Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I did not ultimately support this legislation, however, there is much contained within the bill's almost 1700 pages of statutory text in addition to the explanatory statement that will advance the safety, security and economy of our great nation. The bill includes $551.1 billion in base defense discretionary funding and $76.99 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)/ Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) defense funding. The total FY2017 defense funding is $598.5 billion, $25.7 billion over FY16 levels, and includes $21 billion in new funding requested by the Administration. These funds provide for our national defense, pay our troops, and provide the resources and equipment our military needs to restore readiness, and protect our national security. I support these amounts to ensure American troops have what they need as we continue to engage threats to our national and homeland security around the world. Mr. Speaker, this bill also takes the first of many steps toward additional border security improvements by providing $1.5 billion for critical funding for infrastructure, innovative technology, and agents at the border. Other key provisions that I support include putting appropriate parameters in place for the Environmental Protection Agency; and providing $50 million in additional current-year funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs to improve opioid and substance abuse prevention and treatment for veterans. Mr. Speaker, the bill also and importantly provides $57.7 billion for our nation's infrastructure, provides funding consistent with authorized levels in the FAST Act, which I was involved in crafting, and $948 million in additional disaster relief for the Emergency Relief Program and Community Development Block Grant disaster recovery assistance. Importantly, the bill includes $15 million that I requested for the state and local law enforcement agencies through the Bureau of Justice Assistance. These agencies experienced so many challenges over the last several months. These challenges include a police-involved shooting on July 5, 2016 and subsequent violent protests, the ambush and murder of Baton Rouge City Police and East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff Deputies on July 17, 2016 and a 1000-year flood event in mid- August of the same year. Five of our officers were shot in the ambush and the flood resulted in the loss of an estimated 100 police vehicles, critical law enforcement equipment, weapons and personal and family losses for many of our peacekeepers. Mr. Speaker, ultimately I could not vote for this bill despite the numerous provisions I support because appropriating over a trillion dollars in thousands of pages of new text over a few days does not afford the degree of transparency and consideration that I believe we should have. Further, the bill represents a lost opportunity to deliver on the commitment towards the recovery needs of tens of thousands of flood victims in my district and state of Louisiana. As I mentioned, there are provisions that can help, like providing some assistance through Community Development Block Grants--of which Louisiana victims will receive a small. Yet this funding varies wildly from the assessed needs of both HUD and the state. This is wholly inadequate given the scale of the flood event that struck Louisiana last August. That is why I offered four amendments to the bill that would have increased the total amount of Community Development Block Grants available to disaster impacted areas by $750 million, made $100 million available for Army Corps projects like the Comite River Diversion Canal to reduce the risk of future flood events, and provide much needed relief for our local school districts as they seek to rebuild and reopen 8 months after the flood. These amendments were not ultimately adopted, but I will continue to fight and advocate for these priorities and more as we work on a FY2018 funding bill. Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly about the federal government's need to balance the budget, eliminate deficits and pay on the national debt. There is this misconception that under-funding CDBG-DR recovery assistance saves money. The reality is that we requested a fraction of the per capita assistance afforded to the victims of Hurricane Sandy and this calculation excludes the tens of billions of recovery funding provided in other federal programs. We have no desire to be greedy, but Americans need to know that when a catastrophic event occurs their government will be there--that we have their back. We have already seen many leave our community, bankruptcies, homes foreclosed, flood victims selling their homes for a fraction of the pre-flood value and many still living in tents, travel trailers, gutted homes and other inappropriate conditions. Rather than tailoring an appropriate response for this extraordinary flood, our own government's bureaucracy at the state and federal level are contributing to the pain rather than easing it. We can and should do better.