Garret Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, but being in opposition, I reserve the right to close.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, recognizing that I have the right to close, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, traditionally what would happen in an amendment grouping like this is that Republicans and Democrats would sit down and decide which group of amendments everybody agrees on. There are actually some really good amendments that are included in this en bloc, some of which address some fundamental problems in our transportation system. For example, there is an amendment in here by Congresswoman Mace. What that amendment does is after much research, the Department of Transportation couldn't even tell us how much money is being invested in roads and bridges. Couldn't even answer the question. Congressional Research Service couldn't. Government Accountability Office couldn't. We have tried for months to get an answer. So this commission is a study to look at that, to give us feedback to understand where the dollars are going to help inform us on how to do a better job governing. There is an amendment here that I want to say thanks to my friends across the aisle for that has to do with the resilience of materials of roads. And again, there are good amendments, but, Madam Speaker, this is how the process is supposed to work. We are supposed to sit down and try to come to common ground and decide which amendments make sense and we all agree on and help to expedite this entire process to go from 325 amendments, hopefully, to a much shorter number, not by having unilateral control and someone unilaterally deciding they are going to let these amendments go and these not and design a group of amendments to intentionally fail, despite the fact that there is good policy. So I will say it again, I think there are some good amendments in here. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about their particular amendments and why they are good policy, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a leading member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), one of the hardest working members on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady), the leader of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I have the right to close so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I believe we have the right to close, so I am going to reserve.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 194. members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress Babin (Nehls) Boebert (Gosar) Bourdeaux (Kuster) Cardenas (Gomez) Carl (Joyce (PA)) Cawthorn (Nehls) Clark (MA) (Kuster) Cohen (Beyer) Fallon (Nehls) Gallego (Gomez) Garcia (IL) (Gomez) Garcia (TX) (Jeffries) Grijalva (Stanton) Horsford (Jeffries) Jackson Lee (Butterfield) Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino) Johnson (TX) (Jeffries) Kind (Connolly) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Leger Fernandez (Jacobs (CA)) Lieu (Beyer) Lowenthal (Beyer) McClain (Bergman) Meng (Jeffries) Mullin (Lucas) Napolitano (Correa) Owens (Curtis) Payne (Pallone) Ruiz (Aguilar) Rush (Underwood) Sewell (DelBene) Steube (Franklin, C. Scott) Strickland (DelBene) Timmons (Wilson (SC)) Torres (NY) (Jeffries) Wilson (FL) (Hayes) Young (Joyce (OH))

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, 28 years ago, Earl Michael Willis was born in Brusly, Louisiana. When he was 14 years old, his sister, Rachael, died of cancer. He went on to go to Catholic High, my high school, and went on to LSU. In 2018, he got engaged to his wife, Megan. He and Megan got married just last year. In order to honor his sister Rachael's death, he said he was going to run a 100-mile ultramarathon, and he did so earlier this year in Key West, Florida. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, that effort to honor his sister Rachael's life resulted in his death. The day after the ultramarathon, Michael Willis, at the young age of 27, passed away. Madam Speaker, I want to honor his life. Our best wishes and thoughts and prayers to his mother, Cristal; his father, Earl; his brother, Nicholas; and his wife, Megan. Madam Speaker, I ask that we have a moment of silence to honor his life.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker. I apologize for missing votes on June 25. I was meeting with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in Louisiana to discuss issues impacting veterans in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 185.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I was unable to take part in debating and voting on the revocation of the previous administration's rule governing methane emissions due to meetings with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to address long-overlooked issues impacting South Louisiana's veterans. The Baton Rouge VA outpatient clinic in my district is undersized and not well suited to the needs of the Capital Region's veterans. Multiple administrations have highlighted the need to authorize a new lease--but it hasn't happened and getting veterans timely access to quality health care remains a top priority for me. Had I been in Washington, D.C., I would have voted against S.J. Res 14 to repeal the ``Oil and Natural Gas Standards for New, Reconstructed, and Modified Sources Review.'' We cannot afford to move backwards on President Trump's policies that put American energy first. I support efforts to reduce methane emissions. I support smart regulations that result in reducing methane emissions. But I do not support an approach that results in stifling innovation and creates barriers to cost-effectively reducing methane emissions. The United States has led the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and investing in innovation that will ensure continued reductions in emissions here and around the world. We produce resources and goods with a carbon profile envied around the world--that includes oil and gas. As global demand increases, as it is projected to do for natural gas, America should be supplying that demand. Especially if you care about global emissions and climate change. With the deployment of innovative technologies, the use of our resources will become even cleaner. That's why we need a regime that encourages innovation and incentivizes the development and deployment of technologies to mitigate and monitor methane emissions. Putting up barriers or making U.S. production of resources more expensive will drive up global emissions because it gives the competitive advantage in the global market to higher emitting resources--like those coming from Russia and China. This CRA is not about reducing methane emissions, it's not about climate change, and it isn't about national security. It is solely about reducing energy choices. Moreover, this is about regulating an entire sector of the U.S. economy out of business. The majority is not shy about stating their goal--whether through an outright ban or death by a thousand cuts. And what is most insidious is that the anti- American oil and gas agenda doesn't apply to fossil energy outside the United States. In fact, their actions benefit and subsidize fossil energy in other countries. You don't have to believe me, just look at their actions: we've seen cheers when the administration stops the construction of pipelines at home, actions which cost thousands of jobs for American families, reduce our energy security, and ultimately result in higher global emissions. Democrats sat on their hands as President Biden green-lit the Nord Stream 2 pipeline to carry natural gas from Russia to our allies in Europe--resulting in a stronger Putin and higher global emissions than if the United States had supplied that energy. The majority voted against an amendment condemning the Russia action and Russian pipeline. Emissions never factored into their vote. In fact, Russian natural gas exported to Europe has a lifecycle greenhouse gas emission profile at least 42 percent higher than U.S. liquefied natural gas exported to Europe from Louisiana. Their singular intent was to reduce demand for an American resource by increasing the supply of Russian natural gas to our allies. At home, their opposition to pipelines has resulted in increased use of higher-emitting heating oil and the importing of significantly higher-emitting natural gas from Russia. And while opposing lower emission production in America, progressives have called for increased oil production in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Russia. Don't believe me? Let me read a quote from a letter signed by several members of the current majority to President Trump in 2018: ``Today we call on you to use all of your authority to . . . pressure the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and cooperating countries to Increase World Oil Supplies.'' That letter was signed by, among others, the current Leader of the Senate, Chuck Schumer, and the author of the Green New Deal, Ed Markey--the same crowd who advocated for banning American production of oil, American pipelines, and regulating out of existence any remaining American oil and gas. If this were about emissions, they wouldn't be advocating for increased production from higher polluting countries while reducing production from the more carbon efficient United States. Members of the majority have repeatedly voted against amendment after amendment that would have halted action if the action would result in increased global emissions. Let me say that again, they voted against lower emissions. I know because they were my amendments. It doesn't end there: in the infrastructure bill which we are set to consider next week, there is a designation of ``high performing'' states based on climate policies. We offered an amendment during committee markup that would remove that designation if those same policies resulted in a disproportionate negative impact on disadvantaged communities. This amendment was voted down. Under the current text of the Invest Act, states that are being sued by civil rights groups for climate policies that hurt disadvantaged communities will be rewarded . They have voted against amendments that would have clamped down on child labor in Africa and slave labor in China, because it's inconsistent with the progressive anti-U.S. energy agenda. For every ton of emissions reduced by the United States, China has increased its emissions by 4 tons--and yet, policies coming from the other side will export jobs to China, increase global emissions, and increase American dependence on China. Again, don't believe me? Let me read from a report put out by the Senate Democrats' Climate Committee: ``As we institute domestic decarbonization policies that increase overall production costs . . . we could see U.S. companies shift their production to countries that are less restrictive on carbon emissions . . . This will not only lead to an increase in total global emissions, but also the outsourcing of American jobs.'' And they haven't included a single policy in any of their climate bills to counteract this result of outsourcing American jobs and increasing global emissions. Is it any wonder why we question their motives for this action today? There is a way to effectively address methane emissions without costing jobs and increasing global emissions. I am on board with that discussion. But it isn't about that. It's about one more of the thousand cuts to destroy American jobs, reduce American competitiveness, and increase global emissions.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, in closing, I want to say that the United States has the safest aviation system in the world, and air travel is the safest way to travel. This bipartisan legislation by Congressmen Stauber and DeSaulnier ensures that we maintain that level of safety for air passengers in the future. I think it is a great bipartisan piece of legislation. I appreciate those two gentlemen working on this together. I urge adoption of the legislation. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the opportunity to talk about this important legislation. Before I get started, I do want to thank the chair of the subcommittee, Mrs. Napolitano; the ranking member, Mr. Rouzer from North Carolina; Chairman DeFazio; and Ranking Member Sam Graves as well. I do want to thank some of the other partners from Louisiana we worked with, Congressman Steve Scalise, former Congressman Cedric Richmond, and Congressman Troy Carter, who all worked with us on this important legislation. Madam Speaker, Lake Pontchartrain is one of the largest saltwater lakes in the United States. It is incredibly productive. It is a productive ecosystem. There is much fishing, shrimping, and crabbing and oysters that are produced there. As a matter of fact, since 1997, over 40 million pounds of blue crabs have been produced almost annually. The secret, Madam Speaker, if you can keep this between the two of us, is that much of that is actually headed to Maryland restaurants to improve Maryland crab cakes. That is right. Just don't tell anybody. They also put spice on the outside of the shells. It is really confusing what they do. The meat is on the inside. But in any case, Madam Speaker, this is a huge watershed. It is about a 10,000-square-mile watershed, that comprises 16 parishes and four Mississippi counties, into this lake. But more importantly, and why there is a Federal nexus here, is that, since the first time in 1937, they open the nearly 7,000-acre Bonnet Carre Spillway to shift water from the Mississippi River into Lake Pontchartrain and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico as an emergency pressure relief valve. You see, Madam Speaker, the Mississippi River drains 32 States and two Canadian provinces. This is one of the largest watersheds in the world, and the Mississippi River is the largest watershed in the United States. When the water hits a certain level--again, since 1937, when they began opening this, and it has been opened an average of once every 10 years--it sends huge flows, hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of water per second, out of the Mississippi River into the Bonnet Carre Spillway and into Lake Pontchartrain, and it shifts from a salt or a brackish lake into a freshwater lake because of this huge surge. As a result of the floodwaters coming from Canada and all over the United States, they come and impact the ecosystem of this lake. So, what this legislation does is builds upon some of the efforts for ecological restoration. I want to thank the great work of Carlton Dufrechou, Kristi Trail, and others who have done an amazing job in working to restore the ecological function of Lake Pontchartrain. I again want to thank all the cosponsors and folks who have helped us to work on this legislation. It did pass unanimously last Congress, and I want to remind everybody here that there is a huge Federal nexus with this legislation. I urge its adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman DeFazio; the sponsor of the bill, the ranking member of the committee, Sam Graves; as well as Aviation Ranking Member Rick Larsen of Washington State. Madam Speaker, we need to be able to have the authority to make incentive payments. We have seen an extraordinary shift in aviation travel. In April of last year, there was a 95 percent reduction in airline passengers. We recently saw TSA screen the same number of passengers as before the pandemic. The aviation demand is coming back with a vengeance. Our airports are crowded. Our airlines are packed. Our airplanes are packed. What this allows the FAA to do is to provide incentive payments to expedite the completion of construction projects at airports. This is for safety. This is for additional capacity. This is going to ensure that the aviation industry, that our airport infrastructure can keep up with increased demand. And as the ranking member said, this same expedited authority and incentive payments is allowed in other forms of infrastructure. So I want to thank the ranking member, Sam Graves, for bringing up this commonsense legislation. Madam Speaker, I urge its adoption.

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, you have heard numerous speakers talk about the bureaucracy that happens in the aftermath of a disaster, and we had legislation by Ranking Member Sam Graves trying to help to cut through that bureaucracy and not have our own Federal Government revictimize our disaster victims, who are citizens of this country. In the aftermath of a disaster--which, being from south Louisiana, we experience, unfortunately, way too frequently--we have FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, that comes in; we have the Small Business Administration that comes in; we have the Department of Housing and Urban Development; we have the Department of Agriculture; and others that all offer different types of emergency aid or programs. Madam Speaker, apparently, it appears that many of these agencies aren't aware that there has been this invention called the internet that connects everybody. Instead of coming in and forcing these disaster victims, who potentially have lost everything that they own, to come in and stop by numerous locations and fill out the same paperwork over and over again, they should come in and apply commonsense solutions that we have seen in the private sector for decades now, simply coming in, providing information once, being more efficient, truly providing service to these disaster victims, instead of revictimizing them. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Puerto Rico, my friend, for her leadership on this effort. I know, being from Puerto Rico and victimized by Hurricanes Irma, Maria, and others, this is an extraordinary issue for her constituents. I really do appreciate Congressman DeFazio, Ranking Member Sam Graves, and others who have partnered with her on this legislation, allowing it to go through. I urge adoption of this legislation.