamlessly. It reauthorizes the National Transportation Safety Board to ensure that we learn from mistakes and failures and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill focuses on the passenger experience ensuring that that curb-to-curb experience is a good one. I think it is important to make note that over the last 6 years, we have had one new commercial aircraft that has been certificated by the FAA. International competitiveness on aircraft design and manufacturing is becoming more competitive globally. This bill will bring the FAA out of the 20th century and allow us to lead globally in the 2030s and beyond. For the State of Louisiana, the bill offers an opportunity to compete for Department of Transportation investment opportunities in new forms of aviation and resilience. It also advances the use of drones and new forms of aviation for activities such as emergency response, infrastructure inspections, and supporting the offshore energy industry. The bill takes each of the challenges facing aviation in the U.S. and provides forward-looking paths for the FAA to better serve the public today and into the next decade. We took a deep dive into the authorities and processes of the FAA to reorganize and streamline them, breaking down the silos that prevent the FAA from utilizing its own internal expertise to make decisions. We included the first-ever standalone title for aviation technologies to provide certainty to industry, prodding to the FAA to allow drones and advanced air mobility to move beyond research projects into commercially scaled-up programs. We built upon the NEPA reforms of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and included the most extensive airport environmental streamlining reforms of the past two decades. We deliver on our promise, as noted, to improve upon the passenger experience. Mr. Speaker, nearly 28 percent of adults have never stepped foot on a plane. We have got to make sure that that experience is a positive experience, especially for those young families traveling with kids. Everything from parking in the parking lots, all the way through security, checking in bags, concessions, loading planes, getting off planes, and recollecting their bags, this bill focuses on that entire experience. Mr. Speaker, I talked about how we have been dealing with this for nearly a year, and all of the legwork that went into it probably took another 18 months before that. There were a number of people who have put countless hours and a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into this legislation. I thank the people who made this bill happen, including: Hunter Presti, Laney Copeland, Julie Devine, Andrew Giacini, Will Moore, Corey Sites, our friend Chris, and our own aviation staffer, Maggie Ayrea. I also thank the Democratic staff: Brian Bell, Adam Weiss, Liz Forro, Alex Menardy, and Michael Hudspith. Staff directors, Jack Ruddy and Kathy Dedrick, also deserve thanks. This also couldn't have happened without our good friends, Steve Cohen and Rick Larsen. Finally, Mr. Speaker, no one has more expertise in this Congress than the aviation guru, our full committee chairman, Sam Graves. This bill is truly transformational.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to simply explain what we are talking about here. Mr. Speaker, you could have a citizen of Russia who illegally crosses our southern border, pays cartels, comes across our southern border, and decides to set up shop in California. That citizen of Russia, who can still vote for Vladimir Putin all day long, also is counted in the distribution of electoral votes in the United States, therefore having influence and therefore shaping who is President of the United States. I don't know what else could possibly be foreign interference in elections than what we are talking about today. Mr. Speaker, I am from the State of Louisiana. We have six Members of Congress. We have six. By some calculations, the State of California alone has six Members of Congress entirely attributable to citizens of other countries, therefore, just offsetting all of the votes of all of the citizens of Louisiana. This is outrageous. To listen to people across the aisle talk about how this is inappropriate, I say: No, this is exactly appropriate. This is exactly appropriate. As a matter of fact, regarding the way that we count American citizens in our territories, you are giving a greater status to an illegal alien in the United States, a citizen of a foreign country, than you are giving to an American citizen. It is absolutely outrageous to listen to people who try to argue and justify this. This is 100 percent about stacking the vote, about foreign interference in elections, and about allowing and incentivizing sanctuary cities. That is what this does. It actually takes American taxpayer dollars through the formula funding influenced by the Census, and it gives it to States that have illegal aliens. This is completely outrageous. I can't even believe we are standing here having this debate. Mr. Speaker, vote ``yes'' if you want Americans to be represented, and vote ``no'' if you think Russians, Chinese, and others should be represented. