Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has a very simple objective. All it is designed to do is provide certainty. They have discharge permits that are granted often to ports, to vessels large and small and different operators that are required to discharge, making sure that what they are discharging is properly evaluated to ensure that it doesn't cause adverse impact to the environment. These permits are normally granted for a 5-year period of time, but what we found is that upon expiration of the permits, we have seen gaps of months and months and months, creating uncertainty for those operators. What this amendment does is it very simply says that if a permit expires, you just get a continuance, you get a continuance of the existing permit conditions until the agency works to recertify or to re-up the permit. The second thing that it does is it says that if you have a continuing operation, and if there are some changes that the agency wants in regard to the operations of the permit, then that is fine, but you have to begin that process 2 years ahead of time, giving the operators ample time to adjust or adapt to the new conditions. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, thankfully, the amendment described by the ranking member is not the amendment that we are offering today. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl), a member of the Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me again clarify. The ranking member's comments, while clearly concerning, do not apply to this amendment. Mr. Chairman, let me read from the amendment. ``The Administrator is authorized,'' it doesn't say, ``they shall.'' It says, ``is authorized.'' The second section says, ``The Administrator may require.'' These are discretionary terms. There is nothing in here that is mandatory. It creates the ability of the Administrator to offer a general permit. Most importantly, let's keep in mind, this doesn't waive any environmental laws or anything along those lines. What this does is, it simply says that if a permit has been issued and the agency is not fast enough in re-upping the permit, then what happens is that you continue operating under the previously approved permit. Now, if the agency wants to reject a permit, if they want to take an action, all of that discretion is still retained by the Administrator. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the distinguished majority leader and the sponsor of this legislation.

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

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for his leadership on this amendment. I also want to thank Chairman Westerman who has been absolutely incredible on H.R. 1, ensuring that we bring down the cost of energy, ensuring that we bring American energy security back to the table, and ensuring that we actually begin reducing emissions because we know that this administration has actually increased emissions. What this amendment does is it actually, somewhat comically, is modeled exactly after what my friend, the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee, just objected to. It does exactly what he actually voted for in the infrastructure bill. That is all this does. To hear somebody suggest that this is actually contrary to the environment is remarkable, and, in fact, it defies logic. There is study after study that shows that by putting energy in a pipeline, by putting carbon dioxide for sequestration in a pipeline, it is safer. It is safer than the alternative of putting it on a truck, a barge, a rail where you have a better chance of leaking, and it has higher emissions. To hear somebody object to this under the auspices of being concerned about the environment, I don't know if it is uninformed, if it is ignorant, or if it is just not telling the truth. I don't know. This amendment is a bipartisan amendment. I am going to say it again: It is an amendment that Democrats in this body voted for months ago in the infrastructure bill. That is what this does. If you care about the environment, you should support this amendment. Again, I thank my friend from Arkansas for his leadership.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Chair, I can make posters, too. I think I got the right backdrop there. Let's talk a little bit about credibility. Let's talk a little bit about the challenges that this country is experiencing, like the little girl on the playground and what our families across America are experiencing right now. Let's talk about why. This body is about credibility. It is about your word. Let's talk a little bit about why America is experiencing the challenges that they are. We are seeing higher electricity prices that are making American families unable to be able to afford medicine and groceries, refuel their car, or pay electricity bills. Why is that happening? It is happening because my friends across the aisle have refused to produce American energy. It is a supply and demand issue. This happened when they gained power. The day the President of the United States was inaugurated, Madam Chair, gasoline prices in my home State were as low as a $1.74 a gallon. Let me ask you, where in the world are you going to find that today? You have cut off production of oil and gas. Don't take my word for it. You know, one term I have never heard anybody say is bring back that Jimmy Carter energy policy. Yet, when Jimmy Carter was President, he leased 100 times more acres of the lands and waters for energy production. Why do we have a crisis in energy right now? It was self-inflicted. Why has this administration and these Democrats sold off hundreds of millions of barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, the emergency reserve that was designed