Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the Louisiana Municipal Association. Since January 28, 1926, the LMA has represented over 305 villages, towns, cities, and parishes across the state of Louisiana. The three-fold mission of the LMA has been one of education, advocacy and service and includes advocacy at the national level. At the state level, they work to fight blight, promote the work of law enforcement and public safety efforts, and encourage economic growth. The LMA exemplifies the cooperation necessary to move our state forward. I'd like to recognize the accomplishments of the LMA over the last 90 years and thank them for their ongoing efforts.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, last month Washington, D.C. was home to the March for Life, and thousands of Americans came from all across the country to attend it. The State of Louisiana was disproportionately represented with hundreds of folks from our State, Louisiana being one of the most pro-life States in the Nation, one of the highest percentages of churchgoers, and one of the highest percentages of believers in America. The term ``sanctity of life'' gets thrown around a lot when we start talking about pro-life versus pro-choice in political debate, but it is more than a slogan. Its relevance transcends the issue of life in our country. Human dignity is the foundational principle of freedom and human flourishing. A substantive application of the sanctity of life should inform all our efforts in this Chamber, on both sides of the aisle. I am pro-life because I believe that all human beings, at every stage of life, every state of consciousness or self-awareness are of equal and immeasurable worth and dignity. I applaud and join the efforts of my colleagues to defend the unborn, those who can't defend themselves, but I also call upon both political parties to respect and value the dignity of human existence at all stages of life, from the womb all the way to life's natural conclusion. I believe we all have an obligation to the fundamental principle of human dignity. As we consider important issues like criminal justice reform, the War on Poverty--policies designed to help people improve their quality of life--let us engage in political debates with this in mind.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the Supreme Court in 2001 and again in 2006 determined that the EPA and the Corps of Engineers' definition of waters of the United States was too broad, and it directed them to narrow that rule, that definition, to bring it into compliance and within the four corners of the law. This poster here indicates the absurdity of what we are dealing with. Clearly, you wouldn't have folks out on a kayak in a field fishing. It is simply nonsensical. That is what we are facing today. The EPA and the Corps of Engineers didn't come back and say, ``We are going to reduce the footprint. We are going to reduce the area that is now subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps under waters of the U.S.'' They came out with a rule that actually expanded it. They came out with a rule that the cost of compliance didn't decrease, as you would expect, based upon the rulings of the Supreme Court. The cost of compliance grew, and there were many reports about discourse within the Corps of Engineers and the EPA in regard to the approach that is being taken today. This is simply absurd to come in and attempt to regulate snow melt and drainage and things like that. Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Louisiana, we drain about 42 percent of the contiguous landmass of North America. It is one of the largest watersheds in the world. You can't take a definition of waters of the U.S. and try and apply it to Arizona and Louisiana. Waters of the U.S. is our State, based upon this definition. Much of the area of south Louisiana would be subject to this. So what does this mean? It means it is an infringement upon our private property rights: homes, businesses, land that we bought, that we own. We can't have the Federal Government come in and grow jurisdiction beyond the scope of the law. I want to be clear. I am not talking about paving all the wildlands and open lands that we have in the United States. We certainly want to protect the environment, want to protect our water quality. But the irony here is that this is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA involved. In my home State of Louisiana, we have the greatest rate of coastal wetlands loss in the United States, which I want to make note, Mr. Speaker, is the fault of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is their fault. The greatest rate of wetlands loss in the United States, their fault. Then here they are standing up saying: We want to protect the environment and be good stewards of the environment, and we are going to grow the jurisdiction of this amendment. This is absurd. This is not antienvironmental. This is simply complying with the law, and this rule clearly goes beyond the scope of the law. You are not going to see scenarios like this because it is absurd. That is what we are facing today. What is going to happen is this rule is once again going to be thrown out by the Supreme Court. It is once again going to be thrown out. But what Americans are going to face between now and when this is thrown out is they are going to be facing additional scrutiny. They are going to be facing the additional cost of compliance. They are going to face the additional encroachment and infringement upon their private property rights. It is wrong. This isn't antienvironmental. This is within the four corners of the law. I strongly urge you to support this resolution.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, on roll call nos. 34-35, my absence was attributable to numerous parish, legislative and state-wide inauguration ceremonies in Louisiana. In addition, I met with emergency response officials related to flood waters in the Atchafalaya River system. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Roll Call Number 34: H.R. 598, Taxpayer Right to Know Act--yea. On Roll Call Number 35: H.R. 3231, Federal Intern Protection Act of 2015--yea.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, 43 years ago the Roe v. Wade decision resulted in the death of 57 million Americans; 57 million unborn children lost their lives, over a million children per year. It is an amazing statistic. Louisiana has traditionally ranked as one of the most pro-life States in the Nation. We have some amazing organizations that are doing great work to educate our citizens about the pro-life movement, organizations like Louisiana Right to Life and Louisiana Family Forum. The head of the Family Research Council is a constituent of our district. There is one particular pro-life advocate that I would like to call out, Dr. Al Krotoski, who recently passed away, in fact, just on January 1 of this year. He literally gave his life to advocating for pro-life causes. His knowledge, his scientific background with his Ph.D., his M.D., and his master's in public health shaped him and helped him to shape pro-life policy in the State of Louisiana. He was a phenomenal example of pro-life advocates for our Nation. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just want to make note that Dr. Al set an amazing example for our State, an amazing example on the sanctity of life and respecting life. But it is important that, as we move forward, we also respect life after birth. We respect life in terms of some of the initiatives that we are going to be working on this year: criminal justice reform and the War on Poverty. I really appreciate the opportunity to participate in this Special Order tonight. I want to thank you for organizing this. I want to remind folks, over a million lives a year lost as a result of this decision.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, since 2008, the term of the current administration, for the first time since records have been kept, we have a net reduction in small businesses, according to the National Federation of Independent Business. I am going to say that again. We have, for the first time in recorded history, a net reduction in small businesses in this country. There is a study that was done in 2012 by the National Association of Manufacturers. It says for small manufacturers--for small manufacturers--the cost per employee of complying with regulations is $35,000. There is another study that was done for the SBA that determined that $15,000 per family--per household--is the cost of complying with regulations in the United States. This is absolutely a burden on our families. It is a burden on our economy. Now, at the same time, the administration is out there talking about the promotion of free trade agreements around the country. Explain to me how we are going to be able to compete on a level playing field with these other countries if we are tying the American workers' hands behind their backs and throwing them out there on the field? Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what bill is being described here by some of the previous speakers. This bill sets up a bipartisan commission. You heard numerous examples of regulations that are outdated that might have made a ton of sense in the 1940s and the 1950s. It is 2016. We need to take a fresh look at this. A study was done that determined that this bill could result in the reduction or a cost savings of $48 billion annually by taking a fresh look at regulations. Government is not going to save this country. Government didn't make this country the greatest country in the world. It was competition, it was innovation, and it was hard work by the American workforce. Take this regulatory burden off of our workforce, Mr. Chairman, and let's put these people back to work.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, while I support the policy merits of this bill, I have strong concern about some of the funding mechanisms used to help pay for it. The concerns include provisions for drawdown and sale of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), selling 66 million barrels of crude oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in order to provide $6.2 billion in offsets over 10 years. As is often the case, what we have accomplished here is nothing more than an unsustainable budget gimmick. As adjusted for inflation, the average price per barrel of oil currently stored in the SPR is $74. At a time when the global price of oil hovers at less than $40 a barrel, and as OPEC continues to produce and flood the global market at historic rates, with no end in sight, I simply do not see how we can budget the sale of SPR oil at $94 per barrel on average over the next 10 years to total $6.2 billion in revenue. Our SPR was never intended as a budget gimmick, it is about our energy and national security. Despite our record domestic production of crude oil, I believe it is irresponsible to use a vital national energy security asset as a budget gimmick. Besides the fact that the math simply doesn't add up, I philosophically oppose the increasing tendency of the federal government to reallocate money intended for one purpose to then fund unrelated policy initiatives. It is disingenuous and irresponsible. And in the case of the surface transportation bill funding mechanisms, this approach is symptomatic of a larger problem. The Highway Trust Fund was designed to be funded primarily through a user pays, user benefits model in the form of the federal gas tax. The increased fuel efficiency of vehicles, in conjunction with several policy and regulatory factors, has gradually eroded the gas tax's ability to keep pace with investment demands over time. Mr. Speaker, it is critical that we begin work now to modernize the funding formula for the Highway Trust Fund and return to a user pays model. The longer we turn a blind eye towards addressing the user fee model, which has not been adjusted since 1993, and continue to ignore the need to build a 21st century funding mechanism reflective of the technological advancements at our disposal, the more fearful I am of passing a sustainable, long term investment to address our nation's ailing infrastructure in the future. I applaud the chamber on its work to pass this 5-year bill, and I look forward to continuing work to ensure the next bill is more fiscally responsible, adhering to a paid for measure more closely aligned to a user pay, user benefit system.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, on Friday evening this past Friday, the 5A Division 1 playoffs occurred in high school football in Louisiana, and my high school alma mater of Catholic High in Baton Rouge played against our distinguished majority whip's Catholic high school, the Archbishop Rummel High School. This was a great game, Madam Speaker, where it went on to the fourth quarter where things were tied up with only a few seconds left with both sides praying, I am sure. We had a little bit of intervention here. And while there is a chance, Madam Speaker, that this poster was fabricated, I assure you that the win that Catholic High had over Archbishop Rummel was very, very real, and the values that each of these schools instill upon their students is also very real. I want to congratulate Coach Dale Weiner, Catholic High School Bears out of Baton Rouge, and Coach Weiner's over 300 wins in high school football.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. This is a historic event. For 10 years now, we have been doing patches and temporarily providing funding for our roadways. It costs taxpayers money to do that, to do these temporary extensions, to compartmentalize the funding. You have to take projects, and you have to separate them into smaller pieces. You have to pay for contractors to come out and to leave and to come back again. I will say it again: It costs taxpayers money to continue to do these patches and these temporary extensions. This is historic because it provides 5 years of funding. It provides funding certainty. Having run a large-scale infrastructure program for a number of years, I am well aware of the difficulty caused by doing these temporary patches and the increased cost. I will tell you, I think it results in less safe roads. It absolutely doesn't deliver what taxpayers deserve. The other great thing about this bill and a reason that it is historic is that it is bipartisan, something that has been lacking for some time now, to see that Members on both sides come together on something as important as infrastructure funding. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, I want to thank Ranking Member DeFazio, respective staff directors Chris and Kathy, and everyone who worked on this bill on the conference staff. I know you put in a lot of time and you gave up your Thanksgiving. I want to thank you very much for all the work that has been done. This bill also increases funding for transportation. It results in nearly a 10-percent increase in investment in infrastructure. In the case of Louisiana, we will see a $100 million increase in the fifth year of this bill--a $100 million increase just in that one year as compared to current funding levels. We need these funds. Something else important in this bill is the grant program that was established in the House bill for nationally significant corridors, for freight corridors, $800 million to $1 billion a year to address these large-scale infrastructure needs that have not been addressed. In the case of my home State of Louisiana, we are in dire need of a new crossing on the Mississippi River. Getting across that extraordinary bottleneck, where the interstate drops down to one lane-- the only place in the United States--is a great need that we have. It causes incredible traffic problems. Addressing roads that need to be upgraded, like LA 1, Highway 30, connecting Walker to Gonzales, addressing a Pecue Lane exit, upgrading Highway 90 to interstate standards--projects that are in dire need and cause national implications because of their inability to efficiently move commerce across this country, Louisiana being one of the top export States in the United States. This bill also ensures that the roads are safer, ensures that we address at-grade rail crossings, ensures that we have the right safety mechanisms in place to ensure that we are not going to have fatalities associated with driving and traffic accidents. Importantly, this bill addresses technology. Mr. Speaker, we are still using traffic light technology from the 1920s. It is 2015. We can actually do on our telephones what took mainframe computers decades ago. This bill establishes a framework to ensure that innovation, to ensure that competition is actually integrated into our traffic management systems so we are not sitting around at traffic lights when no other cars are there, to ensure that our cars can communicate with one another, our phones can communicate with traffic lights, where we can really take intelligent transportation systems to the next level. It expedites the NEPA and environmental review process to ensure that we are getting dirt turned and getting roads in place as soon as possible while still respecting the environment. It, importantly, includes something that we were pushing very hard, the Sport Fish Restoration and the Boating Safety Act, ensuring that boat safety, ensuring that sport fish and restoration, ensuring that the CWPPRA program continues to move forward and we have those important restoration activities. Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I appreciated very much the opportunity to be a conferee. This is a historic bill. And I want to urge: Increased funding, safer roads--this is the right direction for this country. Support this conference report.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, the Land and Water Conservation Fund was first authorized in 1965. There was some type of compromise that was reached at that time whereby this proliferation of offshore energy production would occur. At the same time, there was a concern that those activities could threaten the environment; so there was a negotiation reached whereby the first $900 million of offshore energy revenues from oil and gas production would be committed to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The idea was that half of those dollars would be used to go toward the acquisition of Federal lands for the purpose of creating or growing national parks or wildlife refuges, BLM land, and national forests. Half of the funds would be authorized to go to stateside grant programs for similar types of activities in order to increase recreational opportunities, State wildlife refuges, and State parks for citizens in the United States. That stateside program is a match of 50-50. The States have to put up half of the money. Mr. Speaker, I would call the Land and Water Conservation Fund and its objectives a laudable goal to preserve these recreational and conservation activities for Americans. Certainly, as this Nation's population grows, we are going to continue to develop areas. So, for these areas that are especially sensitive, productive, and beautiful, let's ensure that we create those opportunities and retain those opportunities for recreation for Americans for generations to come. The Land and Water Conservation Fund expired for the first time in its history. This program is no longer an authorized program, and there have been folks on both sides of the aisle who have been working to help to reauthorize the program. I will say it again, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a laudable goal. However, 50 years have passed. I think, with 50 years of history of this program, it is appropriate to go back and revisit the lessons learned. I am from Louisiana. I want to be clear. This offshore energy activity that has funded the billions of dollars over the last 50 years in the Land and Water Conservation Fund activities and other things, like the Historic Preservation Fund, is from oil and gas and offshore energy activities occurring offshore our coast at home in Louisiana. Various discussion drafts have been proposed to take these funds and cut them up and allocate them to different programs across the country, to slice up the pie. I think that is great for all these people to go out there and express their dream or vision for how all these things happen. However, I would like to bring you back to reality. I view this as being our money, and I will tell you why. Right now, when you produce energy on Federal lands in the United States, 50 percent of the money generated from those activities go to the States that host the production. So let me be clear on this. The States of Wyoming and New Mexico together receive over a billion dollars a year with no strings attached whatsoever. An additional 40 percent of the money from those same activities go into the reclamation fund to fund water projects in those same western States. So, in effect, 90 percent of the funds from energy production on Federal lands goes back to the States that largely host that energy production on Federal lands. Yet, when we go in the offshore, folks take the money and decide they are going to divvy it up to all these other States, but not the State where the energy is produced. Now here is a reason why I am so frustrated by all of these efforts to reauthorize and continue spending this money all over the country in other programs. Mr. Speaker, we have produced nearly $200 billion in revenues for the U.S. Treasury. We have received not the 90 percent that other States have received nor 50 percent. We have received less than a fraction of 1 percent back. The State of Louisiana passed a constitutional amendment that would dedicate any funds received to go toward actually restoring the environment for things like coastal restoration. The State of Louisiana has lost over 1,900 square miles of our coastal wetlands. Why is it that we are reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund and funding environmental and conservation efforts in other States, particularly in western States? I will acknowledge again it is a laudable goal. But why are we doing that before we are addressing environmental issues right there where these activities are occurring and, in many cases, are occurring as a result of historic, several-decades-ago activities that occurred in the coastal area related to this OCS production? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward on this, that that needs to be a critical component. That needs to be the priority, is addressing environmental issues, addressing conservation, right here where this money is derived from because the activities simply aren't sustainable if we don't address this. I fully support the reauthorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I think it needs to be done in a principled manner that recognizes the lessons learned over the last 50 years and, most importantly, recognizes the fact that this area that has generated nearly $200 billion for the United States Treasury has severe environmental consequences or severe environmental problems right there as a result of the Federal Government's actions. Mr. Speaker, the Deepwater Horizon disaster was truly one of the Nation's worst environmental disasters in our history. That disaster resulted in millions of barrels of oil covering nearly 600 miles of the State of Louisiana's coast. The U.S. Department of the Interior appropriately took a look at well control and blowout preventer regulations and guidelines to ensure that a disaster like the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the awful tragedy to the 11 lives that occurred would never occur again. I think it is appropriate to take a look at that. The U.S. Department of the Interior actually took 4\1/2\ years behind closed doors to develop a well control and blowout preventer regulation that was put forth in recent months. It took 4\1/2\ years to write this regulation behind closed doors without involvement and without engagement of this multibillion-dollar industry. Now, the regulation was paired with a 30-day comment period. I am going to say that again. They took 4\1/2\ years to draft a regulation and they gave 30 days for folks to actually comment on it. Of course, being very concerned about that and the implications whether the rule was actually going to improve safety or be a detriment to safety, we asked that more time be given to comment to allow us to fully understand it, to allow the industry to fully understand it, and to allow the environmental community to fully understand it. The administration came back and gave a 60-day comment period, which is absolutely absurd with the complexity. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, it took them 4\1/2\ years to draft it. Now, to give you an idea of the disconnect here, the U.S. Department of the Interior says that compliance with the rule is going to cost $800 million. A separate analysis that was done independently says that the cost of compliance is going to be in excess of $30 billion, Mr. Speaker. The disconnect there is crystal clear just in the cost estimate. It is going to have a detrimental effect on the United States' national energy security. What this is going to result in is it is going to result in us becoming more independent on energy sources from around the world. Why are we not being energy self-sufficient and utilizing our resources here, promoting jobs here? There is a study that I read that says, for every dollar in U.S.- produced energy, it has a $3 implication on our economy. For every dollar spent at the pump on foreign energy, it has a 40-cent implication on our Nation's economy. I think the answer there is crystal clear. We should become energy self-sufficient. We should be utilizing our own energy resources. Mr. Speaker, analyses have determined that 20 percent of the oil and gas wells produced in the offshore over the last 5 years would not be produceable under this rule, not even produceable. Let me give you an idea what that means. That causes an estimated $12 billion economic loss to the United States, to the U.S. Treasury, just over the next 10 years. Now, you would think that the U.S. Department of the Interior would want to get this rule right, and you would think that they would be engaging folks. Yet, we have had phone call after phone call from people saying they are refusing to engage, they are refusing to take meetings, and they are refusing to discuss. Mr. Speaker, I have actually experienced it myself, asking the U.S. Department of the Interior for a meeting with the Gulf Coast delegation, with House Members and Senators, to sit down and discuss this to ensure that the Department of the Interior gets it right. And I want to be clear on what ``right'' means, which is to make things safer, not to propose regulations that are actually going to result in the potential for disaster. I am not an expert in offshore production, but I can read the regulations and determine the disconnect and the lack of technical understanding of the folks who drafted this rule. Yet, the U.S. Department of the Interior also told us that they would not meet with us, shutting the door. Mr. Speaker, this is the United States of America. That is not how this country works. People at agencies have to understand that they shouldn't be sitting in some ivory tower drafting regulations that are going to export jobs, that are going to increase the trade deficit, and that are going to make us reliant or dependent upon nations like Venezuela for energy, nations that don't share America's values. What in the world are we doing? Who is running this place? This is the United States of America. We have had people who have put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and to protect our greatness. I don't think this is what they were protecting or that this is what they were fighting for. Mr. Speaker, I want to urge, as we move forward on legislation at the end of this year, that we take appropriate action to ensure that America's energy security is protected, to make sure that America's independence is protected, to make sure that we don't take actions that penalize or increase our trade deficit, and that we promote American jobs, America's economy, and America's workforce. Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, the United States military began active engagement in Syria back in September of 2014 when the United States-led coalition began its ongoing airstrike campaign, along with Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. During this period, the Pentagon also administered a $500 million program to train and equip moderate Syrian opposition forces to target ISIS. This effort failed to train many soldiers or to yield the desired results; so the administration scrapped the effort. The wide range of state and nonstate actors in Syria has created one of the most geopolitically complex conflicts in recent memory. This highlights the urgency and the necessity for a clear strategy in Syria: What is the United States' end game? A definition of what success means in Syria. A strong commitment to eliminating any and all threats that ISIS poses to the United States, its allies, or a shift away from the conflict. I believe this administration has been incredibly vague about all of those, and I have repeatedly reached out to the White House on this topic, and I will continue to call on the President to articulate a clear path forward in Syria. Before the United States risks any American lives and resources, the administration, the State Department, and the Department of Defense should provide clarity on U.S. objectives and on how the ongoing use of military force fits into a comprehensive strategy for success in the region. Success needs to be defined, but I would suggest defining success as the neutralization of all direct threats ISIS poses to America and our national security. We need to clarify the U.S. strategy in Syria now, and I hope to work with the administration and with other Members of Congress toward getting us on the right path. Well before this Syrian refugee issue became a hot-button issue, I joined together with Members on the other side of the aisle in bipartisan efforts to reach out to the Department of Defense, to reach out to the administration in order to express these very concerns. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. It is our failed policy in Syria that has created this predicament of refugees. If we had a clear strategy--a definitive strategy--if we had clear objectives, if we were aggressive in achieving those objectives, of eliminating and of neutralizing ISIS, of creating a new government structure there to fill the void created by our removing and helping to remove with the international community the Assad regime, we wouldn't have refugees. We would have stability in Syria. We would have a place for people to live, and there would not be this refugee situation where tens of thousands of folks are being displaced into the United States and other areas, where we have this threat to our national security and the inability to vet these refugees before they come into the United States. Mr. Speaker, as reports have indicated in recent days--and I want to be clear that this isn't from any classified setting. This is a place where you, apparently, get real information--the Drudge Report. There are reports right now of folks with fake Syrian passports who are being questioned in Honduras and in Costa Rica. There are reports of Afghan and Iraqi refugees from years ago in Kentucky and in other areas who have been involved in efforts to attack the United States. I will say that again. There are refugees from other countries--from Middle Eastern nations of Iraq and elsewhere--who were previously brought to the United States and who had, apparently, not gone through a sufficient vetting process who were caught trying to attack the United States, according to reports that are out there now. There are reports of folks from the Middle East who are trying to illegally cross over and come into Arizona and Texas. Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a systemic failure--the inability to place refugees, to secure our borders, to secure our Nation. This isn't a partisan issue. We should not be sacrificing the security of Americans. There are ways in which we can be good community citizens, good world leaders, and allow for refugees to come here or, better yet, to stabilize, to help work with the international community to stabilize their own countries. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue to work with other Members of Congress, including with our Louisiana delegation. Just this week, Senator Vitter introduced legislation to address the refugee problem to ensure that we are not threatening Americans' security, to ensure that we are not sacrificing the safety and security of Americans in exchange for those from Syria. Together, with Congressman Boustany, Congressman Abraham, and Congressman Fleming, we introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives to ensure that that happens. I want to be clear again, Mr. Speaker. This is not some jumping to the hot issue of the day. Before this issue became a crisis and was in the news, we joined together with Congressman Babin and others to ensure America's safety, to ensure that we were properly vetting these refugees before they came to the United States, and to understand the implications to taxpayers--the cost of having these folks here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the strong bipartisan vote that just occurred here in this body, but we need to continue to work together in a bipartisan fashion. This is not a partisan issue. Terrorism affects every American, and we need to continue to be very aggressive and not allow this to degrade into partisanship. This is about the safety and security of the United States. Land and Water Conservation Fund

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, 3 years ago, the Louisiana Air National Guard began to turn around. After coming in 38th in the Nation at the end of September 2012 with a 98.4 percent strength, in 2013, the Louisiana Air National Guard moved up to 20th, and, last year, it ranked 15th. The Louisiana Army National Guard's fiscal year 2015 end strength goal of 9,554 soldiers was surpassed with a total of 9,650 soldiers, or 101.2 percent. The Air National Guard surpassed its 2015 end strength goal of 1,390 airmen with 1,496 airmen, or 107 percent of its goal. Strong numbers directly relate to our ability to respond to our State and Nation. Great leadership under Major General Glenn Curtis has put a priority on personal readiness. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that I have worked very closely with General Curtis over the years, and he is an incredible man who has garnered incredible respect from the men and women of the Louisiana National Guard. Here are a few other statistics for your information: The National Guard end strength at 9,652 is 101 percent, or fourth, in the Nation. The Air National Guard end strength is 1,496, which is 108 percent, or fifth, in the Nation. The Army National Guard retention rate is 80 percent, which constitutes first in the Nation. The Air National Guard retention rate is 82 percent, which puts them in the top 10. The medical readiness rate is 89 percent. The 256th IBCT ranked number 1 of 28 IBCTs. The Army Community of Excellence program placed in the top 4 of 38, and it received a site visit to determine the top three spots. Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the men and women of the Louisiana National Guard for their perseverance, for their strength, and for their contribution to the State of Louisiana and to the United States of America. Syria

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that when the House adjourns today on a motion offered pursuant to this order, it adjourn to meet at 5 p.m. on Friday, November 20, 2015, unless it sooner has received a message from the Senate transmitting its concurrence in House Concurrent Resolution 95, in which case the House shall stand adjourned pursuant to that concurrent resolution.