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman and ranking member for their assistance, and I also want to thank our lead cosponsor, Mr. Sires of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is an unfortunate situation, that Congress actually has to step in. I want to give you a little bit of background. In August of last year, we had once again what was known as the fourth most costly flood disaster in U.S. history. We had areas of south Louisiana that actually experienced over 32 inches of rain within about a 36-hour period. By comparison, the average American, as I recall, receives somewhere between 26 and 28 inches of rain in a year, and we received that in approximately 36 hours--an extraordinary rainfall event. As you can imagine, in a 1,000-year flood event, you had thousands and thousands of people that were flooded, people living well outside of the floodplain. So, yes, there were thousands of people that were seeking assistance, trying to do everything from buy clothes to buy food, essential needs. We assisted thousands of constituents trying to get information and answers from FEMA, but the way that the process worked is that you had to call an 800 number. If someone answered, they would log on a computer system and update the constituent on what their status is: if they received the application, if additional information was needed, if they were approved or denied. I, myself, on many occasions called the 800 number just to see how long it would take to get through. In some cases no one would answer. In other cases, the questions couldn't be answered. It is a very simple situation here, Mr. Speaker. This bill simply requires that FEMA establish an online database that citizens of this country can access directly. I can go right now and I can look at hotel reservations; I can look at airline reservations, train reservations. You can do virtually anything online. You can pay your utility bills. You can call an Uber. But with FEMA, they had thousands of employees that were there to answer phones to simply log on to the system. There is no need for that step to be there. It is more efficient to get people direct access. I would rather see those FEMA employees helping us recover. So I will say it again. I am disappointed that this takes an act of Congress. This is common sense, and you are seeing this type of innovation and utilization of technology happen all across the marketplace. Unfortunately, Congress has to intervene here, albeit in a bipartisan way, to make sure that Americans are getting the service that they deserve and to make sure that our taxpayer dollars are being used in an efficient way. Once again, I want to thank the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Barletta, Ranking Member Johnson, and I want to especially thank the lead cosponsor on this legislation, Mr. Sires of New Jersey, who I know has gone through extraordinary challenges in New Jersey with the 2012 Hurricane Sandy impacts on his State.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Bustos) for coming together to work in a bipartisan manner to address a problem that affects not just Illinois, but affects, I think, all 50 States. It is an issue where we have watched FEMA, in many cases, make decisions that appear to be arbitrary in terms of declaring a disaster in some areas, not in others. What this legislation does, very simply, is it requires that FEMA take into consideration the true localized impacts of a disaster. And in line with what the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis) noted earlier, we did an amendment in the committee that also looked at, or required, FEMA to consider multiple impacts in an area. I am from south Louisiana. In the last several months, we have had police shootings, we have had one of the most costly floods in U.S. history, we have had tornadoes, and we have had another flood in north Louisiana. In fact, there were two floods, as I recall. One of them was a 500-year flood, and the second was a 1,000-year flood. It makes me question how old I am sometimes. But what this does is it requires that FEMA look at localized impacts, and that they take into consideration the cumulative impacts of various disasters and incidents in an area. FEMA is not there and the Federal Government is not there to take care of every problem and every disaster that States and municipalities have. But in many cases that we have seen historically, they have missed opportunities. I think we have seen incredible burdens borne by local governments, and they have had disasters that far exceeded their capabilities. I want to, again, commend the gentleman and gentlewoman from Illinois for offering this commonsense legislation, and I urge all Members to support the bill.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I have been standing here listening to this debate. Let's go back and think about this for just a minute. Right now, in the United States, the cost of regulation in our Nation is approximately $2 trillion; $2 trillion is the cost that our Nation spends every year just complying with regulations. In fact, that distills down to the average household spending around $15,000 just to comply with regulations. Now, let me be clear. Regulations are important. We have got to have regulations to make sure we protect our environment, we protect the health and safety of our citizens. That is critical. What this bill does is it simply provides for transparency so we can understand the basis of regulations. That is all this does: make sure that we can understand the science that regulations were based upon. During a public comment process, we should have the ability to scrutinize that science to understand the basis. Because, Mr. Speaker, if you begin hiding the basis for decisions, then you have government, in many cases, acting without providing for transparency, without being able to be held accountable. That is dangerous to have people making decisions based upon secret information. That is dangerous for our economy, and it is going to further challenge the ability of Americans to keep their budgets balanced. It is already $15,000 per household. How many thousands does it have to be before we need to say: Stop. This is unreasonable? Mr. Speaker, you look right now at the trade deficit of this country; you look at the cost of goods and products in other nations. In many cases, we are losing the trade war because our regulatory environment here, our tax environment here, is simply not competitive. What happens in a scenario where you release the science you provide for transparency, you allow for better solutions. You allow for more efficient regulations, for better ways to achieve those objectives to improve our environment and protect our environment, to improve and protect the safety and health of workers and American citizens. This bill is in America's interest. It is in the public interest. To listen to people stand here and talk about hiding and shielding science and making up red herrings about privacy and other things, that is absolutely contrary to this country's interests. It is contrary to the public's interest. This bill should be passed. I am shocked that there is opposition to it, and we should pass this with unanimous support.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 162.