for crises, not awful policy? It is because they refused to produce energy. You have created a supply problem, and you are using our emergency reserves to address it. You sit here and also raise royalty rates. You proposed increased pipeline fees. You proposed taxes or enacted taxes on American energy, all driving up the costs, then you sit here and wonder why we have high prices? These were all self-inflicted wounds. You did this to America-- your policies. Madam Chair, it is remarkable seeing what is going on right now, listening to my friends across the aisle talking about the environment. Yet, their own legislation requires the use of critical minerals that they at the same time have banned or prevented from being mined or processed or refined in the United States. In some cases, China has 80 percent of these critical minerals locked up. If you force markets in the direction and if you force the use of those strategic materials, and the only place that has it is China, who are you benefiting? China loves their energy policies. They benefit from it. All roads lead to China. Over 80 percent of the solar panels are made in China. Whenever this administration found that China was illegally subsidizing and illegally dumping solar panels in the United States, they banned them and put tariffs on them. China then starts sending them through other countries. And you know what this administration does? They say: Yeah, that is fine. They acknowledge that there were Chinese solar panels being sent through other countries, and they allowed it. The Biden administration allowed it, and my friends across the aisle have done nothing to stop it. The truth is, is that emissions have gone up under their policies, not down. Madam Chair, let me say that again. Under the previous administration, emissions went down. Greenhouse gas emissions went down an average of 2\1/2\ percent a year. In the first year of the Biden administration, my friends across the aisle working with them closely, emissions went up 6 percent last year and went up another 1.3 or 1.4 percent. I am going to say it again. My friends across the aisle and their policies have resulted in higher greenhouse gas emissions. They have increased our dependence upon foreign energy sources. We had the Secretary of the Interior standing right in our committee, and he wasn't even aware that we had become increasingly dependent upon Russian energy. They talk about corporate welfare. I agree, which is why the over $600 billion that my friends across the aisle have put toward effectively bribing companies into investing in renewable energy sources that in many cases are not economic, simply doesn't make sense. This bill follows logic. It follows good policy. It ensures that we are getting energy resources from the United States. It ensures the affordability by bringing American energy online. It results in lower global emissions. Madam Chair, I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Sam Graves, for his leadership on this issue. Mr. Chairman, let me describe the situation that we are facing right now. The Clean Water Act, as has been noted, was enacted decades and decades ago. There haven't been changes that altered the way that States are able to grant water certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act. There have been no changes that have altered the way that this act takes place. Yet, in recent history, States have begun using the Clean Water Act in its 401 water certification section in a way that simply weaponizes it. The States' decisions in many cases to object to projects being built in their States have nothing to do with water certification. I can cite example after example, including by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, who may be in the Chamber, where their States have objected to pipelines on grounds that, again, have nothing to do with clean water. This is a weaponization that has occurred in just recent history. All the amendment does that the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Rouzer) led in this case is it simply ensures that the interpretation of the Clean Water Act is consistent with congressional intent when this was implemented decades ago. Mr. Chairman, let me give you a practical effect of how this has impacted communities and how it has impacted American citizens. Years ago, they had a cold winter. It was a very cold winter several years ago. What happened was that these communities up in the Northeast had actually used these authorities and others to block pipelines from being built, so it prevented natural gas from getting to these communities in the Northeast. Then, they began burning home heating oil in higher volumes. I remind you, Mr. Chairman, home heating oil has a higher emissions profile than natural gas. So, you just made one decision. By blocking pipelines, you became more dependent upon home heating oil, so it resulted in greater emissions or, said another way, greater impacts to the environment. They ended up having low supplies of home heating oil, so they took it to the next level. These States called their good friend Vladimir Putin--I am not making this up--and had him bring in liquified natural gas from Russia to meet the demands from the Northeast. Mr. Chairman, maybe my friends across the aisle want to defend the decision to have Russian gas coming in to supply American energy needs whenever we had American energy right there that simply could have been piped in. Mr. Chairman, I remind you that, according to the National Research Council, pipelines are the safest way to transport energy. By putting something in a pipeline, it has a lower chance of a spill and has lower emissions associated with transportation. This is how you should do it. If you care about the environment, then you want to put energy in a pipeline. Let me say it again. The chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Mr. Rouzer from North Carolina, has an amendment to this bill that really returns the interpretation back to congressional intent and back to the way that this provision was exercised for decades so we don't have these ridiculous scenarios like I just described where we are preventing U.S.