Tom Graves

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was absent today to attend the funeral of a family member. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 68, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 69, I would have voted ``no,'' and on rollcall No. 70, I would have voted ``yea.'' personal explanation

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was absent today to attend the funeral of a family member. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 64, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on roll call No. 650, had I been present, I would have voted Yea.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Navy Petty Officer Second Class Randall Smith, who was killed on July 16 during the terrorist attack in Chattanooga. Randall, who lived with his wife, Angie, and their three young daughters in Rossville, Georgia, was a model of selfless service. He was a devoted and loving husband and father who prioritized his family above all else. Besides his military service, he was an active volunteer, giving back through charities like Stuff the Truck, the Chattanooga Area Food Bank, and providing rescue assistance during Hurricane Sandy. And less than 2 weeks ago, he made the ultimate sacrifice while serving our country. Randall's selfless sacrifice, sense of duty, and sacrifice serve as an example for all of us. A sign at the entrance to the neighborhood where the Smith family lives sums up what I think many are feeling right now. It reads: ``Thank you for your service. Sorry for your loss. You will be remembered.'' I know that our community in northwest Georgia is forever grateful for Randall Smith's service and sacrifice. May God bless Angie and their three wonderful, beautiful daughters.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I was absent today to attend the funeral services for U.S. Navy Petty Officer Second Class Randall Smith. Had I been present, on rollcall No. 470, I would have voted ``yes,'' on rollcall No. 471, I would have voted ``yes,'' on rollcall No. 472, I would have voted ``yes,'' on rollcall No. 473, I would have voted ``yes,'' on rollcall No. 474, I would have voted ``yes,'' on rollcall No. 475, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 476, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 477, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 478, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 479, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 480, I would have voted ``no,'' on rollcall No. 481, I would have voted ``no,'' and on rollcall No. 482 (Passage of the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act), I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Rome High School, which was ranked as one of the ``Best High Schools in America'' by U.S. News & World Report for the fourth year in a row. It also earned a silver ranking, meaning Rome High is one of the top 10 percent of schools nationwide. These high achievements are evidence of the commitment, the dedication, and the hard work put forth by Rome High students, their faculty, and the staff. In fact, when the Rome News Tribune asked him about the rankings, Principal Evans noted: ``We are striving for a gold rank of course.'' Mr. Speaker, this commitment to hard work and doing the best you can embodies the values that make northwest Georgia a great place to live, to work, and to raise a family. Congratulations to all those involved in the Rome High School community. Enjoy your summer break. You have earned it.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas. Mr. Chairman, I read the amendment's intent as well. As the ranking member just stated and as the argument seems to go around in a circle here, it doesn't stop the printing of these items, of these directories. It just says that Members of Congress shouldn't have somebody privately deliver them to their offices. If they want one, go get one. If they want to look it up online, look it up online. If they want to spend $1.99 and get an app, they can get an app. This just says that the Congressional Pictorial Directory is just not going to be delivered to a Member's office. I don't know how controversial that can be. I thank the gentleman for his amendment.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to our full committee chairman, I do want to thank the ranking member for her work on this, her input. She worked diligently through the process and was supportive in subcommittee and full committee, and I wanted to thank her for that publicly. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the full Appropriations Committee.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. When I joined the Appropriations Committee a little over 4 years ago, I said that I wanted this committee to be known as a place where taxpayer money was saved and not spent. In recent years, there has been a major change in the perception of this committee. Thanks in large part to the leadership of Chairman Rogers and the members of the committee, the process is open, and it is transparent, and this committee has made a priority of ensuring every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely. In keeping with that trend, the bill that we are here to debate today holds the line on spending. It is a bill that honors and respects the taxpayer while preserving the beauty of the Capitol campus, providing essential security for visitors and staff, and ensuring that we are able to provide the services that our constituents expect and deserve. This bill is a total of $3.3 billion for the legislative branch, excluding all Senate items. The bill continues the freeze on funding for the House of Representatives, including leadership, committees, and Member