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, today we are going to be voting on legislation to name a post office in Rayville, Louisiana, after Congressman-elect Luke Letlow. Madam Speaker, I had known Luke for many, many years and had the chance to work with him. I want to tell you a little bit about his background. Luke, his whole life, was a little guy. He grew up kind of small. I bet when he was growing up, he looked at that as a handicap, maybe, as being a shorter, smaller person in stature. As Luke got older and grew taller and got bigger, he never forgot about the lessons that he learned about being the little guy. All throughout his career when he was working for the Louisiana congressional delegation for Congressman Cooksey and for Congressman Ralph Abraham, when he worked for Governor Jindal of Louisiana, Luke always, always stood up and fought for the little guy. I am going to say it again. I bet that when he was growing up, he looked at it like a deficit, he looked at it like a handicap, but, wow, what he did later in life and how he took those experiences that he had and parlayed them, he used them, and he never forgot what it was like. Oftentimes in government, the people that are heard, the people that are listened to are the ones that have the lobbyists, have the money, have the power, have the influence. Luke made sure that that wasn't the case. It was the person who had an issue, the person who had a problem. No issue was too small. No community was too small. Luke was born and raised in the town of Start, Louisiana, and I have to make reference to this. His dad is a firefighter, and their shirts say Start Fire. I always got a kick out of that. These people are looking for job security. They are pyromaniacs. But seriously, he grew up in Start, Louisiana, in this very, very small community. Throughout his career in government, all he did was stand up for and fight for these small communities, to make sure that these communities were not left out, were not left behind. To tell you a little bit about Luke, I think he would probably make Jeff Foxworthy look sophisticated. Luke would say some of the funniest things, had these hilarious sayings, but he was one of the brightest, most clever people. I often thought of him as a scoundrel, but I don't mean that in a negative sense at all. Luke was a rascal, incredibly clever in what he did and always focused on outcomes. I can't even begin to express my sadness for Luke's early departure at just 41 years old. I can't even begin. If Luke were here, if he served in Congress, if he were able to continue his public service, I have no doubt that we wouldn't be naming post offices after Luke. We would be naming large buildings. We would be naming large boulevards and streets. Part of me is saddened by the fact that we are naming a post office-- I will say it again--because if he were here, I know he would accomplish nothing but greatness. I also think about Luke, where he is now in Heaven, and I am sure that he has his own little corner, and he has streets of gold named after him. I am sure that he has his gaggle of people, and he is holding court up there doing amazing things. One of the things that Luke was most excited about was when Start got a Dollar General. Start got a Dollar General. He could get--what was it, the Dr. Pepper and the Reese's or Kit Kat or whatever it was that he loved. He is an amazing man. It is an absolute honor that we are able to name something after him today. I miss him greatly. I know that he loves his wife, Julia, his son Jeremiah, and his daughter, Jacqueline. I know that when they look back at his history and the work that he has done, the legacy he has left, they are going to be incredibly proud. I love that we are here today able to vote for a post office for him. God bless you, my brother, and God bless your family.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Natural Resources for leading on this legislation. Mr. Chairman, I often wonder where in the world we are sometimes. We are under an administration that has set energy policies that are causing energy prices to go up, to increase for Americans. My friend from California's home State, I believe the average gasoline price in L.A. County right now is $5.40 a gallon. In my home State of Louisiana when President Biden took office, lowest gasoline prices were $1.74 a gallon. I struggle to understand why my friend from California would want to force their ideas and policies on the rest of the country. This is the State that is the most dependent State on Amazon Rainforest oil to power their State's economy. This is the State that has the least reliable energy grid in America, the State that has had the eighth- worst emissions growth in the country, and, according to the American Lung Association, just last week, the State that has the dirtiest air over and over and over again in all of these cities including where my friend represents. Mr. Speaker, I ask my friend, please keep his ideas to himself. Ruin California, but don't ruin the rest of the country. Don't ruin the other 49 States. This is absolutely remarkable. We have watched as this administration comes in and does a ban on exporting American energy, on new exports of American energy, does a ban. That very tool would have been one of the most powerful tools available to actually reduce global emissions, but what my friend's policies are advocating and what they are supporting is supporting more Iranian energy because Iran is increasing their exports and filling the void. The Biden administration's own figures show that there is going to be a 50 percent growth in global energy demand, 57 percent increase in natural gas, and we have the cleanest sources of gas in the world. I don't understand why my friend thinks that it is better to cede this, to give this to Iran. This is the Biden administration's figures. I don't understand why my friend thinks we should cede this to Russia, why we should cede this to Venezuela. President Biden facilitated. He lifted sanctions that allowed for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to be