Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for all of his leadership on this important legislation. I want to thank my friend from Oregon and my friend from California for working with us on this, as there is a bipartisan agreement to move this bill forward. Mr. Chairman, why are we doing this bill? People at home who are watching this, people who are living in their communities, why are we doing this bill? We are doing this bill because we need to ensure that people live in places that are safe--safe from flooding and safe from hurricanes. We just saw last year the 2017 hurricanes, Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, and Nate, where we spent well over $150 billion so far--I believe we are near $180 billion--responding to those disasters. People need to live in safe, resilient communities. We need to ensure that we can build navigation channels that stay compatible with trends in shipping. We built the Panama Canal. The United States built the Canal, yet the Panamanians have stepped in and deepened and widened the canal and the lock system in a shorter period of time than we have been able to even deepen ports here in the United States. Then, of course, there are environmental issues, the environmental consequences of many of these projects, including in my home State of Louisiana, where we have lost 2,000 square miles of our coast, and the Corps of Engineers has not stepped in and done a single thing to actually restore the environmental consequences of their actions--2,000 square miles of coastal wetlands. If you or I did that, we would be in jail today. So the reason we are doing this bill is because as the ranking member, Mr. DeFazio, mentioned a few minutes ago, we have a nearly $100 billion backlog in projects. We are putting forward somewhere around $2 billion a year in construction funds. You can do the math. I am a math whiz, and I can tell you that you will finish those projects approximately never, because $2 billion a year on $100 billion, you can't even keep up with inflation. We must reform the process, and this bill moves in that direction. There are important reforms in this bill like allowing the non- Federal sponsors, the States, the parishes, the counties, the water boards, and the ports, to grab components of these projects and move them forward on their own working in collaboration with the Corps of Engineers to ensure that we are moving these projects forward efficiently. We need to make sure that we are moving redundancies in the process and allowing these non-Federal entities to use the same permitting process that the Corps of Engineers just went through and spent millions of dollars complying with. We are still being respectful to the environment, but we are not forcing them to carry out redundant measures, paying twice for the same actions because that doesn't make sense. Let me go back and talk about, again, what these outcomes actually yield. We are talking about projects to prevent communities from flooding, to prevent hurricane damages, to restore the environment, and to ensure that our ports and waterways can facilitate the ships that are growing in width and in depth across the globe to where we can have more cost-effective shipping in the United States and our port systems and we can facilitate the trade that comes around the globe and into our country. Mr. Chairman, they have projects that have been in the study phase, not for months or years, but for decades. We have projects that have been waiting on full implementation of construction for decades. Once again, in my home State of Louisiana, we have the Comite project that has been around for 32 years, $100 million nearly has been spent, and nothing has been done to actually provide flood relief--$100 million. We have another project in southeast Louisiana in Terrebone and Lafourche Parishes, where the Corps of Engineers has spent nearly $80 million and hasn't put a shovel in the ground yet. How do you do that when you look at the fact that we have a $20 trillion deficit and we are spending those sorts of dollars on actions that aren't benefiting taxpayers? Who is that representing? Because it is not the people who sent us here. So I will say it again: this bill moves forward in transparency, it moves forward in efficiency while respecting the environment, it allows projects to be expedited, and it gives more flexibility for the Corps and their non-Federal partners to work together to deliver these projects. One thing that is in here that I know the chairman is a big fan of and we pushed as well with our friends across the aisle, is taking a look to study whether or not the Corps of Engineers should remain within the Department of Defense. Is this a mission that is truly compatible with our Department of Defense? I want Secretary Mattis focused on Syria and focused on Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and other threats to our country. I don't want him or her also worried about what is happening with a coastal wetlands permit. I want him focused on the national defense of our country, so looking at where this mission perhaps could be better housed, better compatibility, and ultimately to deliver better outcomes to taxpayers across the country.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is an important amendment in that it tries to ensure that mitigation banks and other types of mitigation mechanisms are viable options to be able to build projects. In some cases, you have unavoidable impacts. We need to be able to have options to mitigate for those impacts so we can truly build projects. I commend the gentleman from Ohio for raising this issue, for bringing this up. I do think that we need to continue working on refining the text a little bit and working together in a bipartisan manner with our friends on the other side of the aisle to get this to a place where everyone can agree. Again, I think it is an important issue for us to address to ensure that mitigation credits are actually accessible, and I want to see if the gentleman will be willing to withdraw the amendment with the understanding that we are going to work with him to ensure that we can address this issue moving forward through the legislative process.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to provide better information to the Congress, to Federal agencies, and to public entities all over the United States to ensure that we understand the value of investments that we are making, to ensure that we understand the return on investment that we are making with public funds at the State and Federal levels. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentlewoman from Connecticut and I commend the gentleman from Texas for bringing this issue up. I think that there is much we can do to perfect the cost of benefit ratio process and information provided to the Congress to where we can make informed decisions to ensure that we are appropriately using the limited taxpayer resources that we have. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, but I don't plan to oppose the amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment assures the Corps of Engineers can help mitigate any detrimental impacts to the water supply as a result of a Corps of Engineers project. I appreciate my colleague's work on this, and I do accept this amendment and urge support of the amendment. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this amendment that requires a study for the use of noise abatement technologies at ports. I think this is a good amendment, and I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I want to thank my friend from Louisiana, a colleague, for offering this amendment. As the gentleman stated, what is happening right now, the Corps of Engineers is requiring non-Federal entities, like the State of Louisiana and other States around the country and other private partners and local governments to acquire land in fee title, and then that is then absorbed as part of the overall cost of a project. In many cases in our home State, 82 percent of coastal Louisiana is owned by private landowners. These landowners are willing to donate the project, servitude or easement to ensure these projects can be built. And these are environmental projects for coastal restoration and other wetland construction-type projects. It reduces overall project cost. It incentivizes cooperation between landowners and government entities trying to restore the coast. This is in the best interest of taxpayers. It is in the best interest of the Corps of Engineers. It is absolutely good policy, and I want to thank the gentleman for the amendment. I urge adoption of the amendment. Madam Chairwoman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for putting this Special Order together. It is very important. Mr. Speaker, in the 1980s, it was known for big hair, big bangs--I know my sister had bangs about to here. I made that up. Maybe it was here--parachute pants, mullets, and all sorts of other things that we now recognize were awful ideas. We have updated our thoughts, but we were still living with a Tax Code from the 1980s, a Tax Code that was 32 years old, a Tax Code that simply made the United States uncompetitive in regard to other nations. Mr. Speaker, if you think about it for just a minute, if we served hamburgers right here and, across the street, you had a place that served the exact same product and they sold it for half the price, how long would we be in business? How long would we still have a restaurant right here? It wouldn't exist. It would eventually go out of business because, across the street, they have the same product for half the price. Mr. Speaker, the Tax Code of the United States was placing that burden, that penalty, or that uncompetitive nature on businesses in the United States. They were able to go out and invest in other countries and pay a fraction of the price that they were paying in the United States. So we updated the Tax Code in December, as the gentleman, the previous speaker noted. Back in the 1980s, and--excuse me, the 1960s, just to give some metric for comparison--17 of the top global companies had headquarters right here in the United States. Yet, last year, it dropped down to just 6--just 6, because companies were going to other countries where they could get that lower rate. And, as the gentleman noted, we have seen billions of dollars invested in companies invested in workers. We are seeing the lowest unemployment rate in years for women, for African Americans, for Hispanics--6.6 million jobs available today, one of the highest numbers we have seen in history in available jobs today. This is working. Mr. Speaker, this is being complemented with regulatory relief. This is being complemented with removing or rescinding old regulations, updating and making it more efficient so we can compete on a global scale with countries around the world. The tax bill is working, and it is extraordinary the success that we are seeing. For example, back in April, we saw the highest tax surplus in history for that month. I believe it was $213 billion in surplus revenues collected. It is extraordinary growth we are seeing, and as the previous speaker noted, America is back. We are taking the handcuffs off of American businesses, allowing American employment opportunities to be available, allowing for better wages, better jobs, and better competition here in the United States. Mr. Speaker, back in my home State of Louisiana, we have seen companies like Spillway Sportsman, where I have spoken to Scott, the owner, expanding facilities and offering more services to customers. We have seen LHC Group, a healthcare company, raising wages, providing more in retirement benefits to their employees, and we have seen Gulf South Bank raising their minimum wage and investing in bonuses in their employees to ensure that those employees are reaping the benefits from these changes in the Tax Code and the increased competitiveness in the United States. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will say this again. The tax bill is working. You can look at black and white metrics. You can look at the statistics. You can look at the fundamental change in economic growth that is happening. And, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, you can see the increased wages. You can see the better employment opportunities that are being offered to American workers as opposed to investments going overseas.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, when other militaries challenge the United States' military might, we invest more dollars, just like we did a few months ago in our military. When the Panama Canal was widened and deepened, we invested more dollars in our ports so we would remain competitive. When other countries have lowered tax rates, we lower ours to make sure that we remain competitive and we can defend our folks. Mr. Chairman, I represent thousands of farmers from Louisiana who depend upon this crop. If we pass this amendment, the precedent that it sets rolling into other types of crops will devastate American farmers. This amendment is a flawed amendment. It is going to undermine our agriculture industry across the United States. I urge opposition.