office budgets. It also continues the Member pay freeze that was put in place in 2010. In all, this represents a 14 percent reduction in funding for the House of Representatives since Republicans have gained control of Congress in January of 2011. Now, more specifically, this bill increases funding for the Capitol Police and allows small increases for several other agencies while trimming budgets in less critical areas. This bill recognizes the continuing challenges faced by our Architect of the Capitol. There is a balance that must be struck between preserving these historic buildings and funding other critical projects, including life-safety projects. Overall, the Architect's budget is one that was trimmed. This bill puts a new emphasis on transparency and accountability in major construction projects under the Architect. That is why this bill transitions to direct appropriations for the Cannon restoration project, rather than continuing to use the House historic building revitalization fund. This change will significantly improve the committee's ability to provide oversight for this major project. Additionally, this bill includes language that places a 25 percent cap on the amount available for larger projects within the legislative branch. In order to receive the remaining 75 percent of their appropriations, this new oversight feature requires a plan for any project over $5 million to be submitted to the GAO and our committee for approval. The plan must address any projected changes to the project's schedule and cost, and it must include a description of the safeguards taken to ensure that the project remains on time and on budget. Now, regarding the Library of Congress, this bill includes funding to meet the Library's current needs, including an increase for the U.S. Copyright Office to reduce claims processing and analyze possible process improvements. Additionally, the committee will be working with the Library in the upcoming months to track its progress in addressing its critical IT infrastructure problems which have been identified in a recent GAO report. In closing, I would like to thank Ranking Member Wasserman Schultz, Chairman Rogers, Mrs. Lowey, and the members of our subcommittee and full committee and staff for their hard work throughout this entire process. This is a product that we can be proud of. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY15.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY15.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY15.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH19MY15.004

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 2250, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr). He is a great member of the subcommittee and a strong advocate for a lot of elements within our budget. The truth is, we had tough choices to make. It wasn't easy. We are held within the constraints of what current law is. The President may have submitted a budget that didn't comply with the constraints that we have to comply with, but that doesn't mean that we can adhere to his budget numbers. So we are $170-something million below what the President requested or what the budget request was, but we are within the limits that are provided by law that many of the Members within this body voted for--excluding myself--and the President signed it into law. At some point, we have to grapple with that, as a House, and understand that is the law. And until that law is changed, tough choices we will have to make. As the chairman of the full committee so eloquently stated earlier, it is up to us to lead by example, and that is who we have elected to be our leaders and to represent our districts by example. So these are tough choices, no doubt. I agree with the gentleman from California. I know we had a goal, as a committee, and it was really bipartisan, our objective; and that was to honor and respect taxpayers today and preserve the institution for future generations, given the limited resources we had to work with. With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Point of clarification because I know these proceedings are documented well, and I know the ranking member stated that sequestration was a decision of the majority and not the minority. In some aspects, she is very correct, because at the time sequestration was implemented, the majority of the Senate was held by Democrats, and the concept came from Jack Lew, which is heavily documented, from the President's administration. So just to make sure there is full clarity here of majority and minority perspectives, there was a different majority at the time when that was taking place. If I could, just for a moment, address the Open World discussion here. This is a program that has been ongoing for several years--it has been decades, quite frankly--with great intentions in the beginning. What hasn't been stated today is that its intention was to be a one-time program to assist during a transitional phase of the Soviet bloc countries at that time, back in the Bill Clinton administration, to assist them with some dialogue with free markets and diplomacy and such as we were experiencing during that time. As we know, with a lot of government programs that have good intentions of being one time, singular, they tend to go on into perpetuity. Yet we have heard claims today that there is not enough money, that we don't have enough to spend on things that are so vital and so critical to this body, to the institution, to meeting our constituents' needs, to the $1.5 billion in deferred maintenance of buildings, to MRAs not being enough, or whatever it might be. Yet there is still this clinging to $5 million of training Russian diplomats or Russian civic leaders is more important, more important than meeting the critical needs that we have here as a body, whether it is the Library of Congress, whether it is making sure that there is security provided through the Capitol Police, that they are fully funded where they need to be, whatever it might be. I would claim, Mr. Chairman, that today, if we cannot cut $5 million from a program that is duplicative, that there are 95 other programs that do very similar things, a program that has not been transparent, a program that has outlived its day, that is training Russians at a time when Russia is causing aggression against our allies and it is assisting our enemies, if we can't cut $5 million today and the gentleman from Texas' amendment fails today, God help us, when can we cut something from this budget? Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. He has done a lot of work on this topic. He is new to the body--I think everybody knows that--and with haste he has moved to find an area in which we can continue to provide savings for taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's amendment here, and I appreciate his bringing it forward.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the ranking member, and I appreciate her acknowledgment of her opposition to the amendment that will arrive earlier. I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that I am not a member of the Rules Committee. I did not make that decision as to what amendment would be adopted or not. There were three amendments very similar. They were bipartisan. So there was bipartisan opposition to this program. We have the amendment before us that is before us, and, for the record, I will be supporting that amendment. Let me say this has been a process that has been difficult. I understand that. We have had some tough choices to make, but we have made them. We made them in a bipartisan way in which we had unanimous support out of subcommittee; we had no opposition that I recall in full committee. And so I expect today that we might maintain some of that bipartisanship, some of that ability to get something done here for the American people and show them that we have priorities in place that honor and respect them and preserve this institution for future generations. Mr. Chairman, to sum up what this bill does is we are here to hold the line on spending. We are keeping it flat-funded, as we have for the last year or two. This is a bill that is going to honor and respect our taxpayers. It is one that is preserving the beauty of this Capitol campus, providing a central security for all visitors and staff, and ensuring that we are able to provide the services that our constituents expect and deserve. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, this week marks the 100th Anniversary of the City Hall in Rome, Georgia. Over a century ago, leaders of this fine community had a vision for the city to build a municipal building not like many of its time. Today the building still serves as one of Rome's central landmarks, located in the center of downtown on Broad Street. Construction began on this site one hundred years ago this month, after residents--``Romans''--agreed to allow city issued bonds to be sold to fund the project. The building's auditorium has served as the venue for a variety of significant events and hosted a long list of notable public officials, including former U.S. Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, and popular musicians like the Allman Brothers Band. I cannot imagine a drive through downtown Rome without seeing City Hall. Happy centennial anniversary.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a few quotes. First: With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. Congress passes the law. The executive branch's job is to enforce and implement those laws. The problem is that I'm the President of the United States, I'm not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. I can't do it by myself. We're going to have to change the laws in Congress. I am President. I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. I'm not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. I'm bound by the Constitution; I'm bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can't do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. These are the words and the statements of the President of the United States. And words matter. But, even after the President said all of this in a politically motivated action last November, he pursued a course that could allow up to 5 million undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States illegally and without consequence. Like my constituents, I am outraged. President Obama defied the will expressed by the American people last November and blatantly contradicted his own statements about the limits of the executive branch. Now, let's be clear, lest others confuse this issue today. This is not a debate about immigration. That will come later. But this is about the rule of law. This is about the constitutional separation of powers. This is about the respect we owe the American people. In this appropriations bill, we are exercising the power of the purse and we are taking a strong, narrow approach that will, first and foremost, provide security to our homeland and, secondly, deny any funds whatsoever from being used to carry out the President's unwise and, in my opinion, unconstitutional actions. Now, I have to say, the President was right about a couple of things. He is not an emperor, and he is surely not a king. House Republicans are united in making sure that he doesn't get away with acting like one either. And yet before the debate even begins, last night the President has already issued threats. He is threatening to shut down the Department of Homeland Security because this bill prevents him from implementing his own ideology. But make no mistake: a veto threat is a threat to our national security; a veto threat is an open invitation to our enemies. In the wake of the horrific terrorist attack this week in France, is the President really willing to compromise the safety of 320 million Americans to appease his base and score political points? God help us if that is the case. Today, it is up to us in the House. Let us vote to defend the constitutional role of this legislature, let us vote to stop the President's blatant overreach, and let us vote to secure our homeland.