Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, since 1980, we have had about 220 disasters that have caused over $1 billion in damages. In fact, when you add all that money up, we have spent about $1.5 trillion in disaster recovery, nearly all of that being emergency spending, adding to our deficit. Now, the thing that we do here in the Federal Government to help bring an offense to the table, to help address resiliency, is largely the mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: projects for flood protection, for water management, for ecosystem restoration that can help improve the resiliency of our communities, hurricane protection in my home State of Louisiana. Yet we have a $100 billion backlog in Corps of Engineer projects across the United States. This Congress provides between $1 billion and $2 billion a year in construction. Madam Chair, you can do the math. You have $100 billion in authorized projects. You get $1 billion to $2 billion a year in construction, you will finish that backlog approximately never. You are not going to finish it. And so what we did in the Disaster Recovery and Reform Act in October, that was signed into law in October and passed through this body three times, is we did a provision that says that FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds can be used to build a Corps of Engineers' project if your State, if your community determines that is the highest priority. Right now, under Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds, there is a prohibition--and this is largely boilerplate language--that prohibits these funds from being used for a Corps of Engineers' project. What this amendment does is it simply removes that if a State, if your community determines that that is the highest priority, addressing resiliency, telling your community that it is okay to build back here because we are going to make it safer, we are going to reduce the risk, prevent you from having future disaster, future damages. Madam Chair, right now, sitting in the gallery is a group of students from Ed White High School in my home State of Louisiana. They have a project in their community that has been in the study phase since 1992, and the Corps of Engineers has spent $80 million studying it. That is ridiculous. It has caused billions of dollars in flood damages in this area. This project has not moved forward. We have got to make sure that we are advancing these projects as quickly as we can, improving the resilience of our communities. So this amendment, again, makes the CDBG-DR funds eligible if your State, if your community determines that is the highest and best value, the best investments of the funds. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, the chairman brings up a good point in that is the authorized amount the full authorized amount that the Federal law for a Corps of Engineers project provides? For example, if Congress authorized a flood protection project for $100 million, could they possibly get more than $100 million? The answer to that question is no. The second question to attempt to clarify would be, if a community is allocated $50 million through the CDBG-DR program, would it be possible for them to spend more than $50 million on the project? Once again, to the chairman's question, the answer would be no. This would not intend to obligate or in any way spend more money that is allocated to them under CDBG-DR or under the authorized project in Federal law.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise to honor the career of Ascension Parish Sheriff Jeff Wiley. Sheriff Wiley joined the Marine Corps in 1970. He became a sheriff's deputy in 1974. He served in patrol, then detective, and then went on to the school board, where he served as director of student services from 1980 to 1988. He came back to the sheriff's office and ultimately was elected sheriff in 1996, reelected for five terms. His career, perhaps, is marked best by some of the recognition: the recognition of Outstanding Man of Gonzales, the Outstanding Educator, the Louisiana Justice Hall of Fame, and the president of Louisiana Sheriffs' Association. He also spent much time creating programs for kids: the Junior Deputy Program, substance abuse programs, D.A.R.E. program, and a narcotics unit. But perhaps his most important accomplishment is evolving this rural sheriff's office to a modern law enforcement agency in one of the fastest growing parishes in the State of Louisiana. With five decades of service, he has maintained the immaturity of a teenager. I am proud to call him a friend. I want to honor his service to our State and our Nation, and I commend his daughters, Sara and Erin, and recognize the 40 years of marriage to his wife, Linda.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I just want to quickly say that I also regret that we are in a situation where we have to once again do a temporary extension, but it is important that we do not let this program lapse. Whether it is Hurricane Florence, Hurricane Michael, Hurricane Harvey, Irma, Maria, or many other disasters we have had, Mr. Speaker, we have flood victims that are trying to rebuild their homes, that are trying to get their lives back in order, and to not have a flood insurance program that gives them the confidence and security that they can reinvest back in their homes and businesses is a dangerous thing for us to do, especially right now during this Christmas season. Mr. Speaker, I also want to say, at a 50,000-foot level, we have been myopically focused on flood insurance and only flood insurance policy. Thinking about the fiscal irresponsibility of continuing to allow this program to run the debt that it has, while completely ignoring the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have spent $1.5 trillion on 220 disasters since 1980, ignoring the fact that thousands and thousands of lives have been lost as a result of our lack of bringing an offense to the table and actually bringing resilient projects to the table, and just focusing solely on flood insurance, which is a reactive policy, it is fiscally irresponsible. We need to bring an offense and a defense to the table. This program needs fundamental reform, but we cannot do it just by cutting checks to people every time there is a disaster. We have got to bring the resiliency measures to the table as part of a package deal here. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 488.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, back in April of last year, in April of 2017, we introduced legislation known as the Modern Fish Act, the Modernizing Recreational Fisheries Management Act. A few months later, in July, on July 10, the Senate introduced a companion measure. Mr. Speaker, the House bill has 24 bipartisan cosponsors and, on July 11, the House passed this bill, the House version, H.R. 2023, as part of H.R. 200, the overall Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation Act Reauthorization. Mr. Speaker, Magnuson-Stevens was first authorized in 1976, very important legislation that largely at the time was designed to manage commercial fishing out in Federal waters across the United States. Over time, we have seen extraordinary changes in fishing, both in commercial fishing, in technology and demand on species, changes in technology and science and our ability to better manage these species; and, importantly, Mr. Speaker, changes in the demand from recreational fishers. People like you and I, myself and our kids, we enjoy going out and fishing. Magnuson-Stevens was designed largely to manage the commercial side, and it largely lacked the important balance or consideration of the millions and millions of fishers, of anglers, that go out and enjoy it just as families, and this bill helps to fix that. The Modern Fish Act will recognize in Federal law for the first time that recreational fishing and commercial fishing are fundamentally different activities and, therefore, should be managed differently to fit the characteristics of each sector. Mr. Speaker, while recreational fishing is an experience-based activity, commercial fishing is designed for profit. It is a for-profit activity, it is a business activity. We have seen significant evolution in the way that the States manage State waters, recreational and commercial fishing in State waters. And let's keep in mind, there is nothing that distinguishes State waters and Federal waters. When you get outside the seaward boundaries of States, generally 3 miles in most States, it is indistinguishable. The species go back and forth, but the management styles have fundamentally changed. In my home State of Louisiana, our recreational fishers have determined that they are going to impose a fee on themselves to improve the collection of data to improve the science to better inform our fishery management decisions. The Federal Government has the opportunity to do the same thing and, in some cases, to better involve States to ensure the complementary nature of fisheries management in the Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic, the Pacific, Alaska, and in other areas. This bill will allow the Regional Fishery Management Councils to manage recreational fisheries more successfully based on public access, without hard quotas, or TACs. Ultimately, these changes will help to avoid sudden closures and drastically changing fishing regulations that have been plaguing many Federally managed fisheries. The State of Louisiana is one of the most productive ecosystems in the North American Continent. We have nearly 90 percent of the freshwater inputs in the Gulf of Mexico coming through our State. We have one of the top commercial fishing industries in the Nation--in fact, the largest in the continental United States--and we produce more shrimp, blue crabs, oysters, crayfish, and other species than anywhere else in this Nation. It is important to also keep in mind that we are one of the top recreational fishing destinations. We are a place where many people like to come to fish: redfish, speckled trout, red snapper, Amberjack, cobia, and many, many other species. We have got to have that balance. This bill moves in the right direction to ensure that we do have a balance. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, let me just say this. The regulations, the laws, that manage our roads, we have a very different structure on how 18 wheelers, how trucks are managed, versus cars; we have different rules on how civilians versus military engage; we also have a different tax code for businesses and individuals. This bill simply does the same thing: it recognizes that there is a difference between commercial fishing and recreational fishing. Especially in our home, in the Gulf of Mexico, it recognizes that there is extraordinary participation on the recreational side of fishers, of just the general public, going out there and enjoying that experiential activity to go out there and go catch fish in the Gulf of Mexico. We must ensure that we have better science, that we have better decisions in the Gulf of Mexico, and that we have better balance on how these fisheries are managed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I reiterate that this is bipartisan legislation. I thank my friend from Arizona for the cooperation in ensuring that we get text that everyone agrees is a step in the right direction in improving that balance in the management of commercial and recreational fisheries, in ensuring that we have the best science informing our decisions and that our resource managers have access to that information and are allowed to use it. I thank the 24 bipartisan cosponsors from States like Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Texas, and many other coastal States in the United States that worked with us on this to ensure that we move in the right direction. And I thank the dean of the House and the king in the North, Congressman Don Young, for all of the work that he has done for decades in progressing Federal fisheries management policy. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Bill Ball, Dustin Davidson, and the many staff who helped to work on this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (S. 1520) to expand recreational fishing opportunities through enhanced marine fishery conservation and management, and for other purposes.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, with that, I will again say I support this legislation. I think the policy concept of revenue sharing from energy production is a solid one, but we have got to make sure that we don't have conflicting policies when we talk about fossil fuels versus alternative energy streams.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come speak in support of this legislation. I think this is important legislation to ensure that our territories can share in the revenues from offshore energy production. I believe the States and I believe the territories should share in that revenue production. Mr. Speaker, I think there is an important discussion for us to be having here. Yes, as the gentleman from Arizona noted, this will be contributing to our Nation's energy production, which is a good thing. It is generating a revenue stream based on market forces, which is a good thing, and it does, Mr. Speaker, return a portion of the revenues back to the territories or the adjacent host's entity of this energy production, and it invests dollars in conservation. Now, to contrast, Mr. Speaker, the majority of the energy in the United States is derived from oil and gas. That is how the majority of this Nation's economy is powered. There are a handful of States that provide that energy. For example, as this bill pertains only to offshore in Federal waters, in the offshore you have the State of Alaska represented by our dean. You have the States of Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana--my home State--Texas, and, Mr. Speaker, the State of California. Those are all States that produce offshore energy. You have a lot of States that are producing onshore energy with the shale revolution in Texas, in the Dakotas, in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in Louisiana and other areas. We are producing onshore production as well. Once again, this is fueling our Nation's economy, and all 50 States are benefiting from this. But, Mr. Speaker, going back to the offshore, we provided about $200 billion from energy production in the offshore to the United States Treasury. With this bill, on the first dollar of energy produced in the Federal offshore from wind energy in the territories, a portion of it is going to be shared with the territory and going to be shared for conservation activities. Yet the disparity, or the opposite, happens for onshore. For onshore energy, what they do is they take the initial dollars and they put it toward conservation, land conservation in other States--not where this energy is produced, but in other States. The gentleman from Arizona even noted that there are impacts from offshore energy production. I agree with him; there are impacts. Most of them have been historic impacts. But for us to take this revenue stream and put it toward other States and not where this energy is produced, when you are talking about $200 billion, Mr. Speaker, that is wrong. That is why we have introduced H.R. 6771. Mr. Speaker, that bill passed the House Natural Resources Committee unanimously by a voice vote, and I want to thank the gentleman from Arizona and many other Members for working with us on this legislation. It was a bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, I want to engage the chairman in a colloquy. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6771 shares revenues from offshore energy production with States. It increases the revenue sharing, and those dollars have to be used for coastal restoration, hurricane protection for community resiliency projects. I want to ask the chairman if he supports that policy and if he will continue to work with us to advance that legislation just like this legislation is being advanced today.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of talk about this program. We have heard a lot about affordability, folks talking about being fiscally conservative and making sure that this program is financially solvent, hearing numbers like $20 billion in debt. Mr. Speaker, let me give you another number: $1.5 trillion. $1.5 trillion, that is the amount of money we have spent on just 120 disasters since 1980, billion-dollar-plus disasters. If we are fiscally conservative, then we need to address the $1.5 trillion, not focus on this small component of disasters. How do you do that? You do that by making your communities more resilient. The Congressional Budget Office, FEMA, Corps of Engineers, and many other organizations have come out and said that the way that you do this is by being proactive and making investments in community resiliency, in ecosystem resiliency. That is what you do. If we are fiscal conservatives, if we are concerned about solvency and the debt, why are we just focused on this one small program? Mr. Speaker, here is the reality: Under the proposals that have been put forth, it charges people for things they have no responsibility over. That is called a tax. That is a tax. The people in my home State of Louisiana are at the bottom of one of the largest watersheds in the world. More water is being sent to us because of development in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Because of the Federal Government's actions on our coast, we have lost 2,000 square miles of our coast. You are going to charge these people higher premiums because of what people above us are doing in other