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to make note that I do appreciate my friend from Oregon's comments, and I appreciate his sensitivity to timelines. But that is what this amendment addresses: timelines. In many cases, our local government simply cannot continue to carry these debts and not get reimbursed. In regard to the amount of money, perhaps $100,000 is not a lot of money to the city of Portland, but I am going to guess to the city of Coos Bay it may be important. In regard to the details of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I am from Louisiana. If the gentleman from Oregon can help us make this even better, then I would be happy to work with him on that. But I think this is very, very important. Access to due process is important. The existing process does not allow supplemental material to be considered to respond to concerns that were raised by agency officials. This is a good model. It has proven effective in the past, and I urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, once again, I am more than happy to work with my friend from Oregon to address any concerns that he may have to ensure that we have the best solution on this moving forward. I will tell you that Republicans and Democrats in Florida, in Texas, in Puerto Rico, in the Virgin Islands, all across these disaster areas that we have experienced in the last 2 years are running into this exact same problem. And let me just reiterate, Mr. Chairman, what this interpretation, this flawed interpretation is doing. It is putting an unaffordable bill before a community that has been destroyed, and it is only victimizing children because they can't get back in their schools, they can't resume their education. It is disrupting the resumption of their normal lives and just further affecting them, and delaying restoration and recovery of these communities. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to state, in response to the formaldehyde issue, let me be very clear, formaldehyde was a major issue after Hurricane Katrina in the trailers. We certainly learned from that, and we absolutely don't need anyone exposed to it. So I absolutely agree with the gentleman on that. But I think there have been better standards, and certainly lessons learned, from what we experienced with Hurricane Katrina when folks were in these trailers for long periods of time, and they weren't designed for that purpose, so I do agree with the gentleman there. But on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, let me be clear, this is, once again, a bipartisan amendment. We have the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins), the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crist), and other cosponsors, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Babin), all supporting this amendment because it is common sense and it responds to true on-the- ground problems that were seen in the aftermath of disasters. What happens is the current law in the Stafford Act says that any time you have a flood, if you have a facility like a school, that FEMA may deduct $500,000 from the recovery for rebuilding that school. Well, what FEMA has done is they have taken the law that Congress established where it said ``per facility,'' and they have taken it and they have abused it. They have now determined that a facility is an individual building. So, Mr. Chairman, you may have a classroom building, you may have a cafeteria, you may have another classroom building, you may have a gymnasium, you may have a storage room, you may have a concession stand--in that case, FEMA is applying $500,000 to each individual building. Now, what adds insult to injury or makes this situation untenable is the fact that these schools generate the revenue oftentimes from property taxes in the destroyed community. So they are losing property taxes, FEMA is hitting them with bills, in some cases, in Ascension, Livingston, and East Baton Rouge Parishes, that are tens of millions of dollars each. What this does is it victimizes the survivors' children. So the kids can't get back in schools because the schools can't afford to reestablish their facilities. So, look, bottom line is, this is all about preserving congressional intent. Congress spoke on this. FEMA has trashed the interpretation, and this is all about preserving congressional intent and getting our kids back in schools to where they can have the education or opportunities that they need to have, and they should no longer be further victimized by FEMA's flawed interpretation of the law. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I am sure the gentlewoman from Texas would be supportive of this, representing many of the flood victims from Hurricane Harvey. It is important to keep in mind, Mr. Chairman, that, in many cases, these flood victims don't have other options. So you may have a trailer from your local trailer dealership; you may have a tent. In many cases, that is very attractive compared to being homeless. I would love to work with the gentleman from Oregon and see if we can work together to perfect this amendment to address any concerns that he may have. In regard to the Chinese formaldehyde, I agree with you. If we can get good old American formaldehyde in our trailers, let's do that. I am kidding. But I urge adoption of the amendment. I think this is very important. We should be commending leaders like Sheriff Ard for stepping up and providing efficient solutions for disaster survivors. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment, once again, is a bipartisan amendment. My good friends Congressman Cedric Richmond, Congressman Gene Green, Congressman Ralph Abraham, Congressman Clay Higgins, and Congressman Brian Babin are all supporters of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. Following our August 2016 floods in south Louisiana, FEMA came in and provided housing solutions. The solutions included the utilization of trailers. Because FEMA needs an acronym for everything, they were called MHUs, mobile housing units. When you added up the cost to purchase, transport, store, and set up these things, FEMA was in the hole anywhere from $120,000 to $170,000 per pop. Mr. Chairman, you could buy these same units right there in the vicinity of the flood from local trailer dealers for anywhere from $28,000 to I think the highest cost we saw was about $40,000, including setup. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, Mr. Chairman, to realize that you could get it faster and you are helping to revive the local economy by using local solutions, as opposed to the case when FEMA is doing this, when it took months and months and months to give people even a single housing option in some cases. So what this amendment does is it simply says that, if a local entity, a local government entity, if a State entity, can provide a housing solution for 50 percent of the cost, or less, as compared to the alternative that FEMA provides, then they can be reimbursed. Mr. Chairman, this is faster. It saves taxpayer dollars. It stops this fleecing of American taxpayers that is occurring in the aftermath of disasters. Specifically, Mr. Chairman, in Livingston Parish, Sheriff Jason Ard: his deputies were flooded. Literally, families didn't have anywhere to go. They had looting in the parish. The sheriff stepped up, established mobile housing units, trailers, for his deputies to live in so they didn't have to worry about their families anymore, so they could get back to doing what they were supposed to be doing: enforcing law in these destroyed communities. And FEMA is rejecting them. We have tried to work through the administrative process. I will say it again: the only way they are reimbursed is if the cost of their solution was 50 percent or less than that of the Federal Government alternative, in regard to the mobile housing units. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, in the aftermath of disasters, billions and billions of dollars in claims are often worked out between local governments, State governments, and FEMA. In many cases, because disasters are inherently unpredictable, volatile, and folks are doing what they need to do to help their communities recover and address these urgent needs, in some cases, not every i is dotted, not every t is crossed. These minor issues often become obstacles to these communities being reimbursed and their ability to recover. FEMA has an appeals process, Mr. Chairman. In that appeals process, you basically have FEMA reviewing FEMA. I don't think that that is the appropriate approach. Section 618 of the underlying bill has an arbitration process, but that arbitration process has other Homeland Security officials reviewing the work of Homeland Security. There was a better model that was used after the 2005 disasters whereby an outside board that exists, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, which is an independent body, was brought in to help review some of these appeals that local and State governments brought forth to the Corps of Engineers. It was a better approach. It provided for more thorough evaluation and, again, the independence of having an outside entity review this. Our amendment simply improves upon the existing arbitration process in section 618 of the bill. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on this legislation. I think it is very important, and I urge adoption of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mrs. Donna Britt, a beloved community leader and longtime local television personality well known throughout my hometown of Baton Rouge, Louisiana and the surrounding area. Mrs. Britt will be recognized with the prestigious 12 Points Award at a Boy Scouts ceremony this month--a reward reserved for high caliber leaders whose lives embody the 12 traits that the program seeks to instill in its participants: trustworthiness, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courteousness, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thriftiness, bravery, cleanliness and reverence. You'd be hard pressed, Mr. Speaker, to find a more fitting recipient than Donna, who has been a shining example of these values through her professional and personal life. An accomplished woman in media, Donna is a Public Relations Association of Louisiana Communicator of the Year and a recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters, the Award of Excellence from Women in Media and the Volunteer Activist Award from the Emerge Center. She is also a breast cancer survivor currently battling a recent ALS diagnosis. Despite these medical challenges, Donna's resilience and warmth are unwavering--a mentality perhaps best revealed through her own personal mantra: ``meet each new challenge and master it.'' Reflecting on her life and career in a recent interview, she remarked, ``I've been very blessed, and challenges remind us what is important in life.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of countless people across South Louisiana who have been blessed by Donna Britt, I'd like to point out that her example helps remind all of us about what is important in life. Congratulations, Donna, on this well-deserved award.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. William Black, lovingly known to Louisianians as Buckskin Bill. He passed away on January 10, 2018, in the comfort of his home and surrounded by family. Mr. Black had an incredible life. He married Elma, his college sweetheart, and was the proud father of three children who survive his memory. Mr. Black was a patriot who honorably served in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, and he was a performer at heart. He traveled the country emceeing and performing to audiences of troops in order to boost morale. Mr. Black was probably best known for hosting Storyland and the Buckskin Bill Show, shows enjoyed in every household and loved by children across South Louisiana--including me. As a kid, I woke up early every Monday morning for Buckskin Bill's Monday Morning March. I remember thinking I was getting pretty good at it, too. His shows ran for 35 years, and Mr. Black was twice awarded ``Best Children's Show in the United States'' by the National Association of Broadcasters. Outside of his television accomplishments, his life was marked by a dedication to improving the lives of those around him, from assisting in the foundation of the Baton Rouge Zoo, to promoting the Louisiana School for the Deaf. Mr. Black was truly a man dedicated to his community and endearing children to civic engagement. I am proud to have enjoyed his shows growing up, and I know he will be marching on among the angels in heaven. Buckskin Bill will be fondly remembered by myself, his family, and all the lives he touched through his performances.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained while meeting with Louisiana pastors after the National Prayer Breakfast. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 64 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 65.