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the city of Aragon. Lying in the Coosa Valley of Northwest Georgia, in Polk County, Aragon was founded in 1899 as a mill site. The city of Aragon is a small, but hard working group of families who are proud of their heritage. Whether it was named for the Hotel Aragon located on Peachtree Street in Atlanta, Georgia, where some of the Mill owners stayed when visiting the area, or whether it was named for the mineral aragonite that was mined nearby, the city of Aragon has been home to many dedicated men and women for over 115 years, even as the town has changed. In recent years, even in the aftermath of the mill's destruction by fire in 2002, the people of Aragon have committed to remaining a city. It is with this commitment that they commemorate July 23, 2014, as the 100th anniversary of their city charter being adopted, and then approved by Georgia's 60th Governor, John Slaton. One hundred years later, Aragon's future shines brightly. This is not a city resting on its laurels after tragedy, but a city ready to meet tomorrow's challenges head on, remaining true to its motto ``A Proud Past With A Promising Future''.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 339 and 340, I was unavoidably detained and unable to cast my vote. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Linda Lunsford, a lifelong resident of Murray County, Georgia. Ms. Lunsford has been a dedicated teacher to the students of Murray County, helping to enrich the lives of the young people both inside and outside of her classroom. It was in 1968 that Ms. Lunsford returned to Murray County High School as an English teacher. Over those next 30 years, and for many years after her retirement in 1998, she devoted herself to teaching young Georgians, helping them value their education and succeed in life. During her teaching career, she served as a drama sponsor, scholars bowl sponsor, yearbook advisor, cheerleading sponsor, newspaper advisor, and much, much more. Ms. Lunsford has made such an impact on her community that Murray County is declaring October 5, 2013, the first Linda Lunsford Day. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 14th Congressional District of Georgia, I join in celebrating October 5 as Linda Lunsford Day and thank her for her many contributions to our community in Georgia.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia

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

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I bring amendment No. 7 to the consideration of the House here as we debate this very important issue. When I think about the issue that's before us--I know there are a lot of good Members on both sides of it, for and against, and there's going to be a lot great debate about whether or not this bill should move forward in any fashion or another. There's one particular portion that I really wanted to discuss today, and it deals with the incentives and the benefits that go to corn producers for the production of corn that goes to ethanol. To me, I don't believe that is something that should be provided to these producers whatsoever, these incentives or benefits. In fact, when the bill was originally crafted many years ago back in 1933, I have to ask: Did the original architects of the farm bill ever imagine that what they were creating at that time would go to benefit the producers of corn that would go to fuel and not food? So my amendment is rather simple. It just eliminates the opportunity for any producer to benefit from producing corn that would go to fuel. Instead, it focuses back on what the original intent of the legislation was, and that was to exclusively be for food production or feed production. So as we debate this bill, folks are going to be on all different sides of all these amendments. I think it's really important to get back to the original intent. If you're going to support the bill, get back to the original intent of what was intended back in 1933 and the years since then. But let me just remind the House of why this is so important. Estimates tell us that more than one-third of all our corn in the United States is used for feed livestock; another 13 percent is exported, mostly for feed livestock; but another 40 percent of all corn produced in this Nation is for ethanol. And of all of that, nearly half of all corn in our Nation that is produced, those producers receive those same benefits that those that were intending to create corn for food and feed would benefit from, as well. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is rather simple. I would urge the House's consideration of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. GRAVES of Georgia. I thank the chairman. I thank you for your good work on this. I know we've all had a lot of discussions, and I'll take you for your word that we can continue this conversation, because I think it's a very important topic. With your intent that I know to be true, that we can continue this, I would be willing to withdraw the amendment and continue the debate at a further time.