-generated energy and U.S.-produced energy from meeting Americans' own demands, which, of course, is cheaper, cleaner, and prevents these crazy scenarios where we are calling up Vladimir Putin and asking him to meet America's energy demand. Mr. Chairman, even Putin found this amusing and was trolling the United States on Twitter and social media. Do we really want to subject ourselves to this? Let me say it again: If you care about the environment, then what you actually want to do is put the energy in a pipeline. We shouldn't get ourselves in a situation like where former White House spokesperson Jen Psaki acknowledged that the production areas that were to be served by the Keystone pipeline were still producing the energy. They were still producing the energy. They were just transporting it through other means, which means truck, barge, and train, all of which, once again, Mr. Chairman, have a higher emissions profile and pose a greater threat to the environment, which I will also note was directly contrary to the justification that the White House gave on why they were shutting down the Keystone pipeline.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Chairman, I think that it is really important that we are all talking about facts here and that we are recognizing congressional intent and how this very provision has been exercised and used by States for decades and decades. This recent weaponization to advance or advocate for these energy policies that are resulting--actually, Mr. Chairman, I remind this House that we have watched emissions go up under President Biden, not go down. I keep seeing this sign pop up on the other side that says ``polluters over people,'' and I am not sure what they are talking about other than perhaps describing some of the very energy policies of this administration that have resulted in greater emissions, a greater threat to our environment, and, of course, unaffordability issues. We have watched as people have been pushed into energy poverty as we have shut down domestic energy sources. I encourage, Mr. Chairman, that what we do, instead of getting into this emotional debate and bringing up topics and issues that are not relevant or applicable to the law, is that we stay focused on facts and figures. Emissions have gone up under this administration versus going down under the previous administration. We have watched as they have advanced or advocated for policies like shutting down the Keystone pipeline and stopping the connection between Marcellus and other American energy sources to communities that are energy starved. This is resulting in greater emissions in the United States. It is resulting in greater threats to our environment. Most importantly, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that Mr. Rouzer's provision does is it really helps to address the affordability issue. We have watched as energy prices have skyrocketed under this administration because of their deliberate attempt, which they have said very candidly--they intend to shut down domestic energy production. They have been very clear on that, and they have been incredibly successful. In fact, you would have to go back to the Truman administration in the 1940s to get back to the same level of acreage leasing for energy production that has been done under this administration. Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge adoption of this legislation. I strongly support the amendment that Mr. Rouzer advocated for and Chairman Sam Graves is pushing right now. Mr. Chairman, we need to stick to facts here and make sure that we are making policy decisions based on reality.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, and I thank the bill's sponsors. Mr. Brady recently, in his speech, mentioned Nick Tullier, the officer from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that was shot, and everyone expected Officer Tullier to be dead, for him to expire within hours of being shot. He took incredible shots to the chest and to the head. I will say it again, every physician I spoke to said he wasn't going to make it. James Tullier and Mary Tullier, his parents, were remarkable parents in that every single day they sat by his side. TIRR Memorial Hermann Hospital, where Nick Tullier was for close to 6 years, did a remarkable job in ensuring that he would be able to live and would be able to sustain for many years. Mr. Speaker, had it not been for the work of the hospital, the amazing innovation there, there is no question in my mind that those 5 or nearly 6 years that Nick Tullier was able to spend with his family, able to enjoy the company of his parents wouldn't have happened. Mr. Speaker, I join my friend Mr. Brady, and others, in supporting this legislation and recognizing the incredible work of these innovation centers. I urge adoption of the legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of H.R. 1917, the Hazard Eligibility and Local Projects Act. As the gentleman from New Jersey just stated, this is a critical bill. It has already passed the House once. It passed out of the Transportation Committee by voice vote. I want to explain the scenario. In recent years, this Congress has provided record funding for mitigation projects, whether it be through the Corps of Engineers, the BRIC program through FEMA, or the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program that is based upon a formula of previous years disasters. What this legislation does is it really is a technical fix. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, it can take FEMA not weeks or months to approve a mitigation project, but years. It can take years. In many cases, Mr. Speaker, these projects are absolutely critical projects; they have great urgency behind them. We must have a project development and delivery process that reflects the urgency of the projects. This bill helps to fix that. What it does is it doesn't necessarily wait on Federal approval to allow for a project to be reimbursed to be an eligible project. I want to be clear, Mr. Speaker. This doesn't change the rules of eligibility. Meaning a county, a parish, a borough, a State could not move forward on a project doing something that ultimately is not approved and then get reimbursed. So the criteria for qualifying projects remains intact. This simply says if a parish, a county, a borough, or a State moves out on a mitigation project before approval from FEMA, they are not prevented or deemed ineligible from ultimately getting reimbursed under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. I thank Mrs. Fletcher for her work on this. This is the second time the House has voted on this legislation. The first time the bill passed the House, I think it was 409-16. I am going to say it again, Mr. Speaker: 409-16. Mr. Speaker, this legislation clearly enjoys broad bipartisan support. The Senate did make two small changes that we fully support. It does put a 3-year sunset on the bill. Secondly, it does require a report back to Congress to show the performance of the program and whether or not it should be renewed. Again, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of H.R. 1917, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, again, this legislation is designed to address specific problems we have seen, bureaucracy and inefficiency. As the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico (Miss Gonzalez-Colon) just noted, this has impacts on communities that have experienced multiple disasters like in Puerto Rico, where they have had some profound impacts from hurricanes. We don't need to have the Federal Government revictimizing our citizens by creating bureaucratic steps. As the gentleman from New Jersey stated in his opening, we have seen over and over again, we are making proactive investments in mitigation which results in significant savings. Studies show the number could be anywhere from $3 to I have seen studies approaching $20 in savings. This allows for those projects to move forward. Again, this bill cuts through the bureaucracy and red tape. I urge adoption of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding. Madam Speaker, I want to first thank my friend from Nevada for working with us on this legislation. This is important. I thank my colleague from Louisiana (Mr. Carter) as well as Miss Gonzalez-Colon from Puerto Rico. These are all folks, Madam Speaker, who have been through the aftermath of disasters. Of course, the lead sponsor whom we are working on this legislation with is the chair of the Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management Subcommittee. Just to explain what happens here, in the aftermath of a disaster-- and as the gentleman from California noted, this can be a forest fire, it could be a flood, it could be a hurricane, an earthquake, or other types of disasters--you have an alphabet soup of agencies that come in and offer assistance. It could be FEMA, it could be the Small Business Administration, it could be the Department of Agriculture, it could be the Department of Housing and Urban Development, or others. Madam Speaker, the last thing in the world the victim of a disaster needs is to be revictimized by their own government bureaucracy. Whether your home was destroyed in a forest fire, it was blown away in a hurricane, or it was destroyed in a flood, you need help. You don't need bureaucracy. Yet, each agency has its own process. This bill brings common sense to that. It relieves the stress of being a disaster victim, and it provides a universal application. You do it one time, the data is shared. You don't have to come in and fill out the same information over and over and over again. I wish somebody could do this at a doctor's office. Just make a note. Madam Speaker, this bill goes beyond there though. It also ensures that as taxpayers we are not coming in and spending money over and over and over again on the same homes. It changes the threshold for assistance to come in and offer hazard mitigation assistance for these homes to make them more resilient and to address vulnerabilities. It ensures that if someone floods or there is a repetitive flood, we don't allow it to continue happening. We bring solutions to the table. I am embarrassed to admit this, but in the district that I represent, there was a home that had flood insurance claims 42 times--42 times. As ridiculous as it is as a taxpayer to see that happen--can you imagine the homeowner having to go through this over and over and over again? Thankfully, we have solved that problem in that case, but this bill prevents further similar problems from occurring. Lastly, Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana for working with us on section 12 of this legislation. This clarifies something that we did in the Disaster Response Reform Act of 2018 that ensures if you have a local entity like a sheriff's office or others that brings a housing solution to the table that is at least 50 percent or less the cost of what a similar solution would cost the Federal Government, they can get reimbursed for that. Said another way, Madam Speaker, this saves the Federal Government 50 percent of the money or more of housing solutions whenever a local agency like a sheriff's office or others bring solutions to the table for their own victims. As my friend from Nevada has said, in some cases we have seen FEMA spending $250,000 per trailer--$250,000. We have seen local entities come in and bring solutions to the table for $32,000, turning around and selling the trailers back, and recouping everything but $7,000. This is about taxpayers. It is about efficiency. It is about better solutions, more resilient communities. Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5315 is bipartisan legislation that addresses problems we have seen in the United States. Mr. Speaker, we had a bridge collapse in Minnesota; we had a bridge collapse in Georgia; and, more recently, right on the Tennessee- Arkansas line on the interstate, we saw a bridge collapse. All of these accidents that resulted in deaths and injuries and incredible impacts to traffic, they could have been prevented. They could have been prevented by lowering the threshold by doing safety inspections to critical infrastructure, like bridges; and this legislation helps to facilitate that. Mr. Speaker, over 90 percent of the drones that were flown in the United States used to be foreign-made, in fact, from China. This legislation not only helps to facilitate the incorporation of drone inspection, which is cheaper, it is more thorough, it is more easily accessible, and it lowers the threshold to safety inspections. It doesn't put workers at risk. But it also ensures that we continue making progress on this domestic drone industry and no longer cede this leadership role to China. This bill ensures that this is a domestic industry, U.S. technology, American jobs. And as the gentlewoman just said, this legislation also ensures that we have the workforce able to do this. This bill is for 2 years. It is not designed to be in perpetuity. It is 2 years. It is helping to seed this industry; helping to incorporate this technology into our State DOTs, into our programs related to utilities and transmission lines, and even in the aftermath of disasters which, unfortunately, in my home State of Louisiana, we often experience. I thank my friend for working with us on a bipartisan basis on this legislation, the gentleman from Arizona, the sponsor of this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 884, the National Aviation Preparedness Plan Act, responds to a 2015 Government Accountability Office recommendation and looks to establish clear roles and responsibilities among Federal agencies and air transportation operators in the event of a communicable disease outbreak. I want to be clear that this bill only applies to future disease outbreaks, and it is intended to guarantee that the confusion we have seen among Federal agencies and air carrier operators is addressed and does not repeat itself as we saw in the past few years. America's aviation sector is absolutely critical to our economy. It is critical to moving travelers for business, travelers to visit family, and for tourism purposes. Goods must be transported all across the United States and the globe. We have to make sure that we are able to limit, contain, and reduce the impact of these disease outbreaks in a timely, decisive, and coordinated manner. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Larsen and Chairman DeFazio for working on this bill. Mr. Speaker, again, I reiterate that this bill is only for future outbreaks. It only applies to future communicable disease outbreaks. What is more, it grants no additional pandemic-related authority to Federal agencies. It simply ensures there is a plan in place among U.S. carriers so they can develop a timely and decisive response plan in the event of a future outbreak. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5774 is designed to do two primary things. Number one, it is to prevent the Federal Government from revictimizing disaster victims. Number two, it is designed to save money. In the aftermath of a disaster, we watch as countless Federal agencies, the alphabet soup of Federal agencies, come rushing to the aid of these disaster victims, offering everything from food assistance, housing assistance, and you will see them having organizations coming in and offering clothes, offering loans. You see all of these uncoordinated activities. Yet, we have one Federal agency that is responsible for disasters, and that is FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA comes in, and what happens with all of these other programs? You see disjointed responses. Let me give you an example, Mr. Speaker. In the aftermath of the 2016 1,000-year flood that we had in my hometown, FEMA came in and started offering assistance. We saw disparate aid offered to different folks. You had another recovery program come in and provide $1.7 billion, Mr. Speaker. Here we are, 6 years after this disaster, and of the $1.7 billion, less than $700 million has actually been granted to flood victims, granted to disaster victims. Mr. Speaker, I know your home State of Texas got pounded by Hurricane Harvey, some areas experiencing 42 inches of rain in 36 hours. You have recovery and assistance programs that are disjointed among the Federal agencies. They cause a bureaucracy. They actually revictimize these people who have lost everything in these disasters. This is designed to get recovery dollars where they are needed, to expedite recovery, to save money because you are saving funds that are being spent on long-term shelters; saving funds that are being spent, in some cases, approaching $300,000 to provide a trailer for someone to temporarily live