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the millions of Americans--including many in my home state of Louisiana-- who are being forced to bear the cost of president Obama's flawed healthcare law. The negative impacts of the so-called affordable care act have been felt by people of all walks of life. In many cases, the law has disproportionately hurt the very people it claimed it would help-- hardworking, middle-class families. Five years of Obamacare implementation has produced higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher co-payments and reduced access to care for those who need it most. In fact, a study published just last week revealed that increases in 2016 premiums for health insurance coverage will once again be in the double digits, exceeding last year's double digit hikes. At least one state could see as much as a 130 percent rate hike next year. Across the board, the projected hikes for the lowest-priced options in each tier of coverage--bronze, silver, gold and platinum--will surpass the increases we saw last year. The median cost of the bronze plans, one of the most popular offerings because of its relatively low premiums, will rise by 13% in 2016. As for the high-end insurance coverage options, gold's median premium will jump 15% and platinum's rate will rise by 12%. Mr. Speaker, these cost increases are simply unworkable for the majority of Americans. I'd like to share the situation of a constituent of mine who recently reached out to me, begging Congress to take action to fix this broken law. Unable to afford the $1200/month it would cost him to get the family plan through his employer, he turned to the exchange in search of a high deductible plan to provide health insurance for his wife and girls. He recently received a renewal notice in the mail informing him that his monthly bill will increase 21% in 2016. 21 percent. Despite the fact that he provides 95% of his household's income as his wife finishes school, he is above the income threshold to receive any subsidy to offset the cost. The first $11,000 of his pre-tax income will go toward government mandated health insurance in 2016--coverage that will still require him to pay a copay and coinsurance on a very high deductible to use it. His alternative is to pay the 2.5% fine and to have no coverage in the event of an emergency. Mr. Speaker, I am now going to ask you what this man asked me: what's his incentive to work harder? What's his reward for working since age 15, for spending 6 years pursuing an advanced degree in college? All he can show for it is an irresponsible and unaccountable government that takes a larger portion of his income every year to pay for government programs that punish those who work hard and reward those who don't. It's time for the president to acknowledge that his signature legislation is fundamentally flawed. It's time we turn the page on Obamacare and provide better solutions. Americans deserve a healthcare system that drives efficiency through competition and places healthcare decisions in the hands of consumers and taxpayers--not the federal government.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make note of an important provision that is included in the en bloc amendment package. As you know, the transportation bill includes a new program that addresses significant roadways. It addresses some of the more expensive projects, and it establishes a competitive grant program in excess of about $740 million a year. One of the important things we have to do is we have to provide guidance to the Department of the Transportation in regard to the criteria they use, the metrics they use, in this competitive process. An amendment in this bill includes the importance of strategic energy assets to ensure that roadways like LA 1 in south Louisiana are included. After Hurricane Katrina, gasoline prices nationwide spiked about 75 cents a gallon. Following Hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008, gasoline prices spiked about $1.40 a gallon, which was the largest price spike since the Arab oil embargo. So it is important that, as they go through and allocate these grants, that they are looking at factors that are very important and have national consequences. I want to thank the ranking member and the chairman and all the big four for helping us on this.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member DeFazio, Congressman Walden, Congresswoman Herrera Beutler, Congressman Blumenauer, and others who worked to get to a point where we all could come to common agreement on this. The chairman included in this bill an important program called the Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program. This program establishes a competitive grant opportunity for States, for metropolitan planning organizations, and for local governments to the tune of over $740 million annually. Mr. Chairman, this recognizes the fact that we have massive needs in transportation infrastructure that remain unaddressed. In my home city of Baton Rouge, you can see right here on this poster board, Mr. Chairman, that, for a midsized city, we have the worst traffic in the Nation. This is a snapshot of Google Maps taken just a few hours ago showing all the extraordinary traffic. Right here is one place in the Nation where the interstate going from California to Florida drops down to one lane. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that it is all red and shows extraordinarily backed- up traffic. An average of 47 hours a year folks from this region sit in traffic. What this amendment does is it actually provides criteria for the United States Department of Transportation to consider when awarding grants under this competitive program. One of the criteria is ensuring mobility for addressing bottlenecks like this in substandard interstate systems to ensure the flow of traffic, to give back those 47 hours to the folks from the capital region of Louisiana so they can spend time with their families, so they can spend more time at work, so they can be more productive citizens, and so we can have lower emissions. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member DeFazio for working with us on this amendment. I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on Support Your Local Chamber of Commerce Day. Livingston Parish is one of the fastest growing parishes in the State of Louisiana, and the chamber of commerce appropriately--with the extraordinary growth of this parish, we have had a growth in the businesses, the mom-and-pop businesses, and the large industrial businesses as well. Appropriately, the Livingston Parish Chamber of Commerce was recognized for the Louisiana State Chamber of the Year Award for the mid-size category by the Louisiana Association of Chamber of Commerce Executives. When you have a parish that grows at rapid rates, you have huge swells in population. You have all sorts of demands on infrastructure, but you have demands on the growth of the businesses as well. Particularly, the Livingston Parish Chamber of Commerce was recognized in the areas of business resource and representation, community alignment, organizational excellence, and professional development. Mr. Speaker, businesses like North Oaks Health System, Rouses Markets, Big Mike's Sports Bar and Grill, and Ferrara Fire Apparatus are all businesses that are members of the Chamber of Commerce. Congratulations to the 500 businesses that are members of the Livingston Parish Chamber of Commerce, to Wayne, April, and all the folks in Livingston Parish.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago, nearly 10 years ago, the scenes flashing across our television screens showed what appeared to be a Third World country--literally bodies floating in the streets, people that were homeless, homes washed away--one of the worst natural disasters in America's history. Mr. Speaker, over 1,200 of our brothers, our sisters, our mothers, fathers, uncles, aunts, our neighbors, our friends perished in the disaster on August 29, 2005. We lost over 1,200 people, Mr. Speaker. These vulnerabilities were not vulnerabilities that were unknown. As a matter of fact, Mark Schleifstein with The Times-Picayune published a series known as ``Washing Away'' in 2002, years before Hurricane Katrina hit our State and caused all this devastation. That series accurately predicted, the vulnerabilities accurately predicted the outcomes of a direct hit by a storm like Hurricane Katrina upon our communities. We saw what had happened. Homes, businesses, monuments, schools, our history, our dreams, our hopes, our future were all flooded as a result of Hurricane Katrina 10 years ago. Mr. Speaker, this wasn't a Third World country; it was one of America's great cities that was underwater. Many people look back at Hurricane Katrina, and they view the impacts as being parochial, things that impacted Louisiana and Mississippi and Alabama, not something that impacted the Nation. Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. When the Mississippi River was shut down and all the ports associated with it across the Gulf Coast as a result of the devastating impacts, the farmers in the Midwest had no way of getting their crops out to market. There was no capacity within other transportation mediums to get these crops out; therefore, the farmers in the Midwest suffered as a result of Hurricane Katrina's impacts on the Gulf Coast. Mr. Speaker, rail lines, Louisiana is only one of two places in the United States where we have all six class I rail lines. In many cases, the rail lines and the associated infrastructure was destroyed, therefore, once again, severely impacting America's intermodal transportation system. The economy, one of the places that has these amazing natural resources, has an amazing energy industry, petrochemical industry, agriculture industry, and many, many others, severely impacted, causing impacts not just again to the regional economy, but to the national economy. Mr. Speaker, one great example of that is gasoline prices. Following Hurricane Katrina, we watched gasoline prices spike 75 cents a gallon; but let me be clear, not in Louisiana, nationwide--75 cents a gallon is the national average price increase as a result of those 2005 hurricanes on the Gulf Coast--75 cents a gallon. As I recall, I believe that translates into $450 million in higher consumer payments per day as a result of the impacts those storms had, the 2005 hurricanes--Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita--had on the Gulf Coast and had on, really, the Nation. Importantly, Mr. Speaker, the deficit, much of the recovery that was funded by the Federal Government, in fact, the far majority of it, was funded by deficit spending, funded by deficit spending. This wasn't spending that was offset; this wasn't reserve dollars that the Federal Government had sitting there waiting for this unbelievable disaster. This was deficit spending. Our children, our grandchildren, our great-grandchildren will be paying for decades for this. I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker, this was preventable, which I am going to talk about in a minute. Also the impact to the environment, here you see the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and you see the EPA out there talking about the importance of wetlands and the importance of waters of the United States and writing all of these extraordinary rules to grant themselves more aggressive jurisdiction, larger jurisdiction over our private lands; yet as a result of those storms alone in 2005, we lost over 200 square miles of coastal wetlands in the State of Louisiana alone. Mr. Speaker, I am going to say again, a lot of people looked at this and watched it on TV and saw it as being a parochial problem, a problem of the Gulf Coast, a problem of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Mr. Speaker, you could cut and paste that situation; you could paste virtually any other coastal city, any other coastal State in this Nation, and they potentially could face the same repercussions, the same outcomes as we experienced in 2005 because this Nation continues to have a reactive policy to disasters, and it is something that we have got to change. We could have taken the hundred-plus billion dollars that Congress appropriated following the 2005 hurricanes to help recover, to help get these communities back on their feet across the Gulf Coast. We could have taken a fraction of those dollars, and we could have invested it proactively and prevented it from happening. Mr. Speaker, any city on our coast could experience the same disaster we saw; and I remind you, just in 2012, we saw Hurricane Sandy cause profound consequences in New York, New Jersey, and other communities on the East Coast. I will say it once again, disasters that were preventable, and so this is something that we all need to be paying attention to. While in New Orleans, while in south Louisiana and Mississippi and in Alabama, there were amazing stories of communities coming together, of people coming together, of resilient families coming together to ensure that while this did knock them down, they were getting back up again, and they were going to recover--strong resolve from these communities all across the Gulf Coast. Mr. Speaker, one other thing that was truly amazing is watching the incredible outpouring of support not just from the Gulf Coast, but from all over this Nation and countries around the world, committing to come help us recover across the Gulf Coast. It was an amazing opportunity for people to come together, to put down differences, and to all come together in support of the recovery of these communities, the recovery of these families, the recovery of these businesses, the recovery of the hopes and dreams of these communities across the Gulf Coast. Mr. Speaker, we are going to continue to see this play over and over again. We are going to continue to see these types of disasters over and over again until we turn the policies around in the United States, until we see fundamental changes. Mr. Speaker, I want to pivot back to the recovery; I want to pivot back to New Orleans; I want to pivot back to Plaquemines Parish and St. Bernard, St. Tammany; I want to pivot back to lower Jefferson Parish. These communities, in many cases, were destroyed. Everything was underwater, everything. I will say it again, the homes, the businesses, the schools, the hopes, the dreams, the future underwater--and 10 years ago, 10 years ago, unbelievable. I think that most people would have told you these communities aren't coming back; they can't come back. They have been so profoundly impacted that they simply can't recover from this, but that is not what happened. As you just heard Mr. Scalise discuss, people came together. We now have an amazing progress, amazing recovery of our schools in south Louisiana, amazing recovery in our economy. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we now have tens of billions of dollars in economic development projects on the horizon while, in other areas, you are seeing people losing jobs, you are seeing businesses close, you are seeing small businesses shut down and a trend of more small businesses closing and opening across the Nation; but in Louisiana, Mr. Speaker, tens of billions of dollars in new economic development projects on the horizon. As a matter of fact, we have the largest foreign investment in U.S. history committed to projects in south Louisiana. We are seeing a manufacturing renaissance, and it is happening because our people are so resilient because we have come back, because we have come together, and because we have plotted a path to the future using the resources that Louisiana is so blessed with, the Louisiana maritime transportation system that we have, and the amazing natural resources in regard to the inexpensive, readily available natural gas, oil, petrochemical industry, the rail lines, the intermodal transportation facilities. We have been able to accomplish a manufacturing renaissance not in Mexico, not in Asia, but right here in the United States in south Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to say I pray that there is not another community, that there is not another city, that there is not another State in this Nation that has to experience, that has to go through the tragedy, the travesty that we experienced in south Louisiana, the loss of over 1,200 of our friends, our relatives, and our neighbors, to see the type of recovery, to see people come together. To see us finally help to build a resilient protection system, resilient ecosystem to ensure that the next storm isn't going to cause the same devastation to New Orleans as we saw 10 years ago, I pray, Mr. Speaker, that that doesn't have to happen again. The only way we prevent it from happening again is if people learn from the lessons of Hurricane Katrina, from Hurricane Rita, if they actually apply the lessons learned that we so painfully went through in south Louisiana, in Mississippi, and in Alabama, that we apply those lessons around the United States to make our communities more resilient; to make our economy more resilient; to make our businesses more resilient; to make our families more resilient; and, Mr. Speaker, most importantly, to ensure that we can all accomplish the American Dream. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women, except for skin cancers. In fact, current statistics show that about 1 in 8 women in the United States will develop invasive breast cancer during their lifetime. It is estimated that in the United States 231,840 women will be diagnosed with and 40,290 women will die of cancer of the breast in 2015. This means that every 13 minutes a woman dies of breast cancer in the United States. Due to early detection, increased awareness and improved approaches to treatment, death rates from breast cancer have decreased since 1989, but it is still the second leading cause of death in women. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer among nearly every racial and ethnic group, including African American, American Indian, Alaska native, Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic/Latina women. African-American women have the highest death rates of all racial and ethnic groups overall and are at least 44 percent more likely to die of breast cancer as compared to other racial and ethnic groups. This is largely due to disease type and lack of adequate care. Approximately $16.5 billion is spent on breast cancer treatment in the United States according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The NCI also estimates that the cost of breast cancer treatment will continue to rise if current trends hold steady. Finding a cure for breast cancer is in the best interest of the American public and is a goal of the United States government. While combined funding for breast cancer research through the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense's Breast Cancer Research Program and the National Cancer Institute approaches one billion dollars, additional private sector support for breast cancer research will help us find a cure even faster. H.R. 2722, the Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Act is designed to generate additional funding for breast cancer research at no cost to taxpayers. The bill compels the U.S. Treasury to raise money for breast cancer research through the sale of $5 pink gold coins, and $1 silver commemorative coins in 2018. The additional funding for breast cancer research will aid the efforts currently underway to find a cure for this deadly cancer. This week, it was brought to the attention of this body that the largest non-government funder of breast cancer research and initially selected as one of the recipients of breast cancer research funding pursuant to H.R. 2722, issues grants to Planned Parenthood. This development gave me pause and conflicted with my well-established pro- life convictions. While I commend work on breast cancer research, I am against any direct or indirect federal funding for abortion. I was pleased that we were able to resolve the issue by amending the recipient of funds generated pursuant to the Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Act, H.R. 2722 and designating 100% of the funds to the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. I supported the amended version of H.R. 2722 and was proud to see this legislation pass through the House. I encourage my colleagues in the Senate take up this bill so that we can move forward with the good and necessary work of pursuing a cure for the most common cancer in women worldwide.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to make note, the highway program funding mechanism expires at the end of this month. It expires; that means it runs out of funding. Voting against this bill causes the program to shut down, causes a decline, a dropoff on investment in our Nation's infrastructure. Right now, we are seeing growth; we are seeing increasing demand. As the gentleman from Oregon just noted, we are seeing underinvestment in our infrastructure system. We have got to increase the investment. We have got to work hard to address the outdated funding mechanism that funds our current highway system. As was noted, we have lost value in the current funding mechanism. Having a user fee is absolutely critical, but a user fee that ensures the level of investment that we truly need. This extension gives us time to recreate that. We have been using the same user fee for decades, a user fee with static figures since 1993, as was just mentioned, and a user fee that has conflicting Federal policies that reduces the value of the income of this trust fund as a result of the corporate average fuel economy or CAFE standards that require greater fuel efficiency out of vehicles. We have got to take a fresh look at this. We have got to take this time and use it wisely to ensure that we can ensure the level of funding that we need to invest in our Nation's infrastructure. We need a fundamentally different approach, and we need to do it without raising taxes. Mr. Speaker, back in my home State of Louisiana, we have some of the worst traffic in the Nation for a region of its size. We have an area that the interstate system, the only place in the Nation where it literally drops down to one lane, the interstate, an incredible bottleneck, in this same area where we are having a manufacturing renaissance, where we are seeing tens of billions of dollars in new economic development opportunities; yet the infrastructure is struggling. The infrastructure is strangling that growth and strangling that investment. I urge all Members to support this. I urge all Members to work together to ensure we develop a new funding stream that meets the demand of our crumbling infrastructure in this Nation. I want to thank Chairman Shuster, and I want to thank Chairman Ryan and Ranking Member DeFazio, to ensure that this legislation moves forward.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, when the House adjourns today, it adjourn to meet at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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