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. 172.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the sponsor and the cosponsors of this bill, Congressman DeFazio, Congressman Kilmer, Congressman Huffman, and many others that are supporting this legislation. This is important in that it promotes regional management. Today, this pertains to the Dungeness crab, a species that is largely native to the West Coast. In this case, what this legislation does is provide for regional management. It provides for an opportunity for the States of Washington, Oregon, and California to manage this species. The States are closer to the ground. They have closer, more intimate relationships with their fishers, and they can ensure that what is being done is in the best interests of those folks, the best interests of the public that they are closer to, and the best interests of the recreational and commercial fishers that fish this species. I think it is fantastic. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think this exact model should be expanded. I think this exact model should be replicated not just in Washington, Oregon, and California; it should be replicated elsewhere, similar to how it is replicated for the Atlantic striped bass on the East Coast and the salmon in Alaska. This should be replicated to allow for States to be able to work together for regional management strategies to manage the species and to allow for more intimate, better public input to make sure that you have the appropriate balance between recreational and commercial fishers. I, again, want to commend the sponsor of this bill, Ms. Herrera Beutler, and all the cosponsors. This is exactly what we need to be doing. We need to be expanding upon this model around the coastal States of this country. I urge adoption of this bill, I urge aggressive passage of this bill, and I urge the Senate to pass it as well.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, since 2008, approximately 3,300 regulations have been issued on an annual basis. I will say that again. Since 2008, approximately 3,300 regulations have been issued on an annual basis. The cost of compliance with those regulations is estimated to be somewhere around $981 million, and if you add up the costs of compliance of all regulations, it is approximately double that. According to various studies that are out there, since 2008, the costs of complying with Federal regulations has doubled. Mr. Chairman, this isn't about some huge megacorporation that is worth billions of dollars and is a multinational company. This impacts individuals. This impacts families. As a matter of fact, a study done by the Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates that approximately $15,000 per year is how much the average American family spends just to comply with Federal regulations. Major regulations are regulations that are estimated to cost in excess of $100 million. Under our amendment, what we do is simply require that, every 5 years, the Federal agency that has promulgated-- that has finalized--a regulation go back and check how much it is actually costing to comply with the regulation. Here is why it is important, Mr. Chairman. If you go back to a regulation that was proposed by the Department of the Interior within the last year and a half that has to do with well control in offshore energy production, the Department of the Interior estimated that the cost of complying with that regulation was going to be, approximately, $883 million over 10 years. However, a private analysis that was done estimated that that figure was approximately one-tenth of the true cost of compliance over the first decade--one- tenth. There is nothing that holds the Federal agencies accountable. They can lowball numbers. They can stay below the threshold of a major action and not ever have to be held accountable to the additional analysis that is required for major regulatory actions. This, simply, makes agencies go back on major regulations to re-quantify--reassess-- the costs of compliance to make sure that their numbers are accurate, that they understand the costs of compliance, and the impact on the average American family. Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am from the State of Louisiana. A study that was done by the Mercatus Center found that the State of Louisiana is the most federally regulated State in the United States. As a matter of fact, so regulated that we are regulated 74 percent more than the average State--74 percent more. That has a significant impact on jobs, on our economy. The cosponsor of this amendment--the gentleman from Texas with whom I worked very closely, Mr. Chairman--says his State of Texas is burdened by an additional 30 percent of regulations above the national average. It is inappropriate; it penalizes our economy; it sends jobs overseas; and, most importantly, it penalizes American families. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the gentleman from Texas, with whom I worked closely in developing this amendment, which was legislation we introduced last year and which had dozens of bipartisan cosponsors. In summary, this is an Article I issue. This ensures that when an agency tells Congress, they tell the American public that when the regulation is going to cost a certain amount to comply with, they are held accountable to that. This is about accountability. This is about transparency. My friend from Georgia mentioned that this was ``busywork.'' Mr. Chairman, I want you to think about that for a minute. This applies to major rules that are estimated to cost in excess of $100 million to comply with, and they find it offensive that we ask them to look back one time every 5 years for rules that cost American families over $100 million to comply with every single year? I am offended by that, and I am sure that millions and millions of American families are offended by that as well. It is all summarized by this, Mr. Chairman: since 2009, for the first time in recorded history, we have had a net loss in small businesses in the United States. Regulations are hidden taxes that impact our businesses, that impact our employment opportunities, and that drive jobs to other countries. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for all of their work on this legislation, particularly on the water resources component. Mr. Speaker, you can look at water resource policy across the United States, whether it is building levees or it is restoring the coast. We have one of the most expensive and one of the most delayed processes for implementing infrastructure projects in the Nation. This bill begins to correct that process. It begins to expedite it. It begins to give better local control. It begins to provide people protection. It begins to restore the environment. Just in August of this year, Mr. Speaker, we had one of the worst floods in U.S. history that will result in billions of dollars in flooding. We simply could have spent millions, once again, in preventing the flooding from happening, thus saving lives and saving this country billions of dollars. So I urge the adoption of the bill. I want to quickly say that the West Shore project authorized in here and the environmental banks are critical and are going to result in much protection and efficiency.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity to come on the House floor a number of times and give an update to this body about the profound impacts of the flood we had in August of this year in south Louisiana. Just to remind you of a few statistics, this was believed to be a 1,000-year storm. There were trillions of gallons of water that fell in Louisiana. It was estimated to be about 31 inches of rain in about 36 hours in some areas of south Louisiana. That is more rain in 36 hours than the average American gets in a year's time. If that were a snowstorm, Mr. Speaker, that would have been 25 feet of snow. We have been working now for months, working to try and make sure that we have an efficient recovery, make sure that these people can get back on their own two feet, that they can recover from this absolute tragedy that happened in south Louisiana, this once-in-a-lifetime event. Starting out, Mr. Speaker, we saw unbelievable recovery, response, rescue activities, but it wasn't by government. That was the amazing thing. This was the community coming together, rescuing themselves, cooking for one another, sheltering one another, clothing one another. This wasn't government that came in and saved the day. While there were great first responders from our police departments and fire departments and others that came and helped out, the reality is, well over 90 percent of the response and rescue activities were done by other members of the community. They weren't trained. They weren't asked to do it. They just did it. So you saw a great spirit of recovery happening. Then what happened is the Federal Government stepped in and began taking over some of the sheltering, began taking over the recovery activities, and we have seen a complete stop. Here we are, over 100 days after this flood event, and FEMA is telling people that they may get a trailer unit in January or February. Mr. Speaker, it is wintertime. People are living in tents. I heard about a veteran over the weekend who is living in a car wash. We have people who are living in their stripped and gutted uninsulated homes, and they can't get trailers. Mr. Speaker, there is a guy by the name of Darrell Whitehead who lives in Denham Springs, Louisiana. Mr. Whitehead has had a trailer sitting in his front yard for 5 weeks, a trailer that FEMA brought, and they couldn't let him move in. He has stared at this thing for 5 weeks. I made phone calls, my chief of staff made phone calls, and we had other caseworkers in the office who made phone calls trying to get FEMA to simply get this guy in his trailer. Mr. Whitehead, already a victim of the flood, has been revictimized by FEMA by having a trailer sitting in his yard, not giving him a place to go for 5 weeks, and just having to sit there and be tortured because they needed a sink installed. Mr. Speaker, this is ridiculous. And this isn't an isolated case. I can tell you case after case after case where this is the way FEMA has revictimized people flooded from this disaster. Another example is Sheriff Jason Ard in Livingston Parish. Sheriff Ard was very concerned about the high percentage of sheriff's deputies that were flooded. He came in and he simply said: Look, we have got to get these deputies and their families in a safe, stable situation so they can focus not on having to figure out where their family is sleeping at night or what they are eating, but focus on law enforcement, focus on safety and security of the community that has been devastated by this flood. So he came to FEMA and he said: Hey, look, I have got a plan. I have got a trailer dealer who is