States and because of what our own Federal Government did to us with the river? That is not a premium. That is a tax. You are charging people for things they have no control over. We have structures and homes that have been in these places for 300 years, and you are suddenly going to charge them unaffordable rates? This program does need reforms. It absolutely needs reforms. Those reforms should include, as the chairman has stated, buyouts for repetitive-flood-loss properties--absolutely--because that is the fiscally appropriate, fiscally conservative thing to do. Not to mention, no one wants their house to be flooded over and over again. We have to make reforms, but this is not the right approach. Let me be clear: I don't like a 7-day extension either. I don't. We need to do a year extension where we can sit down and talk about the right reforms to put us on the right trajectory to sustainably manage this program and, importantly, in the face of changing disasters and rising seas, so that we can prepare our Nation for the future.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 30 year anniversary of LSU's Pennington Biomedical Research Center. Founders C.B. ``Doc'' and Mrs. Pennington donated to the university in hopes of building ``the biggest and best nutrition research center in the country.'' Their vision has largely been accomplished. As the center has grown, they've become a premiere scientific research institution--highly sought after to publish medical research on chronic disease prevention and to host national medical symposiums. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) selected Pennington Biomedical for several medical studies such as diet risk factors for heart disease, the effects of diets on blood pressure, and diabetes prevention. Over the past 30 years, there have been 212,123 scientific citations from over 5,000 Pennington Biomedical publications. Their work has improved the quality of life for millions of people worldwide. I'm proud to represent this premiere research facility, housed at one of Louisiana's finest schools. Well done, Pennington Biomedical Research Facility, on an incredible 30 years of excellence and discovery.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I first want to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and their staff for their perseverance on this legislation. This is really an amazing accomplishment that I think is going to transform how we plan for, how we prepare for, and how we respond to and recover from disasters. Mr. Speaker, we spent more than $1.5 trillion responding to 220 disasters that have cost our Nation more than $1 billion each since 1980. We have this process in the Federal Government where we spend billions after a disaster rather than spending millions on the front- end actually preparing and making our communities more resilient. This bill begins to change that. There are a number of very important lessons learned, commonsense provisions in this legislation. I want to highlight the duplication of benefits, section 1210, of this legislation that reverses this crazy Federal policy whereby it was incentivizing people to wait, to slow down recovery, while costing FEMA more dollars in temporary housing, eliminating this process whereby loans and grants were viewed as being duplicative.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, we have Hurricane Florence bearing down on our Nation now. The Carolinas and Georgia are inevitably going to have disaster, destruction, and damages. What happens in the aftermath, as folks begin looking at it, they ask the question: What could we have done differently? This bill, together with other legislation, is exactly what needs to be done. This begins the process of addressing this ridiculous backlog of $100 billion in projects that we need to move forward on, that we need to construct, and bringing efficiencies to the table, like allowing for States and local governments to advance these projects on their own, taking advantage of their capabilities of greater cost efficiencies, of streamlined permitting processes, and other efficiencies that they are capable of doing. This bill brings all sorts of solutions to the table, including, Mr. Speaker, looking at whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should even be within the Department of Defense. When I call Secretary Mattis and talk to him about Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, and Iran, should I introduce a wetlands permit in that conversation? I don't think I should. It is not compatible with the agency. So we are looking at where this mission can be a top priority, can be properly housed, and where we can accomplish these projects much faster than we are doing today. Mr. Speaker, this bill also has some important things for us back home, including recognizing the hundreds of millions of dollars in work that our State has done to restore our eroding coastline and the ecological productivity that goes along with it; looking at carrying out a pilot dredge program, whereby we can issue dredging contracts over years over multiple channels, rather than doing one channel at a time, where we can benefit from economies of scale and, again, greater efficiency with taxpayer dollars; and, importantly, Mr. Speaker, ensuring that the old river control structure is not managed by a static 70-30 split that was determined decades ago, using updated science so we benefit navigation, the environment, and other important priorities. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Congressman DeFazio, Congresswoman Napolitano, Congressman Sanford, Congressman Rouzer, and all those involved for their hard work on this. I urge its adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this discussion needs to have a reset. It needs to have a reset because I keep hearing people sit here talking about repetitive floods and how there is a certain set of these flood victims who are costing this program all sorts of problems and money. Mr. Speaker, do you really believe people want to be flooded? Do you think people want to have everything they own underwater and have to throw it all out? Anybody who believes that has obviously never stepped foot in a flooded home, never spoken to a flood victim. Do you really think people intentionally want to build their home in a place that is going to flood so all their family heirlooms are flooded and lost? That whole concept is irrational. Mr. Speaker, the reality is that all of us want this program to be solvent. We all want to have a solution. We all want to have reforms. The things that are being pushed aren't the reforms that are going to result in solvency. The reforms that are being pushed are strictly a defense. You don't go out on the field and just play defense. We need to lean forward. We need to integrate some of our efforts on mitigation, some of our Corps of Engineers levee projects, some of our hazard mitigation grant program funds through FEMA, look where we can protect areas and where that is the most cost-effective solution, and not tell everyone: You are out of your house, or we are going to charge you unaffordable rates. Mr. Speaker, think about this for just a minute. I represent the State of Louisiana. We drain from Montana to two Canadian provinces to New York. All that water comes and drains down through our State. It is one of the largest watersheds in the world. More water is coming to us now. So, yes, we are more vulnerable. But the people who live in these homes and businesses are innocent. Folks are trying to charge them more for something they have no control over. That is not American. That is not okay. We are in hurricane season right now, Mr. Speaker. We are in hurricane season, where we need to provide people certainty. Let's be crystal clear on what this bill is and what it is not. A ``yes'' vote provides people certainty during hurricane season. It provides certainty to Realtors, homeowners, and homebuilders. A ``no'' vote kills the National Flood Insurance Program and leaves people with complete uncertainty and in limbo. I want to thank the gentleman from New Jersey for proposing this bill and for bringing it up, because this is so important. We have had 220 disasters, each costing more than $1 billion since 1980. In total, we spent approximately $1.5 trillion responding to these disasters. Mr. Speaker, there are similar programs that exist. Right now, there is Price-Anderson for nuclear power plants and TRIA for terrorism risk insurance, where the government provides a safety net. I agree that we nee to reform these programs, but we need to do it in a way that does not penalize the innocent. Until we get to that point, we need to do an extension to provide certainty and to ensure we make it through hurricane season, and we have a rational debate.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, my flight was delayed due to weather. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 366, and YEA on Roll Call No. 367.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3906) to establish centers of excellence for innovative stormwater control infrastructure, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous on H.R. 3906, as amended.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Bill Shuster; the ranking member, Congressman DeFazio; and my good friend the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mrs. Napolitano, for their work in progressing this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, as we know, with the additional development that is occurring in this country, with the additional water and stormwater systems that are being built, heavy rains end up transiting or transferring pollutants, heavy metals, trash, bacteria, and many other things into our water system. Mr. Speaker, I represent south Louisiana. The watershed that I represent drains from Montana to two Canadian provinces to New York. It is one of the largest watersheds in the world. Of course, all of that stormwater runoff ends up coming down right through my home State and contributes to one of the largest dead zones in the Nation--in fact, the largest dead zone in the Nation--which is not very compatible with us having some of the top commercial and recreational fishing and one of the largest or most productive estuaries in the United States. So I want to thank Mr. Heck for introducing this legislation, for working with Congressman Katko in putting this together in a bipartisan manner. What this legislation does is it recognizes that stormwater runoff does actually transfer, or does contribute to pollutants, in our waterways, and it recognizes that this is a problem. But it also recognizes that it is a problem that needs to be solved by local, by State, and by Federal agencies, by Federal officials. So this legislation creates a new task force to look at innovative financing, to look at new funding streams, to look at how we can do a better job integrating the various funding streams to actually achieve this objective that we all share on a bipartisan basis to help reduce the amount of pollutants and trash and other things that get into our waterways. This is an important step forward. Mr. Speaker, in a previous life, I managed a large infrastructure program where we built tens of billions of dollars of infrastructure. One of the first things I realized is how important it was for us to look at all the funding streams that are available, and the possible funding streams that are available, pulling those together to make sure that they are being used in a complementary manner, not managed in silos, and certainly not managed in a contradictory or in a conflicting manner. The gentleman's legislation helps to address that. It helps look at the revenue streams that are available today, whether they are Federal, whether they