built, the pipeline that took Russian energy and sent it into the European Union. Then, in the same breath, he blocked pipelines in the United States. Let's review. We support Russian energy and Russian pipelines. We support Iranian energy, including the $65 billion they got that has gone directly to funding groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups that have killed American soldiers and invaded our ally, Israel. We have watched as these very strategies have resulted in emissions actually going up. As the United States has led the world in reducing emissions, for every ton we reduce, China has multiple times more increases. How many more times do we have to learn from these flawed energy strategies that harm America, enrich Venezuela, enrich Russia, enrich Iran, and harm the United States? There is evidence all over the place. We can sit here and have these emotional arguments all day long. Math and science prove these policies are flawed. This bill helps to address it, and the fact we are even here when a law already says you are supposed to open up leases, including in areas called the National Petroleum Reserve. That is right. It is reserved for wildlife. What? This is outrageous. The fact that we even have to be here doing this bill that the gentlewoman who represents the entire State of Alaska voted for in committee, that the gentlewoman who represents the entire State of Alaska has clearly said she will not oppose--yet, my friends from California are coming in and saying: Don't worry. We have the solution. We are going to impose our harmful strategies, our harmful energy policies, on you, as well. That way, maybe people stop leaving California. Mr. Speaker, I can't even begin to emphasize how important it is that we move forward with this legislation, that we treat American energy fairly. I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentlewoman's response, and I guess I am confused. First of all, this amendment does absolutely nothing to affect public participation. It does nothing. It does nothing to affect local input. This amendment does apply to linear infrastructure, as she noted, things like transmission, but I remind my friend across the aisle, the gentlewoman from California, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The gentlewoman can't be opposed to the bill, opposed to the underlying bill, and then when this amendment actually stops the expedited authority under this legislation from applying to projects also say that she opposes that. Does the gentlewoman support the expedited process or does she not? I am very baffled by the comments. Either you oppose the underlying bill or you support the underlying bill. I have heard the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman) both express opposition to the underlying bill. Let me say it again: What this amendment does, it says that this expedited authority only for linear transmission projects, linear infrastructure projects, it no longer applies once you hit the financial cap that was estimated, the financial score that was estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. I would think that my friend from California would actually be supportive of this legislation, of this amendment if she is opposed to the underlying bill. It caps, it curtails the use of this expedited authority that I believe Mr. Huffman indicated he believed would result in trashing the environment. Let me say it again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are a fiscal conservative, you should support this amendment because it stops this runaway, excessive subsidy for technologies that have been around for 40, 50 years. It stops the expedited authority for those type of projects. Why we are subsidizing technologies that have been around for 40 or 50 years, I do not understand. Other countries don't in many cases. Secondly, if you are a Liberal, if you are out there saying that this bill is extreme, you should support this amendment because it no longer allows for the expedited authority once you hit the financial cap. I ask my friends across the aisle: Do you want to have your cake or do you want to eat it because you only get one choice? Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, Mr. Chairman, after listening to the gentleman from Florida, I would like a double dose of whatever he is taking. Secondly, Mr. Chairman, what our amendment does is, it addresses something that I think both Conservatives and Liberals should be excited about. Let me explain. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, this large, incredibly expensive energy bill, the Congressional Budget Office did an estimate to determine the total amount of subsidies that this legislation would cost the American taxpayers. Then you have had folks like Goldman Sachs that have come in and done evaluations and determined that that assessment was likely off by a factor of three or even four. Let me say that again. The estimate was off by a factor of three or even four. What the base text of this legislation does is it provides for an expedited processing or environmental review of Clean Water Act requirements. Our amendment simply says, once you hit that cap of how much the Congressional Budget Office said this bill was going to cost, said the Inflation Reduction Act was going to cost, you no longer get the expedited process strictly for linear infrastructure projects; otherwise, projects like transmission. If you are a Conservative, you should be supportive because you are simply capping the cost of this project at what the Congressional Budget Office said. If you are a Liberal, you should be supporting this. You are beating up on the bill right now. This caps or stops the effect of that bill, the expedited process, once you hit the cap that you all thought you were voting for. Mr. Chair, this should be a win-win. This should have bipartisan support. I think that this is an appropriate amendment. I think the amendment ensures that congressional intent is preserved by limiting the cost of these incredibly expensive subsidies at the rate that Members of Congress who supported this legislation believed they were spending. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer for working on this legislation. Mr. Chair, the reality is that America has been wrapped in a bureaucratic morass. We have been wrapped in red tape. It is impossible to do things like build roads. It is impossible to deploy things like transmission that are critical to help to renew and update the electrical grid. This is because of what we have seen as an extreme agenda out of this White House. Just yesterday we talked about the fact that the average American family is now spending an additional $1,000 a month just complying with rules and regulations out of this administration. Mr. Chair, I remind you, this is the administration that said they would not impose additional costs upon any family making less than $400,000 a year. That is exactly what their agenda is doing, whether it is blocking energy production and driving up energy costs or whether it is the shrinkflation you have seen with smaller products at the grocery store or higher utility bills. Every American family is facing this new hidden tax. What Chairman Graves and Chairman Rouzer have done is they have brought together a bill that brings common sense to the Clean Water Act process. I represent south Louisiana. We live at the bottom of one of the largest watersheds in the world and certainly the largest watershed in the United States. We go from Montana to New York to Canada and drain all of this area. Everybody's discharge, everybody's runoff, comes to our State. Do you really think I would have an interest in dirtier water being at the bottom of the watershed, being in the area that has the greatest commercial fisheries in the continental United States and one of the biggest recreational fishing destinations in this country? No, it doesn't make any sense. What this legislation does is help to streamline the process. I thank the chairman for working with us to include a provision that codifies the general NPDES permits that would simply require notice if the general permit is not going to be revised. It simply lets the applicant know or the existing permit holder know if it is not going to be reissued or renewed. This is another one that helps to improve the legal process. Mr. Chairman, I actually met with John Kerry and Brian Deese, White House officials under the Biden administration who have both left now, but who brought up to me, while they were working for the White House, they said that we have got to fix this judicial review thing. This bill does it. What it does is something very simple that applies common sense to the situation. It says that it is fine, you can file a lawsuit if you have a problem with the decision that was made. However, first you have to try to participate and resolve your issue in the public comment process, in the public participation process, rather than waiting for the record of decision, by standing out there on the outside filing a lawsuit just as a delay tactic. These are not helpful tactics. On the contrary, these are malicious tactics. I appreciate the inclusion of that because that moves it in the right direction. Look, in closing, Mr. Chairman, this entire bill builds upon the incredible work that was done in the revisions or the improvements in the modernization of the National Environmental Policy Act that President Biden signed into law back in June that simply tries to ensure that we shrink the amount of time and that we shrink the scope of work that is done in looking at environmental assessments and environmental impact statements. All of this bureaucratic morass, all of this additional cost that is being heaped upon American families, all it is doing is slowing down our economy and giving strategic advantage to countries like China, which is not in our interest. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. It is a percentage, yet this bill tries to come in and create a level playing field, create certainty, and create economic conditions that make sense. My friends are sitting here saying: Oh, Big Oil is profiting. They are profiting because the policies that the Biden administration is putting forth is resulting in conditions that cause prices to skyrocket. The thing that is so frustrating is that we had evidence that this is exactly what was going to happen. During the Obama administration the exact same thing happened, and I noted in the State of California the exact same thing happened. I am just asking that we follow the math and the science. Let's support this legislation. Let's stop doing things that charge people unaffordable energy prices and trash the environment at the same time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this Chamber, and I have listened to folks debate and raise concerns and problems about the legislation that is before us right now. I have heard people talking about how this is extreme, about how it is a gift to oil and gas production, and how it is going to trash the environment. There has been a poster that is up over there--and I am sad I don't have it right now--that said: polluters over people. Mr. Speaker, we take an oath of office to stand