willing to give us trailers--and don't quote me on the numbers, but I am within the ball park--for $36,000. I will buy them back from you for $27,000 a year and you can find a piece of land. You can put all these trailers out. You can have a sheriff's deputy group housing area. Instead, FEMA says: No. What we are going to do is get these deputies trailers not for a net of $10,000, roughly, as I explained, but for $100,000. That is how much FEMA is paying for these trailer units to buy them, store them, transport them--$100,000 versus the scenario that Sheriff Ard found for $10,000. I have spoken to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Regional Administrator of FEMA. Nobody can figure out how to do this and they are all telling him no. So we have displaced deputies. We don't have the proper law enforcement focus in the community because the deputies, appropriately, are worried about their family and where they are going to sleep and eat. We have got FEMA spending 10 times the amount of money that Sheriff Ard has found a solution for. What is happening is absolutely ridiculous. So, lastly, Mr. Speaker, in September of this year we did appropriate a down payment of money to help with the recovery efforts; and certainly it is a step in the right direction. As I have said several times, it is not anywhere near the level of funding that should be put forth for a cost-efficient recovery effort. We are going to end up spending more money by lowballing these numbers and having FEMA revictimize people for months here than if we had just appropriated the right amount to begin with. Right now we are negotiating a second tranche, a second payment. Under HUD rules, they are requiring that the funds focus upon low- and moderate-income only. I want to be clear: low- and moderate-income folks need help in recovering. What about the middle class? What about the upper class? What about the job creators? What about the businesses? Focusing only on low- and moderate-income begins a partial restoration. Flood waters didn't recognize only one socioeconomic class, only one race. It flooded everybody. The recovery should treat everyone the same. We shouldn't be splitting this up and only recovering certain folks. It is inappropriate. The State of Louisiana's plan, in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act and overhead and administrative costs, is saying it is going to cost 30 percent of the money just to deliver this program. Complying with all these crazy rules, 30 percent of the money gets eaten up. That is crazy. These people are rebuilding homes that were right there, in many cases, within the same four walls that are there now. Why are we spending $100 million on environmental compliance? Who comes up with this stuff? It is further delaying people getting back into their homes. This is crazy, Mr. Speaker. We have got to have a more commonsense, appropriate process to recovery. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to say that I have heard a lot of people in this country talk about how surprised they were with the outcome of the recent elections that we had. It is not a surprise to me that people are frustrated. What we are experiencing in south Louisiana today, being revictimized by FEMA, revictimized by the SBA in our recovery efforts, it is cause for extraordinary frustration. This is not what anybody in America wants--having to deal with a bureaucracy wasting money and taking months and spending 10 times to do what the local officials or our community could do for a fraction of the cost at a fraction of the time. People want government to be responsive to them. People want government to be efficient. We can do better than this. The election results didn't surprise me. I ran because I was frustrated; and I understand the sentiment, unfortunately, more so than most right now, because watching the Federal Government absolutely screw up this recovery effort is revictimizing folks in south Louisiana.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. The commitment to work toward additional recovery dollars and assistance is the difference between a viable recovery and a decades-long struggling effort in south Louisiana, and I want to thank Chairman Rogers for his commitment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding and wish to engage the gentleman from Kentucky, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, in a colloquy. Before I ask the chairman my question, I want to recognize his efforts for reaching an agreement on a package to fund the government through December 9 and include interim aid to the August 2016 flood victims in south Louisiana. Early last month, the people of south Louisiana experienced an extraordinary flood event, about a 1,000-year rain event. To put it in perspective, 7 trillion gallons of water fell in about 48 hours. That is roughly the same amount of water discharged by the entire Mississippi River system into the Gulf of Mexico over the course of about 80 days. If you live up North, that equates to somewhere in the vicinity of about 25 feet of snow in 36 hours. If you live in Arizona, in some areas, that is up to 10 years of cumulative rainfall. As many as 110,000 homes and more than 100,000 vehicles were damaged. All told, more than 20,000 people were rescued, 10,000 sheltered, and 13 lost their lives. Early estimates predict that this disaster will cost upward of $15 billion in economic damages, and FEMA estimates this will be the fourth most costly flood disaster in U.S. history. Over the past several weeks, the gentleman from Kentucky and I have discussed the flood and the extraordinary impact on our State several times. During those meetings, we discussed the devastating impact I just spoke of and the need for both immediate unmet needs assistance as well as a comprehensive strategy and solution to provide the people of south Louisiana certainty that Congress will address their long-term needs when we return after the election. During those discussions, we discussed--and you acknowledged--that dire situation so many are facing and will face in the coming weeks in south Louisiana--that of handing over their keys and walking away or sticking it out knowing that Congress may provide them with a hand up. Mr. Chairman, families are facing foreclosure, businesses are facing bankruptcy, and local communities are struggling to provide basic services such as policing, fire protection, and schooling, among others. The disaster funding provided through this legislation, though helpful, will not address all of the financial challenges our community is facing. That is why I want to engage the chairman tonight. Mr. Chairman, thousands are facing bankruptcy, foreclosure, elevation of homes, need for flood protection, and other financial challenges as a result of the August flood event in south Louisiana. Is it your intent, as we discussed, to deliver a package to address the needs of our local communities who desperately need it when we return?

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman. Right now, as the provision is written, as you know, it is silent on that issue, and so it doesn't address the Davis-Bacon issue, as I am aware the Corps of Engineers would be complying with.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, and so many of the other Members who worked on this bill. I think it is important that we get the Water Resources Development Act back on a 2-year cycle. We got off to where there were 7 years that passed on, in many cases, critical projects that needed authorization that needed to move forward to construction. I also want to echo a couple of things that the ranking member said. Number one, on the harbor maintenance trust fund, I couldn't agree more. We need to come up with a solution here. I think it is disingenuous that we are charging users the tax under the auspices of using it for dredging, yet diverting those resources. I will say it again. I think it is disingenuous, and I look forward to working together with Congressman DeFazio in addressing this. Number two, my friend from Oregon also noted the backlog in Corps of Engineers projects. The reason we have a backlog in projects is because this project delivery mechanism, development and delivery mechanism used by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you can look at it, project after project; it takes 40 years to get a project delivered. These are projects for flood protection, for ecological restoration, for hurricane protection. We don't have time to wait 40 years for this project, and this bill moves in a direction of streamlining that process. We have a project, the West Shore project, that has been in the study phase for over 40 years and is finally moving to authorization. My friend from Louisiana, Congressman Boustany, was able to work to get the Southwest project included in here to finally begin to bring some protection to the Southwest communities that were so devastated by Hurricane Rita and Hurricane Ike in previous years. Importantly, Mr. Chairman, we are bringing forward an amendment to further expedite the Comite project, Amite project, and other projects that are critical to the areas that were just flooded in south Louisiana. I don't know how long we are going to continue this backwards policy in the Federal Government of spending billions after a disaster rather than spending millions before, making our communities and making our ecosystems more resilient. Again, I want to thank the chairman and ranking member.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, the ranking member was talking earlier about this extraordinary backlog of projects that we have within the United States Army Corps of Engineers to carry out important projects like flood protection, hurricane protection, and ecological restoration. We do, in fact, have a backlog that goes on for years and years. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, it takes us, in many cases, over 40 years to take a project from development through the construction phase. These are critical projects that, in many cases, save people's lives. Just recently in the State of Louisiana, we had an extraordinary flood event. Thirteen people lost their lives as a result of that event, yet there was a project, the Comite project, that could have tempered flooding in many of these areas. What our amendment does is it simply allows for non-Federal sponsors to bid to carry out the construction or other aspects of projects. It is a way to save money to expedite delivery. In my previous job, Mr. Chairman, I actually was the non-Federal sponsor for billions of dollars in projects with the United States Army Corps of Engineers. There were a number of examples where we were able to build the entire project for the one-third, or approximately one- third, cost-share estimate that the United States Army Corps of Engineers estimated the project was to cost, and we were able to do it in a fraction of the time. What this does, it allows for the non-Federal sponsor to carry out the project. It returns 20 percent of the cost savings back to the United States Treasury for deficit reduction, and it takes 80 percent of the cost savings and reinvests it back into priority Corps of Engineers' projects. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I am going to go back and say what I said before. In previous projects that I have worked with in the United States Army Corps of Engineers, we have been able to save Federal taxpayers tens of millions of dollars, cumulatively hundreds of millions of dollars by carrying out the projects through the non- Federal sponsor, allowing for county governments, parish governments, State governments, levee districts, water boards, and others to carry out projects. If we are able to demonstrate greater efficiency and taxpayer cost savings, why would we not allow for that mechanism to carry out these projects? It expedites delivery of projects. These are critical projects. Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate, in the State of Louisiana, in the flood we just had last month, we had 13 people die because of a project that has been in the Corps of Engineers process for 30 years; 30 years, Mr. Chairman. I really wonder what someone who would oppose this amendment would tell the families of those people who died as a result of the Corps' inaction. This is absolutely inappropriate. We have a way to save taxpayer dollars, to reduce the deficit, and to free up more resources for high-priority Corps of Engineers projects and make our communities and our ecosystem more resilient. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it simply puts a cap on the amount of time that the United States Army Corps of Engineers can consider permission under section 408. This process has to do with alteration, any changes, or impacts that could occur to a Corps of Engineers project. I want to be clear, this doesn't expand the Corps of Engineers' authority in any way. All this does is it simply puts a cap, a time certain. Here is the reason why, Mr. Chairman. In the State of Louisiana, we have lost 1,900 square miles of our coast, 1,900 square miles of wetlands, some of the most ecologically productive areas on the North American continent. We have lost that. Part of the remedial efforts that Congress has authorized and we have been waiting decades for the United States Corps of Engineers to act upon are projects to reconnect the river system with the adjacent estuary. That is how south Louisiana was built. It is a product of the Mississippi River. It is a deltaic plain. These projects are strongly supported by the environmental community and others, yet the Corps of Engineers has said that it is going to take them years to consider this impact or not on the levee system. So we are going to sit here and wait years for more wetlands to erode, and for more of our environment and more of our ecological productivity to degrade. This puts a time certain. It gives 120 days for the Corps of Engineers to make a decision on whether or not there are impacts to the project. It allows us to move forward in a time certain. Mr. Chairman, a quick story. When I was working on these projects for the State, the Corps of Engineers came to us on the first one we submitted, and they said: It is going to take us approximately 3 years to come back and give you an answer on that. Three years, Mr. Chairman, that we are waiting to, again, carry out projects to restore the environment. But they said: However, if you give us--and I think the number was $1.5 million, we will reduce that time to closer to 2 years. Mr. Chairman, in the private sector, that is called a bribe. In the United States Army Corps of Engineers, I guess it is the status quo. It is absolutely inappropriate. We have got to have time certain. They shouldn't be able to extort dollars out of project sponsors just to carry out projects to restore the environment and mitigate impacts caused by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment. This is consistent with things we have done in the past in terms of giving a time certain for consideration. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, beginning around August 11, we had a 1,000-year flood event. This flood event was approximately 7 trillion gallons of water. It dropped 31 inches of rain in some of the peak areas that is the national average annual rainfall. We received it in about 36 hours in some of the peak areas. Again, to translate this for my Yankee friends, if this were snow, this would have been about 25 feet of snow. So, really, just an extraordinary event. Mr. Chairman, what has happened is that there were projects that date back to the 1970s and the 1980s that provided for flood protection for this region. We had 13 people who died. We have over 100,000 homes that were flooded. Areas like the Comite Basin and the Amite Basin are priority areas. I want to say it again. These are areas that have projects that have been authorized by Congress previously in the 1970s, the 1980s, and I believe even the 1990s, yet projects that have been moving at a snail's pace. So what this amendment does is it simply expedites the delivery of these projects. Mr. Chairman, this is critical. Let me explain why. Right now, you have communities like Denham Springs where FEMA just came out and determined that 45 percent of the homes in that town are significantly flooded with significant damage. What that means is that they are going to have to now comply with the updated base flood elevations and, in some cases, lift the slabs of their homes, which may be $100,000 or more per home, per business, just to now come into compliance with the new base flood elevations to be able to rebuild their homes. This is on top of the perhaps $80,000 they are going to have to spend rebuilding their home, $40,000 they are going to have to spend replacing their vehicles, and perhaps $50,000 replacing their clothes and other contents of their homes. It makes it absolutely unaffordable. We have got to provide certainty. By expediting projects that were previously authorized, Mr. Chairman, we can eliminate the need for many of these homeowners to have to elevate their homes, and provide financial certainty and a path forward for these folks to actually be able to get back in their homes and recover our communities from what is believed to be the fourth most expensive flood disaster in United States history. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.