Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I want to add my voice of strong support to this legislation. There is no question what we have seen in the aviation industry, these near misses, these runway incursions, and safety issues all across the aviation system. As both Ranking Member Larsen and Chairman Graves noted, the House did its business. We came together on a bipartisan basis and passed legislation in July by a vote of 351-69. That legislation addresses everything from general aviation, a topic that I know our chairman cares much about and knows a lot about, to topics like new entrants and new aviation technologies. It focuses on safety, and it ensures, Madam Speaker, that this entire legislation focuses ultimately on the passenger experience, making sure that air travelers from all across the United States have a great experience with new technology whenever they enter the airports and whenever they enter the airplanes. None of those benefits are going to be realized unless and until we pass a long-term authorization bill. This is the last temporary extension we are going to do. This is a clean extension until May 10. If we don't do this, it will cause the Federal Government to incur debt, because we won't be able to collect the user fees that go along with aviation travel. It is absolutely critical that this clean, bipartisan extension be enacted. It is absolutely critical that we stay on track with bipartisan, bicameral negotiations on the FAA bill, now that the Senate has finally--and I commend them--passed this bill out of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in the United States Senate. I thank Chairman Graves for his leadership, Ranking Member Larsen and my friend Steve Cohen for working together on this to make sure that we can continue a united front and realize all these gains in the aviation sector as a result of the House aviation bill. I also add my regret to the loss of Chris Senn to the Subcommittee on Aviation. He is overcredentialed, overeducated, and often awes us with his knowledge of drones and other technology. It is going to be a big loss to the committee, but I appreciate his service.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, Members of this body are so used to me coming up here to talk about all the national championships that LSU has won. Whether it is football, women's basketball, or baseball, we are up here all the time. Well, the good news is that LSU's Manship School of Mass Communication is competing for, once again, another national championship. They are participating in Culturs magazine's national championship, a promotional tournament. LSU represents the incredible diversity of Louisiana, which we refer to as America's foreign country. The culture, the music, the people are like nowhere else in this amazing country. As the students of LSU Manship School of Mass Communication participate in this national tournament, I wish the best to Brooke Bordelon and the entire team. Go Tigers.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 35, H. Res. 996. personal explanation

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, nothing ruins a great day like the tax man. Nothing ruins a great day like the tax man, and I am not talking about the IRS. I am talking about when you are out there fishing, and you have this big shark that just comes up and takes your catch. You have great fishermen like Mr. Wittman and Mr. Westerman, and maybe it is not that big of a deal; your next cast you are going catch another one. But you have people out there who don't know what they are doing, like Mr. Joyce of Ohio; it is a whole other thing. You just ruined his day. What happens is--as Mr. Wittman clearly laid out--you will be out there, and you may be on a red snapper, you may be out there in some mangrove, and you are just catching fish; that is dinner. This is an amazing experience. As Mr. Wittman noted, this is about economic activity all across the coastal United States. One of the biggest gaps, one of the biggest voids in our ability to properly manage fisheries is knowing more, knowing better about the impact of this apex predator, the shark. I want to be very clear. This bill is not about culling species. It is not about killing sharks. What it is about is simply ensuring that we have the right data, that we have the right understanding to build properly managed fisheries, and to be able to ensure we can promote avoidance techniques to prevent this depredation from occurring. I thank the gentleman from Virginia, who is an expert in this field, Mr. Wittman, and I thank Mr. Soto and Mr. Veasey, some of the cosponsors on this legislation, for their support, but this is all about improving the accuracy of fish management. It benefits recreational fisheries, it benefits commercial fisheries, and, most importantly, Mr. Speaker, it benefits the sustainable fisheries, the sustainable stocks of some of these important areas like the Atlantic, the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico, and other areas. Again, I thank my friend from Virginia for his hard work on this legislation. I thank Chairman Westerman for working with us and some of the great staff on his team, Vivian and Sandra. I thank Anderson on our staff, as well as Rachel on Ranking Member Grijalva's staff for their work in coming together to make sure that we have the right balance here. This is all about ensuring that for generations to come that our children and our grandchildren can enjoy the same experiences that we have for many, many years. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank Dr. Joyce for organizing this Special Order tonight. I thank the Biden administration, actually. I thank the Biden administration because they came out a week from Friday and admitted what we knew all along. They paused American energy. Mr. Speaker, it is consistent with what we have seen out of this administration for the last few years. They go out there and say, yes, Russia should be able to build the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to facilitate Russian energy, but the Keystone pipeline in the United States can't be built. It is pro-Russia; it is anti-U.S. It is not just that, Mr. Speaker. Let's look at what is happening. Since Putin has invaded Ukraine, the European Union is still dependent upon Russian natural gas today. Mr. Speaker, 14 percent of the natural gas being supplied to the European Union is coming from Russia. Let me say it another way: It is a billion dollars a month. Of course, it was twice or three times that before the invasion. What is happening is this billion dollars a month today is actually funding the Russian war against Ukraine. At the same time, this administration is out there banging on Congress to give them $60 billion in aid for Ukraine. I have an idea: Stop funding the Russian war. How do you do that? Dr. Joyce said this a little while ago. You can look at the National Energy Technology Lab analysis looking at U.S. natural gas. Compared to Russian gas, Russian gas has 41 percent higher emissions. Mr. Speaker, let me say it another way: If we had taken 1 year of Russian gas that was supplied to the European Union and supplanted it, replaced it with U.S. gas, it would have reduced emissions to the tune of 218 million tons of emissions. Do you know what? It would have been for free. We could have just supplanted U.S. gas with Russian gas. We could have kneecapped Vladimir Putin and those billions of dollars he received. We could have helped the economy in the United States. We could have strengthened our economic ties with our allies. This doesn't make any sense, Mr. Speaker, but this is what we are seeing out of this administration over and over again. Their policies are resulting in Iran profiting $60 billion--$60 billion to Iran as a result of this administration's flawed energy policies. We lost three servicemembers and had 30-plus more injured because we are funding Iran that is funding the Houthis that is funding Hezbollah that is funding Hamas that is funding the Islamic Jihad and other terrorist organizations. This is unbelievable. Higher costs for American families, higher emissions, and lower energy security--this makes no sense. It lacks common sense, and it is simply not in America's interests. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for hosting this tonight. Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, we have to bring common sense back to American energy policy.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, this body is often fighting over things. We are at one of the most polarized points in our Nation that I have ever experienced, but in this case, this is an instance where Republicans and Democrats are coming together. I thank my good friend, Steve Cohen, not just for this bill but also for the 5-year authorization that we passed out of this Chamber back in July. I also thank Rick Larsen, the ranking member of the full committee; and, of course, Sam Graves, the full committee chairman, a good friend, and probably the best expert on aviation in the entire House of Representatives, for their work on aviation this year. Mr. Speaker, I often hear people quote John Dingell, who said that the other party is the opposition, but the Senate is the enemy. In this case, I think that is exactly what we are experiencing. Right now, we are in a situation where the House of Representatives, in this very polarized environment, passed a bipartisan FAA bill that we worked on for over 18 months. The aviation team did an amazing job going through and distilling over 2,000 requests from Members of Congress and stakeholders and generating a bill, while not a metric of success, over 900 pages, ultimately passing the House Transportation Committee unanimously and passing the House of Representatives by a vote of 351 to only 69 people who didn't understand the bill. Mr. Speaker, that shows huge momentum. We were able to work through complicated issues, as you heard others say, things like improving the passenger experience and making regulatory decisions for the FAA to ensure that we continue to play the leadership role in aviation innovation; to ensure that we have regulatory certainty and that we are not sending innovators and entrepreneurs to other countries to make investments because we don't have regulations, stability, or predictability in the aviation sector where new entrants are coming in at a remarkable rate; to ensure that we move the ball forward and properly strike that balance, as I know the full committee chair is so concerned about, between general aviation and commercial aviation; and to ensure that commercial space travel is properly regulated and has the certainty that they need. Mr. Speaker, we reorganized the FAA. We improved the training of air traffic controllers. We improved addressing the major cliff that we are going over on pilots, A&P mechanics, and others involved in the aviation space who are so critical to this country. Rather than sending a bill to the President's desk to do a long-term reauthorization of the FAA for 5 years, which addresses most of the problems in the FAA, we find ourselves now doing a 3-month extension until March 8 because the Senate has been unable to get their job done. Just 2 weeks ago, we had a hearing in the Aviation Subcommittee where we went through and explored these issues. We looked at this. The FAA now finally has an Administrator. I am fully supportive of the Administrator of the FAA, Administrator Whitaker, for being in there, but we have to have long-term certainty. While I am voting for this bill and support it, it does not address the problems in the aviation space. They will not be addressed until the Senate takes up the bill and, ultimately, goes to conference with the House to where we are working on a conference report and sending a long-term authorization to the President. Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thank the other members of the Big Four: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Larsen, and Mr. Sam Graves. I thank everybody for working on this. I thank the aviation team on both sides. I support this legislation, and I urge its adoption, but we cannot take the pressure off of the United States Senate to ultimately do their job and pass a long-term FAA reauthorization.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas and the gentlewoman from Oregon for their cooperation on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I note that my friend from Arkansas, whether he has the electronic stamp or the physical stamp, I feel that the ducks in Arkansas are safe. I have seen him shoot and am confident that those ducks are safe. Seriously, Mr. Speaker, oftentimes, when Congress acts, I think the American people need to be very concerned. In this case, I think it is a really good thing that is happening today. As my friends have discussed, back in 1934, President Roosevelt signed the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act into law. Today, over 1.6 million hunters go out and buy a physical duck stamp every single year. This has resulted in over $1.1 billion being invested in conservation. This has benefited over 6 million acres of our national wildlife refuges around the United States. This is a great program. As my friend from Arkansas indicated, there is a compliance issue. With the great work that was done in 2013 to allow for an electronic duck stamp, there is a lag time between when the duck stamp is purchased and when the physical stamp comes in. You could find hunters out of compliance, despite the fact that they bought a stamp. Simply, this legislation fixes that. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Senate cosponsors of this legislation who have jumped in, Senators Boozman, Manchin, Marshall, and King, for introducing the House companion--I want to be clear, the House companion. This was a House bill and has already passed out of the House, but now, the Senate is refusing to take our bill up, so we find ourselves here. In any case, I think this is good news. We are going to take the win. I appreciate the opportunity to move forward. The bottom line is that this ensures that hunters can be compliant and are not going to get fined for not having the physical stamp. Importantly, it preserves the physical stamp that will continue to be mailed. It still is available to be purchased at local sporting goods stores and post offices all around the United States. We can continue to ensure compliance and ensure the enjoyment of waterfowl all over the United States, whether you are in North Dakota or south Louisiana or even in the chairman of the Natural Resources Committee's State, Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Mike Thompson from California, who is the bipartisan cosponsor on this legislation. I urge adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I was detained on my way to vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 699, Ogles Amendment No. 6 to H.R. 5933--DETERRENT Act. Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Scott of Virginia

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I just want to reaffirm that Louisiana does have the best muffulettas in the United States. I would be happy to have this conversation in depth with my friend from Connecticut. Mr. Chair, I am going to say we should support this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, certainly being a Representative that represents thousands and thousands of seniors, I would never do anything that would adversely affect Medicare. As a matter of fact, I would argue that this actually helps to protect Medicare. As we all know, the solvency of the Medicare trust fund is in jeopardy. By being more efficient, being more judicial with the limited dollars that the trust fund has, this is actually a step in the right direction. Let me be clear on what I am saying here: If the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is going to try and impose a new regulation that is going to cost additional dollars in excess of $100 million, all that would happen under this regulation, Mr. Chairman, is that that regulation would then come to Congress for an approval before it would be implemented. It doesn't stop it from happening. It simply ensures that it is consistent with the wishes of the American people. This does nothing to jeopardize Medicare. It does nothing to impede or prevent services to seniors. We all represent thousands and thousands of seniors, and I certainly would not do anything to jeopardize that care. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment is a simple amendment. Earlier this year, as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, we enacted for the first time ever an Administrative Pay-Go. We put a provision in place that said if this administration is going to try and put regulations in place that cost in excess of $100 million, then they have to offset those costs, meaning they have to rescind other regulations, to offset that cost on American taxpayers, therefore, the net cost would be zero. If you are going to put $100 million in new burden-requiring regulations in place, impacting American households and businesses, you have to rescind $100 million worth of regulations on American families and American businesses. This amendment takes it to the next level. When our constituents elect us to office, they expect us to be here representing them, yet during this administration's first 2\1/2\ years, they attempted to put additional costs or heap additional burdens to the tune of $1.5 trillion on American taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I want you to think about that for just a minute. It is effectively the President of the United States, one person, unilaterally spending $1.5 trillion. That is effectively what we are going to spend in discretionary spending this year and it is one person doing it without any action by the Congress. What this amendment does is, it says it is fine. If you want to put regulations in place, that is fine, but if you are going to propose something that is going to cost over $100 million, it has to come to Congress. It has to come before the Representatives that were elected by the people to approve it or shut it down. I think this is a simple amendment. It is complementary to amendments that have passed the three other appropriation bills. It is complementary to what President Biden signed into law earlier this year on the Administrative Pay-Go. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I would simply say I regret that the gentleman is opposed. Earlier this year, he voted in support of an administrative PAYGO provision that takes a very similar approach here that puts in a threshold that requires that additional scrutiny be applied to any regulation, or it be offset with additional costs. I think this is compatible with that. It takes the next step to ensure that American citizens are represented by their Members of Congress. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's concerns, but let's go ahead and think about what his concerns are based upon. The gentleman raised concerns that if this amendment passes, it is going to prevent the Biden administration from unilaterally implementing regulations 100 times that each cost over $100 million to comply with. I am sure my friend shares the concern that these really need to be actions of the Congress. We come in and affirm congressional intent. We come in and affirm the interpretations of law. If a bureaucrat is going to impose that kind of cost on American businesses and, most importantly, on American families that are already struggling with record-high energy costs, interest rates, and inflationary costs that are all being imposed on these family members, this harms those who can least afford it the most. It really seems like my friend could reconsider the objection, that we could simply allow for Members of Congress to represent their constituents as opposed to unelected bureaucrats. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, when our constituents go to the ballot box and they vote for their Member of Congress, they expect that it is going to be someone that actually represents them, represents their values, and represents the community. What we have seen in this administration is bureaucrats--people that are unelected and unaccountable--draft new regulations that impose incredible financial hardship on the American people. In fact, during the first 2 years of the Biden administration, there are estimates that show that hundreds of billions of dollars in new regulatory costs were heaped upon American businesses and heaped upon American families. Let me say that again. Hundreds of billions of dollars in additional regulatory compliance costs. Otherwise said, it is a hidden tax. Mr. Chairman, this is not you and I--these are not Members of Congress--that are approving and drafting these regulations. They are bureaucrats. What our amendment simply does is it says that those bureaucrats can continue to draft the amendments. If their regulation is going to cause over $100 million in compliance costs, then it must be submitted to the Congress to allow for their elected Representatives to either affirm or deny that regulation--that cost on the American people. Mr. Chairman, it is a very simple amendment. I make note that this amendment has been included in previous appropriations bills. I hope my friends on the other side agree that we need to be representing our constituents, not unelected bureaucrats. I hope that they share the concern I have that hundreds of billions of dollars in invisible taxes being heaped upon American businesses and families is inappropriate. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I want to put a face on it. The National Association of Manufacturers says that the average business has $10,000 in regulatory compliance costs per employee. If it is a manufacturer, it is actually double, or $20,000. To put a face on it, Mr. Chairman, the National Association of Home Builders has estimated, in a May 2021 study, that the average home costs $93,000 more--almost $94,000 more--for the average single-family home as a result of complying with regulations. As a result of this administration's policies on energy, the supply chain, and labor, they estimate that there is an additional $36,000 to $38,000 cost on top of that $94,000. Mr. Chair, I can't say it enough: We can't afford this administration. Whether it is the energy policy, the regulatory policy, their inflation as a result of $10 trillion in excess spending that they have imposed over the last few years, we simply can't afford it. American families can't afford it. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, my amendment simply comes in and establishes a threshold by which Congress must be involved in actually approving costs that are imposed upon our constituents. Mr. Chairman, we all represent somewhere in excess of 700,000 people, and whenever we have unelected bureaucrats carrying out regulations that may impose costs on our constituents, we should have a say in that. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply says that any regulation that has a cost in excess of $100 million must be approved by the Congress. That is what representation looks like. Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't be allowing unelected bureaucrats who are sitting in dark cubicles in Washington, D.C., and who don't have a clear understanding of what it is like across America, making these decisions. This is our job. If we support these regulations, if they provide a positive cost-to-benefit, put us on record supporting it. To put things in perspective, Mr. Chair, in the first 2 years of the Biden administration, these very bureaucrats wrote regulations costing Americans $200 billion. These are hidden taxes, Mr. Chair, that the families we are representing have to pay. In comparison, during the Trump administration, they actually withdrew regulations costing the American household $11,000 per household. They withdrew or reduced the costs, yet under this administration, we are watching as thousands and thousands of additional dollars are being heaped upon these same households. Let me say it again. That is a hidden tax. If folks want to vote for a tax, put them on the record doing it. If they want to break the backs of American families, put them on the record doing it. Unelected bureaucrats should not be making these decisions. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Texas for offering this amendment. Let's be clear: The only entity that has not done its job is NHTSA. They were directed by Congress to do a study to establish standards and failed to do that. Rather than them being punished, they are now taking it out on manufacturers and dealers. As Mr. Gooden said, this is not a safety issue. States have already studied this. We should not be coming in and imposing penalties and restrictions on manufacturers and dealers whenever it is NHTSA that has failed to do its job. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, once again, as the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins) and I have noted, we have watched as this administration has carried out energy policies that are some of the most inexplicable, incomprehensible energy policies I have ever seen, policies that are resulting in a 40 percent increase in energy costs for American families, making one in every four families choose among costs like groceries, utilities, rental payments, and other things that are simply false choices. We can continue down this path that allows Iran to profit $60 billion above the amount they were making before the Biden administration took office, allowing Venezuela to profit $65 billion above the amount that they were making prior to the Biden administration, or we can simply produce American energy, some of the lowest carbon-intense barrels in the world, and actually have American energy security, returning us to American energy security as we saw under the previous administration, rather than these policies that are so punitive on American families, especially those that can least afford it. Madam Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I certainly do appreciate the gentlewoman from Maine's concerns, and I appreciate her understanding of one of the two components of what we are discussing today. The component that my friend from Maine is discussing pertains to recreational vessels and port traffic. That is one component, and the gentlewoman is correct. However, the component that my friend from Louisiana and I are raising concerns about is the energy component that has impacted 6 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico. This is actually a bifurcated decision or approach. One component was rejected, the gentlewoman is correct. The component that we are discussing actually is very much alive and very much relevant. I certainly share the concerns that the gentlewoman has recognized. I appreciate that component, but that is not what this amendment pertains to; therefore, I again insist upon this amendment. Madam Chair, I urge adoption, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Higgins).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, this amendment is a funding restriction. Let me give you a little bit of background. What happened is the Federal Government was sued by a group of extreme environmental organizations claiming that a new species of whale was in the Gulf of Mexico and that its habitat needed to be restricted in order to ensure the survivability of the species. Mr. Chair, it sounds like a reasonable approach. The problem is that what happened is that they didn't provide any opportunity for public comment, and they did not provide any opportunity for peer-reviewed science. As a matter of fact, the sensors that are supposed to be detecting these species did not even detect species in the area where they are trying to impose restrictions. Mr. Chair, as a result of this sue-and-settle operation by the Federal Government, by the Biden administration, 6 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico have been taken effectively offline or put with significant restriction in the Gulf of Mexico. What this does is this further complicates U.S. energy security. It further restricts opportunities to produce energy domestically. Mr. Chair, I urge support of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Unfortunately, those comments aren't really relevant to this amendment. Let's be clear on what this amendment does. It prevents agencies from imposing regulations that exceed a compliance cost of $100 million or more. If the gentlewoman is concerned about spending and debts and deficits, I share those concerns with her. As a matter of fact, as a result of this administration's legislation like the CHIPS Act, IRA, ARP, and the infrastructure bill, an additional $10 trillion in spending has been incurred as a result of their reckless and irresponsible actions. Mr. Chair, what that translates to is that 50 cents of every dollar we are going to borrow over the next 10 years is going to go to pay interest on the debt. Over the next 10 years, we are going to spend $10 trillion on interest payments on the debt. Mr. Chairman, you represent areas in Ohio. I represent areas of Louisiana. We have representation here for Idaho and Maine. We have constituents that have real needs. We are flushing money down the toilet by putting $10 trillion just toward interest payments. This helps to improve the efficiency of the Federal Government. It is complementary to the deregulatory agenda that we saw under the previous administration. Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.