up for this country and to defend the Constitution. We make a commitment to represent about 700,000 people each, 700,000 people, to represent their best interest. So, Mr. Speaker, if the things that my friend from California (Mr. Huffman) was saying were accurate, then I would be outraged too, but the facts show a very different story. I am from south Louisiana. When President Biden took office, Mr. Speaker, do you know what gasoline prices were? The lowest prices in our State were $1.74 per gallon on the day he took office. Mr. Speaker, where do you find $1.74 per gallon anywhere? If I can find it at $2.74, then I am going to fill up extra gas cans. Prices are outrageous. Does somebody want to call AAA a partisan organization? AAA says that the average gasoline prices in America today are $3.52 a gallon. This is outrageous. It is absolutely outrageous. This has the biggest impact on those who can least afford it. People can't afford to fill up their vehicles. With higher energy prices, they can't afford to pay their utility bills. We have watched as food prices have skyrocketed and as housing prices have skyrocketed. Much of this is attributable to energy policy because everybody has got to drive, and everybody has got to air-condition their homes and heat their businesses. Mr. Speaker, so what is the cause of all this? The cause of this is exactly what this administration's policies are doing. We just heard my friend from Minnesota say that the average American family is spending about $1,000 a month more now than they were when Biden took office. Everything we are hearing this administration say and my friends across the aisle talk about is that this is trashing the environment. Let's look at the facts. The facts show that the United States, even under the Trump administration, actually led the world in reducing emissions, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under the Biden administration, they have gone up, not down. They are going up. What problem is the administration solving? They are charging people higher prices. They are more dependent on foreign countries, and emissions are going up. They are having more of an adverse impact on the environment. I don't understand. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. I noted that the folks who have been speaking on this bill are from California. Let's take a look at the performance of California. Let's take a look at the performance. Electricity rates in California are almost triple those in my home State. They are almost triple. Gasoline prices are approaching double. Emissions, they have the eighth worst emissions growth in America. California is the most dependent State upon oil from the Amazon rainforest. It is the most dependent State on imported energy, and it has the least reliable grid in America. Mr. Speaker, who in the hell would want to thrust that upon their citizens? This is a complete record of failure. Yet, it is the exact blueprint that this administration is following. It doesn't make sense. This isn't about Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal. This is about math. It doesn't make sense. All we are doing is we are creating a void that Iran is filling, that Russia is filling, and that Venezuela is filling. Are they taking those dollars and doing things that are in America's interests? No. We have got to look at this globally. We have got to follow the math and the science as America has led the world in reducing emissions. We have led the world more than the next six emission-reducing countries combined, and we have ceded all of this energy void to China. Mr. Speaker, do you know what has happened? China has increased emissions five tons for every one ton we have reduced. It doesn't make sense. I am not asking for Republican or Democrat policies. I am not asking for Conservative or Liberal policies. I am simply saying: Let's follow the math and follow the science and do what makes sense. Folks are wondering: Why are my prices higher? For one reason, this bill right here actually repeals higher royalty rates. Royalties are a percentage. They are not a hard dollar figure per barrel of oil or cubic foot of gas. It is a percentage. So as prices go up, so do the royalties. They have raised the percentage. People are wondering why they are paying more money?

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding. Mr. Speaker, $9,600, that is how much the average American household is paying today in the higher cost of living in the United States as a direct result of policies of the Biden administration, $9,600. Now, Mr. Speaker, compare that to what President Biden said on the campaign trail. He said, I will not raise costs, raise taxes on any American who earns less than $400,000. That is the average, $9,600. In fact, for some people it is more. Mr. Speaker, the cause of these higher costs is the regulatory agenda of this administration. That is exactly what we are debating today. We are talking about energy prices. We are talking about energy policies of this administration that are having an adverse effect on Americans. We are watching right now as this administration, as this bill tries to fix, bans fracking. You can go back, and you can look historically at the United States. We have led the world in reducing emissions. How have we done it? Do you know what the secret is? One of the most important tools that we have used to reduce emissions is actually natural gas. Natural gas, one of the biggest targets, the biggest victims of this fracking ban. Let's take a look. Is this fracking ban legal? Well, there was a judge in Wyoming who actually looked at this under the