in; saving money, again, on hotel rooms and getting people back in their homes faster. We still have people from our disaster 6 years ago who have homes that have been mucked and gutted, stripped down to the studs, without any additional recovery because they can't connect the dots. So, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia said, this is designed to, within 30 days of a disaster, estimate the impacts and provide an initial payment to where States and local governments can lead the charge in directing and prioritizing recovery dollars where they need to go. This, importantly, has a 5 percent administrative cap. Mr. Speaker, 2 years after the disaster I mentioned in my home State, we had more money that was paid to the program managers 2 years later than we had actually given to the disaster victims. These programs aren't designed to enrich contractors, to enrich program managers, to enrich people that are running these programs. These dollars are designed by Congress to get to the victims, to expedite recovery, to allow for the community and the economy to recover as quickly as possible. I want to be very clear. My cosponsor, the cosponsor who worked very closely with us on this legislation, Congresswoman Plaskett from the Virgin Islands, who in 2018 was incredibly affected by Hurricanes Irma and Maria, hosted us down there to see the devastation. Years later, again, she still has her constituents that are adversely impacted, unable to recover, and requiring additional Federal funds. Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear: This legislation is intended to reduce the expenditure of Federal funds. It is designed to expedite recovery. It is designed to cap the bureaucracy and ensure no more than 5 percent of these funds are actually going to program management. That way, the dollars can get immediately to the disaster victims, so we stop seeing years and years of Federal Government dollars being shelled out for temporary housing and temporary recovery efforts. We need long-term recovery. We need our economy restored. We need our communities restored. There are two types of Members who are in this House: people who have been through disasters, like the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands and I, and those that will. Those that will are going to want to ensure that they have supported legislation like this designed to reform, to modernize, to apply lessons learned from disasters and make sure that we are treating these victims as true priorities, that we have Federal programs that reflect the urgency of the situation that they are in when their homes have been destroyed, when they have lost their vehicles, lost their clothes, lost their possessions, lost all of these family heirlooms, making sure that we are able to restore that family back in their community and, importantly, get the economies restored again as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1468, as the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia indicated, helps to restore the SEC's leasing authority back to the confines of the General Services Administration. It ensures that we have a uniform approach to leasing space in Federal agencies. I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for her perseverance on this bill. I know this has been a priority of hers for a very long period of time. But I want to give you a little bit of background. In 2012, the SEC leased approximately 1.4 million square feet of office space for $566 million. I want to say that again. The SEC leased 1.4 million square feet of office space for $566 million, in violation of the law. They exceeded their authority when they entered into this lease. When there was Republican leadership, there was an investigation that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure did over the SEC's actions. The SEC Inspector General similarly commissioned an investigation. The conclusion of these investigations found that not only did the Securities and Exchange Commission exceed their authority in that lease, but this was a trend. They had a history of mismanagement of their leasing authority. Unfortunately, recent actions by the SEC during the GSA's procurement of leased space for the SEC indicates that they may be returning back to their old ways. I want to say again, I commend the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, ensuring that we have a uniform approach, ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being managed in a way that we can all be proud of, respecting the people who have worked hard for those dollars, and we don't need to be mismanaging them. The bill will ensure that the Securities and Exchange Commission, like other Federal agencies, uses the GSA, the General Services Administration, for its space needs and provide more safeguards for taxpayer dollars. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the legislation, and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. In closing, H.R. 1468 will better protect taxpayer money by ensuring the SEC works with the General Services Administration on leasing to improve oversight, reduce costs, and minimize Antideficiency Act violations in the future. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life and memory of Lt. Col. Mack Haynes Hornbeak for his service to our country, Louisiana State University, and the community of Baton Rouge. Lt. Col. Hornbeak was born on June 23rd, 1906, to Pleasant and Ada Hornbeak in Hornbeak, Tennessee. Although he was born in Tennessee, Lt. Col. Hornbeak soon became a proud Louisianian and Tiger fan. He earned his Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy from Louisiana State University. He even became a part of LSU's faculty as an Associate Professor of Business Administration and Accounting. He served the university during a time of great need and financial strain and was appointed as the university's purchasing agent to ensure responsible spending. However, he most loved teaching and greatly missed LSU's campus and its students when they were let out of school in the summer. Like so many brave men and women, Lt. Col. Hornbeak paused his career in academia and readily enlisted in the United States Armed Forces at the outbreak of World War II. He served in the European theatre from 1942 to the war's end in 1945. A decorated veteran, he was recognized for his valiant service in combat and earned the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Croix de Guerre of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and one oak leaf cluster. After the war, he returned to Baton Rouge, where he married Barbra Marie Thomas on June 5th, 1958, and they welcomed their daughter Anne Haynes Hornbeak on August 12th, 1961. Anne fondly recalls her father's love for fishing and taking her back to Tennessee every summer to fish in Lake Reelfoot. Lt. Col. Hornbeak played an active role in his community of Baton Rouge and was a member of the Baton Rouge Chamber of Commerce and served as president from 1958-1959. He worked in the banking industry until his retirement. I am pleased to honor his memory and am thankful for his service to our great country and state. I wish his family all the best as they continue to uphold his legacy.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Louisiana Jumpstart Coalition for being awarded the State Coalition of the Year for 2022 by the Jumpstart Coalition for Personal Financial Literacy. Financial literacy is crucial to the education of high school students as they prepare for life's next steps. Under the leadership of state coalition president Baine Grimes, Louisiana Jumpstart Coalition has taken the lead in making sure high school students are equipped with the tools and resources to achieve financial independence. Despite a range of challenges from the COVID-19 pandemic to Hurricane Ida, Louisiana Jumpstart Coalition remained engaged with Louisiana students and businesses to continue the financial education program. Even starting new initiatives with Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome of East Baton Rouge Parish to host city-wide financial literacy education workshops. Additionally, in partnership with Jumpstart Financial Inclusion Initiative, the Louisiana Jumpstart Coalition developed a pilot program in three parishes to continue its mission of increasing financial literacy. Again, I offer my congratulations to the Louisiana Jumpstart Coalition for its work on promoting financial literacy and investing in our students' futures.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute and recognize a distinguished member of Congressional staff, Catherine Petty. With the loss of our friend, the late Dean of the House Congressman Don Young, there is presently no member seated from the great state of Alaska who may rise and recognize members of his staff within this body--even as they continue to serve our nation's largest Congressional district. Therefore, it is my distinct honor today to recognize Catherine Petty, and to thank her for her years of service. Catherine Petty grew up in Boston, Massachusetts where she acquired an accent that she proudly never fully outgrew. She joined the United States Air Force in 1971 which stationed her in Germany twice, Iceland twice, North Dakota, Texas, and New Mexico. In 1983 she left the Air Force as a Staff Sergeant in order to devote additional time to her young family. She next went to work for the Department of Defense, then as a civilian employee of the Air Force. Catherine Petty arrived in Alaska at 5:00 p.m. on October 5, 1990, at what was then Elmendorf Air Force Base. She continued in federal civilian service until she was urged by a friend to apply for a position with Alaska's lone member of Congress--the legendary Don Young--who she admitted at the time she knew very little about. However, as fate would have it, Catherine applied and got the job--starting on June 15, 2006 in his Anchorage district office amidst a tumultuous election cycle. Catherine Petty's talents and leadership qualities were quickly recognized by Congressman Young. In 2007 he promoted her to be his Deputy State Director. On a personal level, Catherine became especially close with Rep. Young's wife, Mrs. Lu Young, until her passing in August of 2009. Mrs. Petty continued to faithfully serve Congressman Young as his Deputy State Director with great distinction. Her Congressional casework accomplishments include personally completing a remarkable tally of over 7,000 constituent cases. It is no wonder that Alaskans continued to return Congressman Young to the House for a record 25 terms--with such effective public servants like Mrs. Petty on his team. Madam Speaker, Mrs. Petty's service in the office of Congressman Don Young and to the Office of Alaska At-Large epitomizes what it means to be an effective caseworker, capable public servant, and loyal staffer. She has mentored her fellow staff, gained the admiration of colleagues across agencies, and earned the gratitude of countless constituents. Some of Mrs. Petty's most memorable successes include aiding constituents faced with urgent needs such as passports and visas, assisting Alaskan families as they navigated naturalization, and helping servicemembers overcome bureaucratic hurdles in order to receive the benefits they have earned. Mrs. Petty's lengthy career of service which spans 50 years, including in the Armed Services, as a civilian federal employee, and as staff with the United States House of Representatives, proves that Mrs. Petty's values and work ethic are deeply held. Some of those values and work ethic could be witnessed by anyone brave enough to show up to the office before 7:00 a.m., or unwise enough to shirk a task they had promised to complete. Though never a slouch, Mrs. Petty has always been known to be a fan of a good office prank. Her good nature and humor will be missed by her colleagues, who all wish her the very best as she looks forward to her upcoming retirement. Catherine Petty served Congressman Young and the House of Representatives for 16 years. On behalf of the institution she has so well served, all of the constituents in Alaska she has helped in the name of the boss over the years, and as a former Congressman Don Young staffer myself, I say thank you to Catherine for a job well done and may God bless her.