are State, whether they are local funds, or perhaps even private or not-for-profit, looking at the different regulatory structures that are out there, looking at opportunities for us to achieve this bipartisan goal of reducing pollutants, of helping reduce trash, of helping reduce the dead zone and other adverse outcomes as a result of stormwater runoff from heavy rains. Again, I want to point out that this is bipartisan legislation, that this passed the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee unanimously, that my good friend from California Mrs. Napolitano worked with us on changes in the committee. I thank, again, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) and Mr. Katko for working together on something that is an important issue, for coming up with a bipartisan solution, and looking forward to ensuring that this passes the House and passes the Senate as well to where we can get it to the President's desk. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina for working with us on this, as well as many staff and members from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine for a minute if you had a medical emergency at your house and you had to mail a form to the ambulance service to have them come address the heart attack victim or other type of medical emergency that is occurring at your house? How irrational is that? Obviously, it doesn't make sense to do something like that, to mail for something that may be an emergency. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine, even in today's time, with the strict demands we have for customer service, if we actually had to truly mail order forms to different online companies to have them deliver something, to retail outlets to have them deliver something, a product to our house? There would be no tolerance for that. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government right now, the government today, our own United States Government which is here to serve our own Americans, only has a customer service rating of about 70 percent. In fact, it is less than 70 percent. Well, that might have been a high watermark for my grades in school-- maybe--Mr. Speaker, but that is absolutely an unacceptable level. This is our government. These are our taxpayers. Why is it that private industry has been able to use technology to provide better customer service, to provide faster services? It is because they care about their customers and they care about their business and there is an incentive for them to do so. They don't have a monopoly, like the Federal Government does, for many of the services that it offers, but that does not excuse the Federal Government from providing better services. Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to work very closely with Congressman Joe Kennedy to help develop this legislation, and this is a solution to help bring the United States Government into the 21st century, or perhaps the 20th century. It simply does the same thing that private companies have figured out how to do for decades now, where we can access our banks online, we can access our insurance online, where we can go online to buy groceries and virtually any other good or service that we need. We can even file our own taxes with the Federal Government. Yet the Privacy Act of 1974, as it is implemented today, requires, in order for us to provide services to our constituents, which may be an emergency situation, that they have to print out a form and mail it in, and that we then have to take and mail it to an agency. That is ridiculous in 2018, and it is unacceptable. This bipartisan legislation addresses that. It allows for people to access their own government, access government services to address important things like, perhaps, accessing their VA benefits; like, perhaps, fixing a wrong the IRS has caused; like, perhaps, dislodging a permit or some other type of service the government is supposed to provide and has been sitting on, in some cases as we have dealt with, for years. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you a quick story. In 2016, in August of that year, in my hometown of Baton Rouge in south Louisiana, we experienced a 1,000-year flood. People were calling us by the hundreds per day, calling and saying: I need help. I need help with FEMA, SBA, and other government services. We said: Yes, you bet. All you need to do is go to our website, print out this form, and then mail it to us. Mr. Speaker, I can't say on the House floor some of the responses our office received whenever they were telling us about the 4 feet of water that their computers and printers and other equipment were under. It was a real aha moment. How ridiculous is it that we sit here and act like we are 80 years ago as a government? We can do better. This simply brings us to current technology, to allow constituents to reach out to our offices when we are addressing urgent issues, like passport issues for folks stuck in other countries, like Department of Defense issues where our own military men and women may be having problems in other countries, where our own citizens aren't getting the benefits that they paid for or they earned. It gives us the ability to quickly step in and address their issues, to intervene on their behalf and get these issues resolved. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank, especially, my friend Joe Kennedy for working with us so closely on this bipartisan legislation, Congresswoman Mimi Walters, Congressman Gene Green, Congressmen Will Hurd and Kevin McCarthy through the Innovation Initiative, Congressman Mark Meadows, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman Barbara Comstock, and many others who provided input to us, helped us perfect this legislation and get it here today. I want to thank the bipartisan cosponsors and folks who helped us on this. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption.