[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18540-18542]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           THE YEAR IN REVIEW

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Graves) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.


                        Louisiana National Guard

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


                                 Syria

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, the United States military 
began active engagement in Syria back in September of 2014 when the 
United States-led coalition began its ongoing airstrike campaign, along 
with Bahrain, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. During this 
period, the Pentagon also administered a $500 million program to train 
and equip moderate Syrian opposition forces to target ISIS. This effort 
failed to train many soldiers or to yield the desired results; so the 
administration scrapped the effort.
  The wide range of state and nonstate actors in Syria has created one 
of the most geopolitically complex conflicts in recent memory. This 
highlights the urgency and the necessity for a clear strategy in Syria: 
What is the United States' end game? A definition of what success means 
in Syria. A strong commitment to eliminating any and all threats that 
ISIS poses to the United States, its allies, or a shift away from the 
conflict.
  I believe this administration has been incredibly vague about all of 
those, and I have repeatedly reached out to the White House on this 
topic, and I will continue to call on the President to articulate a 
clear path forward in Syria.
  Before the United States risks any American lives and resources, the 
administration, the State Department, and the Department of Defense 
should provide clarity on U.S. objectives and on how the ongoing use of 
military force fits into a comprehensive strategy for success in the 
region. Success needs to be defined, but I would suggest defining 
success as the neutralization of all direct threats ISIS poses to 
America and our national security.
  We need to clarify the U.S. strategy in Syria now, and I hope to work 
with the administration and with other Members of Congress toward 
getting us on the right path. Well before this Syrian refugee issue 
became a hot-button issue, I joined together with Members on the other 
side of the aisle in bipartisan efforts to reach out to the Department 
of Defense, to reach out to the administration in order to express 
these very concerns.
  Mr. Speaker, let's be clear. It is our failed policy in Syria that 
has created this predicament of refugees. If we had a clear strategy--a 
definitive strategy--if we had clear objectives, if we were aggressive 
in achieving those objectives, of eliminating and of neutralizing ISIS, 
of creating a new government structure there to fill the void created 
by our removing and helping to remove with the international community 
the Assad regime, we wouldn't have refugees. We would have stability in 
Syria. We would have a place for people to live, and there would not be

[[Page 18541]]

this refugee situation where tens of thousands of folks are being 
displaced into the United States and other areas, where we have this 
threat to our national security and the inability to vet these refugees 
before they come into the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, as reports have indicated in recent days--and I want to 
be clear that this isn't from any classified setting. This is a place 
where you, apparently, get real information--the Drudge Report. There 
are reports right now of folks with fake Syrian passports who are being 
questioned in Honduras and in Costa Rica. There are reports of Afghan 
and Iraqi refugees from years ago in Kentucky and in other areas who 
have been involved in efforts to attack the United States. I will say 
that again. There are refugees from other countries--from Middle 
Eastern nations of Iraq and elsewhere--who were previously brought to 
the United States and who had, apparently, not gone through a 
sufficient vetting process who were caught trying to attack the United 
States, according to reports that are out there now. There are reports 
of folks from the Middle East who are trying to illegally cross over 
and come into Arizona and Texas.
  Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a systemic failure--the inability to 
place refugees, to secure our borders, to secure our Nation. This isn't 
a partisan issue. We should not be sacrificing the security of 
Americans. There are ways in which we can be good community citizens, 
good world leaders, and allow for refugees to come here or, better yet, 
to stabilize, to help work with the international community to 
stabilize their own countries.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to continue to work with other Members of 
Congress, including with our Louisiana delegation. Just this week, 
Senator Vitter introduced legislation to address the refugee problem to 
ensure that we are not threatening Americans' security, to ensure that 
we are not sacrificing the safety and security of Americans in exchange 
for those from Syria. Together, with Congressman Boustany, Congressman 
Abraham, and Congressman Fleming, we introduced companion legislation 
in the House of Representatives to ensure that that happens.
  I want to be clear again, Mr. Speaker. This is not some jumping to 
the hot issue of the day. Before this issue became a crisis and was in 
the news, we joined together with Congressman Babin and others to 
ensure America's safety, to ensure that we were properly vetting these 
refugees before they came to the United States, and to understand the 
implications to taxpayers--the cost of having these folks here in the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of the strong bipartisan vote that just 
occurred here in this body, but we need to continue to work together in 
a bipartisan fashion. This is not a partisan issue. Terrorism affects 
every American, and we need to continue to be very aggressive and not 
allow this to degrade into partisanship. This is about the safety and 
security of the United States.


                    Land and Water Conservation Fund

  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund was first authorized in 1965. There was some type of compromise 
that was reached at that time whereby this proliferation of offshore 
energy production would occur. At the same time, there was a concern 
that those activities could threaten the environment; so there was a 
negotiation reached whereby the first $900 million of offshore energy 
revenues from oil and gas production would be committed to the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund.
  The idea was that half of those dollars would be used to go toward 
the acquisition of Federal lands for the purpose of creating or growing 
national parks or wildlife refuges, BLM land, and national forests. 
Half of the funds would be authorized to go to stateside grant programs 
for similar types of activities in order to increase recreational 
opportunities, State wildlife refuges, and State parks for citizens in 
the United States. That stateside program is a match of 50-50. The 
States have to put up half of the money.
  Mr. Speaker, I would call the Land and Water Conservation Fund and 
its objectives a laudable goal to preserve these recreational and 
conservation activities for Americans. Certainly, as this Nation's 
population grows, we are going to continue to develop areas. So, for 
these areas that are especially sensitive, productive, and beautiful, 
let's ensure that we create those opportunities and retain those 
opportunities for recreation for Americans for generations to come.
  The Land and Water Conservation Fund expired for the first time in 
its history. This program is no longer an authorized program, and there 
have been folks on both sides of the aisle who have been working to 
help to reauthorize the program.

                              {time}  1430

  I will say it again, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a laudable goal. 
However, 50 years have passed. I think, with 50 years of history of 
this program, it is appropriate to go back and revisit the lessons 
learned.
  I am from Louisiana. I want to be clear. This offshore energy 
activity that has funded the billions of dollars over the last 50 years 
in the Land and Water Conservation Fund activities and other things, 
like the Historic Preservation Fund, is from oil and gas and offshore 
energy activities occurring offshore our coast at home in Louisiana.
  Various discussion drafts have been proposed to take these funds and 
cut them up and allocate them to different programs across the country, 
to slice up the pie. I think that is great for all these people to go 
out there and express their dream or vision for how all these things 
happen.
  However, I would like to bring you back to reality. I view this as 
being our money, and I will tell you why. Right now, when you produce 
energy on Federal lands in the United States, 50 percent of the money 
generated from those activities go to the States that host the 
production.
  So let me be clear on this. The States of Wyoming and New Mexico 
together receive over a billion dollars a year with no strings attached 
whatsoever. An additional 40 percent of the money from those same 
activities go into the reclamation fund to fund water projects in those 
same western States.
  So, in effect, 90 percent of the funds from energy production on 
Federal lands goes back to the States that largely host that energy 
production on Federal lands. Yet, when we go in the offshore, folks 
take the money and decide they are going to divvy it up to all these 
other States, but not the State where the energy is produced.
  Now here is a reason why I am so frustrated by all of these efforts 
to reauthorize and continue spending this money all over the country in 
other programs. Mr. Speaker, we have produced nearly $200 billion in 
revenues for the U.S. Treasury. We have received not the 90 percent 
that other States have received nor 50 percent. We have received less 
than a fraction of 1 percent back.
  The State of Louisiana passed a constitutional amendment that would 
dedicate any funds received to go toward actually restoring the 
environment for things like coastal restoration. The State of Louisiana 
has lost over 1,900 square miles of our coastal wetlands.
  Why is it that we are reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund and funding environmental and conservation efforts in other 
States, particularly in western States?
  I will acknowledge again it is a laudable goal. But why are we doing 
that before we are addressing environmental issues right there where 
these activities are occurring and, in many cases, are occurring as a 
result of historic, several-decades-ago activities that occurred in the 
coastal area related to this OCS production?
  It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, as we move forward on this, that that 
needs to be a critical component. That needs to be the priority, is 
addressing environmental issues, addressing conservation, right here 
where this money is derived from because the activities simply aren't 
sustainable if we don't address this.

[[Page 18542]]

  I fully support the reauthorization of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. I think it needs to be done in a principled manner 
that recognizes the lessons learned over the last 50 years and, most 
importantly, recognizes the fact that this area that has generated 
nearly $200 billion for the United States Treasury has severe 
environmental consequences or severe environmental problems right there 
as a result of the Federal Government's actions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Deepwater Horizon disaster was truly one of the 
Nation's worst environmental disasters in our history. That disaster 
resulted in millions of barrels of oil covering nearly 600 miles of the 
State of Louisiana's coast.
  The U.S. Department of the Interior appropriately took a look at well 
control and blowout preventer regulations and guidelines to ensure that 
a disaster like the Deepwater Horizon disaster and the awful tragedy to 
the 11 lives that occurred would never occur again. I think it is 
appropriate to take a look at that.
  The U.S. Department of the Interior actually took 4\1/2\ years behind 
closed doors to develop a well control and blowout preventer regulation 
that was put forth in recent months. It took 4\1/2\ years to write this 
regulation behind closed doors without involvement and without 
engagement of this multibillion-dollar industry.
  Now, the regulation was paired with a 30-day comment period. I am 
going to say that again. They took 4\1/2\ years to draft a regulation 
and they gave 30 days for folks to actually comment on it.
  Of course, being very concerned about that and the implications 
whether the rule was actually going to improve safety or be a detriment 
to safety, we asked that more time be given to comment to allow us to 
fully understand it, to allow the industry to fully understand it, and 
to allow the environmental community to fully understand it.
  The administration came back and gave a 60-day comment period, which 
is absolutely absurd with the complexity. Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, it 
took them 4\1/2\ years to draft it.
  Now, to give you an idea of the disconnect here, the U.S. Department 
of the Interior says that compliance with the rule is going to cost 
$800 million. A separate analysis that was done independently says that 
the cost of compliance is going to be in excess of $30 billion, Mr. 
Speaker. The disconnect there is crystal clear just in the cost 
estimate.
  It is going to have a detrimental effect on the United States' 
national energy security. What this is going to result in is it is 
going to result in us becoming more independent on energy sources from 
around the world.
  Why are we not being energy self-sufficient and utilizing our 
resources here, promoting jobs here?
  There is a study that I read that says, for every dollar in U.S.-
produced energy, it has a $3 implication on our economy. For every 
dollar spent at the pump on foreign energy, it has a 40-cent 
implication on our Nation's economy. I think the answer there is 
crystal clear. We should become energy self-sufficient. We should be 
utilizing our own energy resources.
  Mr. Speaker, analyses have determined that 20 percent of the oil and 
gas wells produced in the offshore over the last 5 years would not be 
produceable under this rule, not even produceable. Let me give you an 
idea what that means. That causes an estimated $12 billion economic 
loss to the United States, to the U.S. Treasury, just over the next 10 
years.
  Now, you would think that the U.S. Department of the Interior would 
want to get this rule right, and you would think that they would be 
engaging folks. Yet, we have had phone call after phone call from 
people saying they are refusing to engage, they are refusing to take 
meetings, and they are refusing to discuss.
  Mr. Speaker, I have actually experienced it myself, asking the U.S. 
Department of the Interior for a meeting with the Gulf Coast 
delegation, with House Members and Senators, to sit down and discuss 
this to ensure that the Department of the Interior gets it right. And I 
want to be clear on what ``right'' means, which is to make things 
safer, not to propose regulations that are actually going to result in 
the potential for disaster.
  I am not an expert in offshore production, but I can read the 
regulations and determine the disconnect and the lack of technical 
understanding of the folks who drafted this rule. Yet, the U.S. 
Department of the Interior also told us that they would not meet with 
us, shutting the door.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the United States of America. That is not how 
this country works. People at agencies have to understand that they 
shouldn't be sitting in some ivory tower drafting regulations that are 
going to export jobs, that are going to increase the trade deficit, and 
that are going to make us reliant or dependent upon nations like 
Venezuela for energy, nations that don't share America's values. What 
in the world are we doing? Who is running this place?
  This is the United States of America. We have had people who have put 
their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and to protect our 
greatness. I don't think this is what they were protecting or that this 
is what they were fighting for.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to urge, as we move forward on legislation at the 
end of this year, that we take appropriate action to ensure that 
America's energy security is protected, to make sure that America's 
independence is protected, to make sure that we don't take actions that 
penalize or increase our trade deficit, and that we promote American 
jobs, America's economy, and America's workforce.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back.

                          ____________________