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. Everybody in this Chamber supports lowering prescription drug costs, lowering these outrageous costs that all of our constituents are paying across the country. We all support clean, affordable energy and access to those resources. We all support lowering inflation. The difference is, where the credibility gap exists, is that the very problems, the very crisis that our country is experiencing today, were actually caused by the Biden administration's policies. We went from, in my hometown, $1.80 a gallon for gasoline to, recently, I paid $4.20. We have seen a tripling of natural gas costs. Their own policies have caused this. Nearly a quarter of all Americans today can't even afford to pay their electricity bills. The Biden administration policies have caused record inflation, making Americans unable to even afford grocery costs. The Biden administration policies have resulted in higher emissions, not lower emissions, as compared to the previous administration. Biden administration policies resulted in this President going to countries like Saudi Arabia and asking them for energy while telling Americans that we can't produce. Mr. Speaker, I can't help but reminisce over Jack Abramoff, a disgraced lobbyist, convicted, who created problems and then charged clients to fix them. The difference between this bill and Jack Abramoff is that Jack Abramoff actually fixed problems for his clients. This bill is a disaster. There is a credibility gap. They have caused problems, and now we are being asked to trust them to fix them, and we simply can't. Oppose this legislation.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat baffled by this amendment. Why would we, for any reason, decide that we are just going to look at climate resiliency? Mr. Speaker, we have had hurricanes, we have had floods, we have had forest fires, we have had tornadoes, winter storms, earthquakes, tsunamis since the planet has been here. Why would we decide that we are just going to compartmentalize climate resilience and just look at that and ignore everything else? Why would we decide that we are going to choose to bias only frontline communities versus those that are truly most vulnerable? This is what I used to do for a living. I did it for years and years. I am glad this is comical. This is what I used to do. This might be the stupidest thing I have ever seen. Why in the world, Mr. Speaker, would you compartmentalize different types of vulnerability? If you are concerned about climate, why don't you go and talk to this administration about the fact that under President Trump, emissions went down 2.5 percent a year, and under President Biden, they have gone up 6.3 percent a year. And we negotiated an agreement with China where they get to increase emissions 150 percent while everybody else cuts. This is simply just ill-informed. It doesn't make any sense at all, and I urge rejection of this ill-conceived amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you. Coming from a disaster-prone State, I am absolutely shocked that anyone would propose an amendment like this. Here it is, 1:15 a.m., a 48-page amendment is being offered to codify or memorialize a process that has done nothing but revictimize disaster victims in the aftermath of a hurricane or other type of natural disaster. Mr. Speaker, in 2016, this Congress provided about $1.7 billion in the aftermath of a disaster--about $1.7 billion--trying to help out those who were impacted by a thousand-year flood, trying to get money in their hands. Yet, 6 years later--6 years later--only one-third of those funds had actually been allocated to the disaster victims. Almost $500 million had been paid to the contractors administering the program. Mr. Speaker, HUD is not a disaster agency. Look at the Government Accountability Office reports. They have said over and over again that all you have is this alphabet soup of agencies that aren't coordinated. You have HUD that doesn't have disaster experience. This is a flawed approach. You can look at other programs that are capable of getting money out the door faster. In fact, in this legislation, it actually codifies--it says that you first have to help those in poverty. What if they are not impacted, but it requires that they are first helped? What we need to be doing is we need to be getting assistance in the hands of those that need help, not in the situation where in 2019, the Government Accountability Office looked at this and said that funds that had been appropriated in 2015, 4 years prior, that less than 80 percent of the money had actually even been allocated yet. This agency is the wrong agency. They have a clear record of complete failure and lack of urgency and are simply revictimizing-- revictimizing--disaster victims. Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this amendment and reserve the balance of my time.