Obama administration and said: ``Congress has not delegated to the Department of the Interior the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing. The BLM's effort to do so through the Fracking Rule is in excess of its statutory authority and contrary to law.'' What does this administration do? The same exact thing. It is not just a fracking ban, though. It is also banning the export of liquefied natural gas. As my friend from Minnesota just said, what happens is that you don't have a decrease in demand for energy. It is simply that other countries provide it. Countries like Iran that are profiting tens of billions of dollars love these policies. Russia loves these policies. This administration actually increased the importation of energy from Russia when they came in. This is baffling energy policy. You are failing to address America's energy security. You are failing the affordability test. Mr. Speaker, let's think about emissions. On the emissions side, are these policies resulting in lower emissions? Let's look at facts. The facts show that between 2005 and 2021, the United States has actually reduced emissions more than any other country in the world--not just more than any other country, more than the six next emissions-reducing countries combined. How have we done it? It is by using natural gas. What happens? Other countries fill the void, countries like Russia. Let's do a comparison there. When you take 1 year of liquefied natural gas supplied to the European Union from Russia, and if you were to supplant it with liquefied natural gas coming from the United States, it would reduce emissions by 218 million tons, but my friends across the aisle and at the White House have taken that off the table. Let's go back and review. We have higher prices that Americans are paying--higher prices for utilities and higher prices for gasoline. We have more dependence upon countries like Iran, China, Venezuela, and Russia for energy. We are more dependent upon them, the globe is, and emissions are going up. Which one of these is important? I mean, this is baffling to me. Higher prices, less energy security, and higher emissions are what this administration's energy policies have achieved. It makes no sense. Let's talk about where these dollars are going. My friend talked about the tens of billions going to Iran. These dollars are being directly provided to Iranian terrorist proxies that have attacked and killed American troops in Syria and Iraq. These policies are funding this. Coming back to us, we are now funding Ukraine, which is battling Russia, paid for with U.S. bad energy policy. We are funding Israel. That is paid for by bad energy policy that Iran is profiting from. This makes no sense. It makes absolutely no sense. This bill, however, does make sense because it reverses the policies of this administration. It brings back common sense. It follows evidence, science, and math that show that we can actually reduce emissions, increase energy security, and have affordable energy in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for promoting this legislation, for carrying it through the committee. Let me provide a little bit of background because I think there has been some confusion here. If we look at occupancy rates of Federal buildings from pre-pandemic to current, then 54 percent of the buildings are occupied as compared to pre-pandemic. Let me say this again. If you look at pre-pandemic occupancy and compare it to today, you have 54 percent occupancy as compared to what would have been 100 percent at the time, 100 percent of those slots filled. What this legislation does is, it says that if leases are occupied 60 percent or less, then the government needs to give up those leases. My friend from Washington has brought up the fact that you have folks who do telework and flexible schedules and things along those lines. There is a 40 percent cushion, number 1. Number 2, I think something that is incumbent upon folks in government that are using public money to pay for this--let me say it again: $2 billion a year to operate and maintain, $5 billion a year to pay for leases. It is incumbent upon these folks that are managing this to make sure that you are properly coordinating schedules. If people are teleworking or have flexible schedules, that is fine. Just manage them in a way that maximizes the use of the space. Look, this is ridiculous what is going on. It is $7 billion a year. If we went around the Congress and asked Members of Congress, do you have something in your district that needs funding and you have been unable to get funding for, every single one of us could spend $7 billion. We have been trying to fight for a new bridge crossing the Mississippi River for years and years now. It should have been done 40 years ago. Let's be clear: It only requires divestment or elimination of the lease if the occupancy is less than 60 percent. What private business would even do that? I think it actually should be a higher standard in an ideal situation. As Chairman Perry said, according to a Government Accountability Office study that went through, they looked at 24 Federal agencies and 17 of the 24 only used 25 percent of the space. This is insane. There is better uses of taxpayer funds. In closing, Madam Chair, I remind everyone here, our current government debt is approximately $34.5 trillion. Each individual taxpayer's share of that is around $257,000. I couldn't afford that. I don't think we need to be irresponsibly and recklessly spending taxpayer dollars in this environment or ever. I commend my friend from Pennsylvania for pushing this legislation, and I urge adoption.